[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
I don’t know if i’d say moore is tortously manipulative. It is obviously a one sided story as are most documentaries. Although personally I’d never been a fan of the whole capitalism ideal, mind you it’s not really capitalism either when you bail out companies. I guess I’ve just always been of the “how many fucking cars do you need” mentality. [/quote]
The first thing you need to realize is that capitalism is not about need. I only need 1 car but if I’m talented, skilled, motivated, driven and ambitious enough to earn enough money to buy 5 cars, why shouldn’t I? [/quote]
Never realized this got moved, thought it just died off.
Because I would rate the well being of a fellow man over owning a few extra unneeded cars…which really server no purpose then to say “hey im better then you”. That’s just me though.[/quote]
What, that makes no sense. Everyone one of my vehicles have a purpose.
[quote]Rookie21 wrote:
So being ruthless in a economic sense is ok, economic murder is ok. Just not actual murder? I mean hell, the guy who works minimium wage 12 hours a day just so he can buy food and a shack to live in must be having a wonderful time.
[/quote]
I work 14 hours a day, six days a week. I make a healthy chunk of money, more than most people do all year. I do not like my job probably more than the guy working 12 hours a day.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:What’s arrogant is you placing yourself and your flawed theories on such a high pedestal, and presenting it a flawless, when clearly it is not.
[/quote]
I didn’t say they were flawless–again, you’re putting words in my mouth because you can’t win the argument otherwise. I merely said that you were wrong, which is true.
But you still miss the point–whether or not you are correct in blaming the government for economic problems, they still move in response to economic problems. Your asinine conspiracy theory about evil, scheming politicians only serves to disguise the truth from yourself, and you know it, which is why you keep whining so much.
The Great Depression was in no way, shape, or form caused by government action. The only things you showed were ways in which government action made the crisis worse once it was already here, something that no one was disputing. Again, you prove something unrelated and claim victory.
I answer everything honestly. You however, are seemingly incapable of answering anything honestly.
But my point still stands–you know nothing about LTV, yet you are convinced it is wrong. Just another example of your ignorance and hypocrisy. For if you knew about it, you would know that your criticisms are, as usual, asinine, and were debunked years ago, if they even needed to be.
For instance, the LTV in no way ignores time preference (which may be explained in terms of scarcity and rent), or any of the host of other things that anti-Marxists who have never read Marx like to think of.
As far as advancing the wages of workers, historically, capitalists frequently did not advance wages, as workers were sometimes paid only 2-4 times per year. Capitalists sometimes found it profitable to go bankrupt right before wages were due, to keep the money themselves. In today’s economy of continuous production and sale, ridiculous “abstinence” theories are wholly irrelevant. Moreover, you assume that the situation of capitalists controlling productive resources and parcelling out access to them is a foregone conclusion, when it is not at all necessary, and is increasingly becoming a hindrance.
No. That’s stupid. Let me give you a hint: Marx was a much more sophisticated thinker than you or I, so if you hit on something that sounds stupid, it’s probably not what Marx said. As in this case, when Marx plainly states in the first chapter of Capital that:
“It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor expended to produce it, it would be the more valuable the more unskillful and lazy the worker who produced it, because he would need more time to complete the article. However, the labor that forms the substance of value is equal human labor, the expenditure of identical human labor-power. The total labor-power of society, which is manifested in the values of the world of commodities, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human-labor power, although composed of innumerable individual units of labor-power. Each of these units is the same as any other, to the extent that it has the character of a socially average unit of labor-power and acts as such, i.e. only needs, in order to produce a commodity, the labor time which is necessary on an average, or in other words is socially necessary.”
So you see, it is the socially-necessary labor time to produce a commodity that determines its value. If I am a lazy craftsman, and it takes me twice as long to produce an article as the average craftsman, I cannot charge twice as much for it, or no one will buy it, because everyone else is charging the average amount. However, at a given technology level, there is a lower limit of production time which it is impossible to go below, and this ultimately regulates the value. As soon as labor-saving machinery or techniques are introduced, the value drops, as the socially-necessary labor time is reduced, exactly as we would expect in the real world.
Not a problem because, once you actually learn something about what Marx wrote (and quit simply copy and pasting from websites), you’ll find out that it was no part of his intention to “get away from” free market theory. On the contrary, he expounded the correct free market theory in Capital. You see, it takes a socialist to understand capitalism.
No trade barriers, no GSEs, no social welfare programs, etc. Preferably, light taxation.
Oh, so it’s not OK for me skip important facts? Stop doing it yourself and I might consider taking you seriously.
True, but the fact is, the state is heavily involved, and it has prospered doing almost the opposite of what free-market theorists recommend. Even if capitalism (in your new definition of it) is responsible for its successes, this simply conforms to Marx’s analysis, which predicts rapid progress for a developing country.
Ah, so you’re not the one who burst in here in tears, claiming that “people like me get in the way of free market (as if it was anything but their abject failures)?” You’re not the one who was calling me arrogant, simply for pointing out that your theory was (and is) ridiculous (while you, of course, do the same thing)? It’s amazing how unpleasant behavior suddenly becomes acceptable when it is your own.
Sorry? Come again? You haven’t made a correct argument yet. Speak for yourself, before you tell me to do better.
Really? Where? I don’t see any facts, let alone documentation. Point them out please. You’re still talking out of both sides of your mouth, while simultaneously accusing me of doing the same thing. You’re blind in several ways, apparently.
Links to conservatives opinion sites? I asked you for documentation of facts, not comedy.
But my point still stands–you know nothing about LTV, yet you are convinced it is wrong. Just another example of your ignorance and hypocrisy. For if you knew about it, you would know that your criticisms are, as usual, asinine, and were debunked years ago, if they even needed to be.
For instance, the LTV in no way ignores time preference (which may be explained in terms of scarcity and rent), or any of the host of other things that anti-Marxists who have never read Marx like to think of.
As far as advancing the wages of workers, historically, capitalists frequently did not advance wages, as workers were sometimes paid only 2-4 times per year. Capitalists sometimes found it profitable to go bankrupt right before wages were due, to keep the money themselves.
In today’s economy of continuous production and sale, ridiculous “abstinence” theories are wholly irrelevant. Moreover, you assume that the situation of capitalists controlling productive resources and parcelling out access to them is a foregone conclusion, when it is not at all necessary, and is increasingly becoming a hindrance.[/quote]
You declined to answer the question and instead threw some obscure long dead issue into the discussion.
Anyways, do you really think that LTV doesn’t fail to account for all of the factors which go into placing value and price on a commodity?
Why doesn’t more economies of the world (or any for that matter) employ Marx’s theories and LTV? Value is determined by the subjective preferences of whomever is buying the commodity, no matter the amount of labor that went into creating the commodity. I’m not saying that labor doesn’t factor into value, only that it is one of a great many factors and that it certainly isn’t the dominating factor.
Why hasn’t the marxist utopia taken hold? I’d like to hear from you your thoughts on why the workers of the world haven’t as of yet rose up and implemented “true” socialism/marxism. Why is it that every collective society has failed bitterly or is failing?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:What’s arrogant is you placing yourself and your flawed theories on such a high pedestal, and presenting it a flawless, when clearly it is not.
[/quote]
I didn’t say they were flawless–again, you’re putting words in my mouth because you can’t win the argument otherwise. I merely said that you were wrong, which is true.
[/quote]
No, I said that you present them as flawless, please understand the difference. No, you did not say they were flawless,…but you certainly present them in that manner.
So, if government action caused the problem, you expect government action to clean it up?
It sure as hell was, and I provided you with the data and links to back it up. I was going to go back and find the thread and re post it, but I’ll let you do that. You may not agree with it, but it’s true none the less. I’m sorry if that bothers you.
And yet you failed to even answer the question. Classic.
I did not decline to answer the question. You didn’t ask for a detailed analysis, I merely mentioned that your objections were unfounded. If you want a theoretical discussion, there are all kinds of sources available online and in print.
Not only does it not fail, but it succeeds where the subjective theory fails, and does so with less theoretical machinery.
Because most economies of the world are capitalist, and as the economics profession discovered, to acknowledge the truth of the labor theory is to undermine the very foundation of capitalism, since it therefore acknowledges exploitation and most of Marx’s criticism follows logically.
Value is ultimately subjective (it must be, since value is a human concept, and has no meaning if not applied to humans), but it is a judgement based upon objective factors. Whether or not you agree with the labor theory, there must be some objective component to value (or at least price), since a commodity is a physical item made by humans, which takes a finite amount of time and resources to produce. So at the very least you must recoup the cost of the resources used to support the worker. This does not necessarily prove the labor basis of value, but it does prove the necessity of cost-of-production factors in the determination of price, which is supposed to be the mechanism by which people judge the marginal utility of items.
Think about it: if all commodities grew on magical trees, and we didn’t have to expend any labor in procuring them, would you pay for anything? Would there be any value (assuming that there was just enough supply to satisfy demand, to take that out of the picture)?
More concretely, it is frequently given as an example of the subjective theory that “people value a picture of a loved one more than a picture of a stranger,” which is true, if we’re being loose with terms. But say you were paying to have photographs taken of your family, versus some coworkers (or something). Would you think it fair for the business to charge you more for pictures of your family versus the exact same package of photos of your coworkers because you cared more for your family? If it were me, I’d say, “Hey, it’s exactly the same of amount of stuff, and it took you no longer to make these pictures than the others. Why is the one higher?”
What about coffee: I love coffee, and the best coffee in my opinion is made in a French press. Yet I would by no means pay more for a French press than I would an automatic coffee maker. It’s just a container with a filter in the lid, c’mon.
Or how about books? If I were buying a fancy handmade book as a gift for someone, say a copy of a novel I don’t care for, versus a paperback of a book I love, I still expect to pay more for the handmade book, even though I don’t like it. If they charged me more for the paperback because I “valued” it more, I’d be angry.
Because there is no Marxist utopia. Marxism is anti-utopian. Marxism is a method of analysis that sees problems and contradictions in society, and suggests a fix. The issues happen to be very large, but this does not make it utopian. The typical uneducated “objections” to socialism are much more properly addressed to the actual Utopian Socialists, though they now no longer really exist, except perhaps in Democratic Socialist parties.
A better question would be: why hasn’t the liberal capitalist utopia come to pass? Where is the end of history as we were promised? Capitalism has conquered the world, yet things are as bad as ever. What more, in addition to the vast majority of the world, and ~200 years, does capitalism need to work out its kinks?
Frequently because “genuine” uprisings are quickly destroyed by a hostile power. The United States has crushed many, many popular uprisings by itself.
But in general, I’m not sure if you realize how “big” your question is. Literally volumes and volumes have been written on the subject, and I am no expert. But it is a very legitimate question and of profound importance to the modern left.
So, if government action caused the problem, you expect government action to clean it up?[/quote]
Again, you miss the point. The results of the actions are not the issue here, only the motives for the actions.
But it’s not true, and you simply can’t stand to acknowledge it. You contend that the government’s expansion of the money supply caused the stock market crash, leading to the Depression, correct? Surely you must, this would be the only real way the government could directly cause (not contribute to, make worse, etc.) such a large collapse. But why? What evidence is there for a direct causal link between expansion of the money supply and a speculative bubble? We’ve just been through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, but it has caused no bubble, a fact which by itself is enough to disprove the causal link that you must maintain to exist for your hypothesis to make sense. So, even though this simple observation disproves your allegation as it stands, let’s continue. It’s easy to note that there have been many more monetary expansions throughout history than speculative collapses, further evidence against you. Turns out you don’t even need the Fed for bubbles, which happened all the time before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 (actually, and this is more evidence against you, they have happened less frequently since the Fed’s creation). Furthermore, the Fed, as I’m sure you know, actually reduced the money supply in 1928, which obviously did nothing to slow the bubble’s inflation, as it surely must have done if you are to be correct.
Now surely, expansion of the money supply is a great way to dramatically increase the odds of a speculative bubble, but it is not the cause and it is not necessary. The boom and bust cycle was of course well-known in Marx’s time, when everyone was on the gold standard. If you want to continue to pretend that it’s been the government at fault the entire 200 some years (a contention which, if you made it, would require explaining via either another conspiracy theory, or by asking me to accept a string of events with an infinitesimal probability of occurring), go right ahead, you’re certainly not alone on this board, but do not ask me to share in your delusions. There’s a reason that essentially no professional economists agree with you.
[quote]And yet you failed to even answer the question. Classic.
[/quote]
So, if government action caused the problem, you expect government action to clean it up?[/quote]
Again, you miss the point. The results of the actions are not the issue here, only the motives for the actions.
But it’s not true, and you simply can’t stand to acknowledge it. You contend that the government’s expansion of the money supply caused the stock market crash, leading to the Depression, correct? Surely you must, this would be the only real way the government could directly cause (not contribute to, make worse, etc.) such a large collapse. But why? What evidence is there for a direct causal link between expansion of the money supply and a speculative bubble? We’ve just been through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, but it has caused no bubble, a fact which by itself is enough to disprove the causal link that you must maintain to exist for your hypothesis to make sense. So, even though this simple observation disproves your allegation as it stands, let’s continue. It’s easy to note that there have been many more monetary expansions throughout history than speculative collapses, further evidence against you. Turns out you don’t even need the Fed for bubbles, which happened all the time before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 (actually, and this is more evidence against you, they have happened less frequently since the Fed’s creation). Furthermore, the Fed, as I’m sure you know, actually reduced the money supply in 1928, which obviously did nothing to slow the bubble’s inflation, as it surely must have done if you are to be correct.
Now surely, expansion of the money supply is a great way to dramatically increase the odds of a speculative bubble, but it is not the cause and it is not necessary. The boom and bust cycle was of course well-known in Marx’s time, when everyone was on the gold standard. If you want to continue to pretend that it’s been the government at fault the entire 200 some years (a contention which, if you made it, would require explaining via either another conspiracy theory, or by asking me to accept a string of events with an infinitesimal probability of occurring), go right ahead, you’re certainly not alone on this board, but do not ask me to share in your delusions. There’s a reason that essentially no professional economists agree with you.[/quote]
[i]Well, here’s a few illustrations for you on government involvement prior to the great depression:
-Bad Federal Reserve Policy and Central planers playing mischief with the money supply. It was estimated by Murray Rothbard that the Fed bloated the money supply by more than 60 percent from mid-1921 to mid-1929, giving birth to the roaring twenties. It then decided to contract the nations money supply by one third between August 1929 and March 1933.
-Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which was in addition to the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. These were some of the most protectionist pieces of legislation in US history. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff sent agriculture into a dizzying spin when the markets for American farmers were severely cut. A bushel of wheat that sold for a dollar in 1929, sold for thirty two cents on 1932. Not good. It’s also important to note that as agriculture crashed, so did a shit ton of rural banks.
-Revenue Act of 1932, the largest tax increase in peacetime history, it doubled the income tax. The top income tax bracket actually more than doubled, going from 24 to 63 percent. If that isn’t a giant WTF!, then what the hell is!? It also needs to be mentioned that Hoover was hardly a small government, free market guy by his actions. His administrations spending was highly criticized by the Roosevelt campaign as being reckless, with the federal governmentâ??s share of GNP soaring from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent. Hardly the actions of a small government, free market conservative. Rooseveltâ??s running mate, John Garner, was running around claiming that Hoover was “leading the country towards socialism”. lol Crazy, huh?
My point is, that I agree with many of the economists who rightly argue that it was heavy handed government mismanagement, not a laize fair free market that preceded the great depression. This is all without getting into the socialist government policies that prolonged the depression.[/i]
I did not decline to answer the question. You didn’t ask for a detailed analysis, I merely mentioned that your objections were unfounded. If you want a theoretical discussion, there are all kinds of sources available online and in print.
Not only does it not fail, but it succeeds where the subjective theory fails, and does so with less theoretical machinery.
Because most economies of the world are capitalist, and as the economics profession discovered, to acknowledge the truth of the labor theory is to undermine the very foundation of capitalism, since it therefore acknowledges exploitation and most of Marx’s criticism follows logically.
Value is ultimately subjective (it must be, since value is a human concept, and has no meaning if not applied to humans), but it is a judgement based upon objective factors. Whether or not you agree with the labor theory, there must be some objective component to value (or at least price), since a commodity is a physical item made by humans, which takes a finite amount of time and resources to produce. So at the very least you must recoup the cost of the resources used to support the worker. This does not necessarily prove the labor basis of value, but it does prove the necessity of cost-of-production factors in the determination of price, which is supposed to be the mechanism by which people judge the marginal utility of items.
Think about it: if all commodities grew on magical trees, and we didn’t have to expend any labor in procuring them, would you pay for anything? Would there be any value (assuming that there was just enough supply to satisfy demand, to take that out of the picture)?
More concretely, it is frequently given as an example of the subjective theory that “people value a picture of a loved one more than a picture of a stranger,” which is true, if we’re being loose with terms. But say you were paying to have photographs taken of your family, versus some coworkers (or something). Would you think it fair for the business to charge you more for pictures of your family versus the exact same package of photos of your coworkers because you cared more for your family? If it were me, I’d say, “Hey, it’s exactly the same of amount of stuff, and it took you no longer to make these pictures than the others. Why is the one higher?”
What about coffee: I love coffee, and the best coffee in my opinion is made in a French press. Yet I would by no means pay more for a French press than I would an automatic coffee maker. It’s just a container with a filter in the lid, c’mon.
Or how about books? If I were buying a fancy handmade book as a gift for someone, say a copy of a novel I don’t care for, versus a paperback of a book I love, I still expect to pay more for the handmade book, even though I don’t like it. If they charged me more for the paperback because I “valued” it more, I’d be angry. [/quote]
Go a little further and ask yourself WHY most of the economies of the world are capitalist. Are you suggesting some sort of world conspiracy to hold down the ideas of Marx? Is that it ryan, you a conspiracy guy after all? LOL
Nobody is disputing the fact that labor costs factor into a commodity, ryan. What I’m saying is that labor costs are only one factor that goes into formulating the price of the thing. Value is still, and always will be, completely subjective to the individual making the purchase.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote: Because there is no Marxist utopia. Marxism is anti-utopian. Marxism is a method of analysis that sees problems and contradictions in society, and suggests a fix. The issues happen to be very large, but this does not make it utopian. The typical uneducated “objections” to socialism are much more properly addressed to the actual Utopian Socialists, though they now no longer really exist, except perhaps in Democratic Socialist parties.
A better question would be: why hasn’t the liberal capitalist utopia come to pass? Where is the end of history as we were promised? Capitalism has conquered the world, yet things are as bad as ever. What more, in addition to the vast majority of the world, and ~200 years, does capitalism need to work out its kinks?[/quote]
Things are as bad as ever? Good grief ryan, you’re delusional on a grand scale. Take a look around you and be honest with yourself. We have fuckers waiting in line to by the latest and greatest techno gadgets, our “poor” are considered wealthy in other corners of the world. Ask bam bam’s brother living in a tin shack in Kenya if he thinks the average “poor” American has it bad. I’m sure he’d love to be “poor” in the US. Is capitalism perfect? Hell no, but it’s the best system the world has ever implemented, by leaps and bounds.
[quote]Bigflamer wrote: I’d like to hear from you your thoughts on why the workers of the world haven’t as of yet rose up and implemented “true” socialism/marxism. Why is it that every collective society has failed bitterly or is failing?
Ryan P. McCarter wrote: Frequently because “genuine” uprisings are quickly destroyed by a hostile power. The United States has crushed many, many popular uprisings by itself.
But in general, I’m not sure if you realize how “big” your question is. Literally volumes and volumes have been written on the subject, and I am no expert. But it is a very legitimate question and of profound importance to the modern left.
[/quote]
I’d genuinely like to see your examples of the US “crushing” popular socialist uprisings.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Whereas you, by maintaining the superiority of the free market, require that there is a massive conspiracy to subvert it, despite its obvious advantages.[/quote]
Well, sorry ryan, but the idea that a government would subvert a free market, and replace it with one that allows for considerable more direct control, is hardly conspiracy. I mean, it’s happening right in front of us, where everyone can see it. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your head around the idea that governments are comprised of people, and people in power want to stay in power, so said people will work to increase their influence in our daily lives as a means to say “see, you need us, you can’t get rid of us”; thereby staying in power.
It is a politicians direct attempt to establish his/her “value”.
[/quote]
But you can only arrive at this conclusion by totally ignoring the reason for intervention in the first place, which is that the market failed. Hardly a conspiracy when you examine all the evidence. Far from wanting to control businesses, most Congressmen take great pains to allow business to do more or less whatever it wants.
[/quote]
And you still continue to ignore why it “failed” – never mind that it was never was a free market to begin with.
The only thing that fails is whatever the government touches.
Yeah, I re-read, and you still did not address the question, obviously outfoxed and hoping I’d just drop it. What you still have not explained is how the expansion of the money supply caused the stock market bubble. All you do is say “Look! The money supply increased!” and “Look, here’s a stock market bubble!” and in typical brain dead Libertarian fashion, simply assume that it was the government action that caused the problem, as opposed to the numerous more likely causes inside the system itself.
No matter how you try to dodge the question, you have not provided one single scrap of evidence that increases in the money supply cause bubbles. As I mentioned, we are living through an unprecedented expansion of the money supply, yet there certainly is no bubble forming.
Do you ever do any thinking at all? Most countries are still capitalist because that’s what their governments and their corporations want. They look out for their own interests. Hardly a conspiracy.
Despite the fact that you provide no evidence whatsoever for your claim, and dodged all of the questions I asked, you’re confused: labor is only one factor determining the price of an item, but it is the only determinant of that item’s value.
Look outside your own country, where most of the “real” capitalism takes place. Do I even have to tell you about the sweat shops and rampant exploitation in developing countries? Or is this just another question you’re going to try to dodge?
And I’m sorry to tell you, your “best system the world has ever implemented” is a house built on sand. Capitalism long ago reached a critical point predicted by Marx, and is unable to continue business as usual in the developed west. The prosperity you speak of is illusory, built on debt. Look: dollar daze – Where is the dollar heading?
Manufacturers are unable to sell their goods without relying heavily on credit, and this bubble will pop some day, revealing the economic reality.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Whereas you, by maintaining the superiority of the free market, require that there is a massive conspiracy to subvert it, despite its obvious advantages.[/quote]
Well, sorry ryan, but the idea that a government would subvert a free market, and replace it with one that allows for considerable more direct control, is hardly conspiracy. I mean, it’s happening right in front of us, where everyone can see it. Why is it so hard for you to wrap your head around the idea that governments are comprised of people, and people in power want to stay in power, so said people will work to increase their influence in our daily lives as a means to say “see, you need us, you can’t get rid of us”; thereby staying in power.
It is a politicians direct attempt to establish his/her “value”.
[/quote]
But you can only arrive at this conclusion by totally ignoring the reason for intervention in the first place, which is that the market failed. Hardly a conspiracy when you examine all the evidence. Far from wanting to control businesses, most Congressmen take great pains to allow business to do more or less whatever it wants.
[/quote]
And you still continue to ignore why it “failed” – never mind that it was never was a free market to begin with.
The only thing that fails is whatever the government touches.[/quote]
Far from it–I’ve popped your pathetic bubble several times on here. The fact that it was not a “true” free market is irrelevant–the true free market failed a long time ago, which is why it does not exist anymore.
But please continue to delude yourself, since it makes you feel better.
