EPTOh well not when it comes to marxism.
Edit : not that I expect you to find any value in a work you haven't read, and have no idea what it contains apart from the fact that it attacks your values.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1943
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
Oh well not when it comes to marxism. Edit : not that I expect you to find any value in a work you haven't read, and have no idea what it contains apart from the fact that it attacks your values. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Please be more specific. What specifically is crazy talk? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
1. not Johhnytalk: that shit is crazytalk 2. talk where you criticize one belief because of evil people, and propose a solution that relies on evil people not existing: that commie shit is crazytalk | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 02:55 IgnE wrote: Please be more specific. What specifically is crazy talk? This: On May 10 2015 03:39 IgnE wrote: No, many don't. You can't spend the greater part of your waking hours renting yourself out as labor power, alienating the products of your labor, and still maximally develop your human capacities in all their forms because freedom rightly conceived is a prerequisite. Working in retail robs people of purposive, planned creation, because they are spending so much time and energy simply selling their labor power to the highest bidder in return for wages that hopefully cover the bare necessities of reproduction, but often don't. Many slaves still had fulfilling family lives, and even animals know how to relax. I'm not talking about learning the chords to Taylor Swift songs, and building a deck onto your mortgaged house on the weekend comes in spite of, not because of, the conditions of economic life. The funny thing is that Americans actually sense this, because the American Dream is wrapped up in fantasies of owning your own small business, having your American castle on a nice plot of land, and being self-sufficient. But Marx (and others) have been taboo so long that they don't even know why the career paths they've embarked on, providing surplus labor free of charge to the benefit of their employers, are so unfulfilling. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 02:52 corumjhaelen wrote: true [citation needed] Oh well not when it comes to marxism. Edit : not that I expect you to find any value in a work you haven't read, and have no idea what it contains apart from the fact that it attacks your values. It's not crazy talk because it 'attacks my values'. I don't think IgnE's post 'attacked my values' at all. Well, I do value education and rational analysis... so I guess he did attack that. It's crazy talk because it's Marxist garbage about how workers totally feel and act without any reference for how workers actually feel and act. If you bother to talk to workers, they'll say things at odds with Marx. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! As for Marxism being an intellectual dead end, just read the posts Marxists here make. They have plenty of criticisms but zero solutions. When the world still had communist run economies they relied heavily on copying market economies to find solutions to problems. They're really quite pathetic. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 02:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Yes, they simplify but they're also useful tools for learning. I'm reminded of our trade discussion in the EU thread. I scanned a page from a book that showed empirical data on contract manufacturing in China. You stuck to your simplistic ideas, no citations to be found. I don't think I said Marx was complete garbage, only that Marx is an intellectual dead end (true) and that the commie talk IgnE was pushing is crazy talk (also true). Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On May 11 2015 03:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's crazy talk because it's Marxist garbage about how workers totally feel and act without any reference for how workers actually feel and act. If you bother to talk to workers, they'll say things at odds with Marx. Some people like to work on their homes and make improvements, but IgnE will tell you that's false, because he knows how those people feel better than they do. That's nuts! As for Marxism being an intellectual dead end, just read the posts Marxists here make. They have plenty of criticisms but zero solutions. When the world still had communist run economies they relied heavily on copying market economies to find solutions to problems. They're really quite pathetic. But how can you know that what Marx says is at odd with what workers feel if you don't know what he says, as you've shown time and time again ? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 03:53 WhiteDog wrote: Lol. You're funny, like I'm the one with the simplistic ideas. Coming from someone who can't do anything aside from insulting everytime he is wrong (and it happen everytime we argued together). Your argument on china was irrelevant, and it only shows that you can't read whatever you have in the hand. It's pretty obvious that firms that localize part of their production in china do it because the labor costs are low. And I don't need you misunderstanding words to know I'm right on that. Your irrelevant argument had only one goal and it is to suggar coat this reality (it's not social dumping but efficient international division of labor lol). And I'm sure you'll respond to this post with another irrelevant and completly off topic comment, like you always do. Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. Lol you're nuts. Do you even know anything about Marx ? To Marx labor is a fundamental aspect of human life, not something negative... I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 04:45 corumjhaelen wrote: But how can you know that what Marx says is at odd with what workers feel if you don't know what he says, as you've shown time and time again ? Example? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On May 11 2015 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. It's also not off topic to respond to an accusation that I don't read books by citing a time where I demonstrated that I do read books. I do know that, actually. Marx also complained that the capitalist mode of production robbed workers of the joy of labor. A sentiment that IgnE echoed in his post. And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. A full 24% are what Gallup calls “actively disengaged,” meaning they pretty much hate their jobs. They act out and undermine what their coworkers accomplish. Add the last two categories and you get 87% of workers worldwide who, as Gallup puts it, “are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive.” In other words, work is more often a source of frustration than one of fulfillment for nearly 90% of the world’s workers. That means that most workplaces are less productive and less safe than they could be and employers are less likely to create new jobs. Source People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
I've not read Hayek, but I know he's an irrelevant idiot. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On May 11 2015 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Definately didn't see Ben Carson saying that whether the president has to listen to the supreme court rulings on law or not being an open question coming. Is that supposed to be the Gay marriage angle, that a president Carson wouldn't recognize same sex marriages even if the supreme court said so? He can use Andrew Jackson as precedent! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote: And is supported by actually talking to workers. Your position here is laughable. Source People are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with their work, the capitalist system (as realized) has a LOT to do with that. It's about as obvious as things get. Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rly7fx4r6ucjby0emu9hiw.png) | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Which was never in dispute. You thought production happened in China because cheaper labor costs increased margins by a small fraction, full stop. I argued that it moved because it actually made a large difference in costs, due to the labor intensity of electronics production. You disputed my position, even in light of empirical data. Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 05:26 WhiteDog wrote: Yes that was the point of the discussion, and you trying to change the subject show time and time again how useless it is to discuss with you. "Full stop" lol. I never argued that it increased margin, I never used the term margin in those posts, I said it was social dumping, and that labor cost was a small part of the production costs. Please, respond to points I make, not some secondary point that you thought you read between the lines. Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 05:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Lowering production costs would increase margin. Mathematically saying 'lower labor costs' and 'increase margin' is the same thing. No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Firms might even agree on paying more than they would by producing by themselves but with better results in terms of quality or whatever. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were part of the argument, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 11 2015 05:33 WhiteDog wrote: No ? You can increase other costs - capital, transport, whatever. It can be a trade off. Anyway it is irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that you discuss something that I don't care about and that is not at all important to what was discussed at the time. At no point in that discussion Apple margin were discussed, what was discussed is the reason behind delocalization, which is social dumping - whatever the intensivity in labor or capital of the production. You just wanted to discuss something else because you remembered your favorite textbook had a chapter on something that was more or less on the same subject. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler + On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote: Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products. + Show Spoiler + Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany. But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On May 11 2015 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Work is work. It's not easy to keep people engaged and happy doing something for full time. Doesn't matter if you're in a capitalist system or not. US ranks high in that survey, and we're considered very capitalistic. + Show Spoiler + That is quite interesting that the american capitalists have managed so successfully to keep their exploitees happy and engaged, good for them. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Also, you did discuss margin: + Show Spoiler + On April 14 2015 17:05 WhiteDog wrote: Jonny I'm seeing this as an economist not a businessman, you're right about that. Intensive in labor mean labor cost take a high % of total costs. If we could cut the production in many pieces, all production process would be intensive in labor : you can say that this specific part of the production process is intensive in labor, but not that phone production is intensive in labor. And again, it's entirely irrelevant to my point, that was that delocalisation's goal is to decrease the cost of labor an improve competitiveness. Margin on iphone is almost 55 % - they could produce in the US and still make profit, they don't because their goal is the highest margin possible, not because they don't have the infrastructures to build up their products. + Show Spoiler + Nyxisto how does Germany bear the risk ? I'm not saying it's a machiavellian plot, it's the normal game of capitalism. We, the french, did it a lot during the colonialism, where we basically bought half the world (and we still participate, to a lesser extent). The british did it even better. It's almost entirely risk free, because the financial market are made this way, and because all european institutions are ready to support and bought back all assets that would lose too much value, as the last crisis proved us. Who's the country that suffered from Spain's drawbacks ? Not really Germany. But if your point is that it is not sustainable in the long run because you need to grow their demand for your export oriented economy I totally agree. It's not at all a strategy from Germany, it's just the normal evolution of a country oriented to export and who refuse to reinvest what it gained in growing it's demand : they're not going to sleep with their money, so they invest it in foreign assets. It wasn't from a textbook. It was from "Regional Powerhouse: The Greater Pearl River Delta and the Rise of China". Good job digging a two month old post just because you're frustrated abou getting schooled every now and then. I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. There's nothing to argue on that, everybody agree that delocalization is made in order to lower costs. So there you have it : an argument over nothing just because you wanted to say something irrelevant. The post you linked was at the end of the conversation, after like three or four posts saying that your points are irrelevant. There are at least five post before the post you linked where I clearly state that your points are not important in relation to what is discussed but you continued arguing like a chicken without its head. We could discuss the rest - details - but I do not wish to do so with you. Why the hell would you move production to lower labor costs if some other cost just offsets it? That's stupid. Here is a small part of the answer for a young student in econ like you : outsourcing and transaction costs. | ||
| ||
