|
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. |
yeah, youth unemployment is a big problem; I'd like to fix that. Sadly people tend to be against the things that actually would fix it; or it wouldn't be so politically hard to do.
Every form of government has its advantages and disadvantages.
retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point.
I wonder what a command economy would look like if it was actually run well and with minimal corruption; are there examples of that?
I'd like to take a look at the full consumption/production system in the US; including marginal effects. I'm sure that would help me craft a better solution (not that that matters since the problem isn't finding a solution, that's easy, the problem is the politics of implementing it)
re: previous guy, are you classifying social security as a safety net program or not? I was talking as if it was; though I see now it could easily be classified otherwise.
At any rate, vote me so I can just fix all this stuff without political nonsense getting in the way!
|
On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it...
from what i can tell the sole human value that guides the world is to maximize short term profit. Art, science and species survival of the human race are secondary values to this.
To be productive is to destroy decent human survival possibilities. I mean climate change denial will increase the short term profit of exxon mobil. It will cost billions of people their livelihood, but it increases short term profit. And that's what counts.
Anyone that thinks that their own survival is important needs to be told they are an idiot by the mass media, and they should focus on more important things like the deficit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
command economies are really shit. but that does not mean the goal of political economy isn't providing the basis for freedom and flourishing for everyone.
|
On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself
Surplus value would be an excess of outputs over inputs. The problem with your quote is that it requires a marxist setup which isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations in which you want to discuss productivity. It's too restrictive and needlessly wordy.
|
retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point.
????
I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases.
|
On October 31 2013 09:44 oneofthem wrote:
command economies are really shit. but that does not mean the goal of political economy isn't providing the basis for freedom and flourishing for everyone.
That's not necessarily true, south korea during its boom was a command economy. Actually, every single country that's ever developed has been highly protectionist, and has needed to become protectionist to escape the wrath of more powerful countries.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well i guess it's a difference in understanding of what command entails. in korea and japan corporations were at first government establishments. but their operations were market based. the type of command i had in mind was ussr style, where production and supply decisions are all coordinated centrally
|
On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases.
People live longer. This changes the ratio of people paying to people receiving money; the ratios have skewed very far from their original value.
I anticipate lifespans continuing to increase, on average; this will increase strain on the system.
|
On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases.
How minor? There's a falling worker to retiree ratio, a falling share of wages as total labor income and the revenue shortfalls are significant. That suggests a large increase in payroll taxes, unless I'm missing something.
|
On October 31 2013 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself Surplus value would be an excess of outputs over inputs. The problem with your quote is that it requires a marxist setup which isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations in which you want to discuss productivity. It's too restrictive and needlessly wordy.
no, surplus value is the value extracted from labor-power above the value of labour-power (i.e. what is required for the reproduction of labour-power).
edit: all you're saying is "I don't want to look at things from the point of view of the worker, I want to look at things from the point of view of the firm, because I am a bourgeois and that is my subject-position." continuing in the long tradition of jonny telling us things that we already know he thinks, and taking himself to be explaining something. but let's not get too "philosophical" kids, that is needlessly wordy
|
On October 31 2013 09:57 oneofthem wrote:
well i guess it's a difference in understanding of what command entails. in korea and japan corporations were at first government establishments. but their operations were market based. the type of command i had in mind was ussr style, where production and supply decisions are all coordinated centrally
The USSR was more productive under its centrally controlled economy from what i've read. When it underwent market reforms after the wall collapsed the living standard dropped by 70% during the 90's. As well as it's support with north korea being abolished, which led to a famine.
|
United States44320 Posts
On October 31 2013 09:37 zlefin wrote:
yeah, youth unemployment is a big problem; I'd like to fix that. Sadly people tend to be against the things that actually would fix it; or it wouldn't be so politically hard to do.
Every form of government has its advantages and disadvantages.
retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point.
I wonder what a command economy would look like if it was actually run well and with minimal corruption; are there examples of that?
I'd like to take a look at the full consumption/production system in the US; including marginal effects. I'm sure that would help me craft a better solution (not that that matters since the problem isn't finding a solution, that's easy, the problem is the politics of implementing it)
re: previous guy, are you classifying social security as a safety net program or not? I was talking as if it was; though I see now it could easily be classified otherwise.
At any rate, vote me so I can just fix all this stuff without political nonsense getting in the way!
Sorry, you think youth unemployment needs fixing and you want the old people with jobs to keep their jobs for longer?
|
On October 31 2013 09:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases. People live longer. This changes the ratio of people paying to people receiving money; the ratios have skewed very far from their original value. I anticipate lifespans continuing to increase, on average; this will increase strain on the system.
Social Security factors life expectancy increases into its cost estimates... It's part of the design of the system...
Anyway, this article busts a lot of the myths of this idea.
|
On October 31 2013 10:02 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself Surplus value would be an excess of outputs over inputs. The problem with your quote is that it requires a marxist setup which isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations in which you want to discuss productivity. It's too restrictive and needlessly wordy. no, surplus value is the value extracted from labor-power above the value of labour-power (i.e. what is required for the reproduction of labour-power).
How is that not the same thing?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 31 2013 10:03 stroggozzz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:57 oneofthem wrote:
well i guess it's a difference in understanding of what command entails. in korea and japan corporations were at first government establishments. but their operations were market based. the type of command i had in mind was ussr style, where production and supply decisions are all coordinated centrally The USSR was more productive under its centrally controlled economy from what i've read. When it underwent market reforms after the wall collapsed the living standard dropped by 70% during the 90's. As well as it's support with north korea being abolished, which led to a famine.
i'm not sure it went under market reforms as much as it got raided and burned by looters, so it wasn't really a fair transition comparison. heavy industry wise, command economy can do ok, but anything consumer related it is pretty bad.
|
On October 31 2013 10:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases. How minor? There's a falling worker to retiree ratio, a falling share of wages as total labor income and the revenue shortfalls are significant. That suggests a large increase in payroll taxes, unless I'm missing something.
I mean, you have to assume that we're going to raise employment. That's why I'm constantly saying that dealing with long term issues should not be a concern until we get to full employment.
You can't discuss these issues reasonably until full employment is back up. Otherwise, people will just suggest dangerous and crazy things, like cutting programs that are perfectly efficient and well managed.
|
On October 31 2013 10:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:58 zlefin wrote:On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases. People live longer. This changes the ratio of people paying to people receiving money; the ratios have skewed very far from their original value. I anticipate lifespans continuing to increase, on average; this will increase strain on the system. Social Security factors life expectancy increases into its cost estimates... It's part of the design of the system... Anyway, this article busts a lot of the myths of this idea.
I don't think it matters that life expectancy increases are in the cost estimates. The cost rises when people live longer. That's a financial problem.
|
On October 31 2013 10:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 10:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 09:50 DoubleReed wrote:retirement age does need to be increased, that's pretty clear; it doesn't have to be today, but it has to at some point. ???? I'm not really sure where this is coming from? They've shown that raising Medicare age doesn't save much money at all (while large burdens get passed on to seniors at the same time). Which only leaves social security. And the only problem with that is the limited-term issue of the baby boomers. And that can be solved with minor tax increases. How minor? There's a falling worker to retiree ratio, a falling share of wages as total labor income and the revenue shortfalls are significant. That suggests a large increase in payroll taxes, unless I'm missing something. I mean, you have to assume that we're going to raise employment. That's why I'm constantly saying that dealing with long term issues should not be a concern until we get to full employment.
If we were at full employment the employment-population ratio would still be deteriorating due to demographics. The other issues would still persist as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just subsidize ss when the downfall arises, ss was a net creditor so sometimes it can be in debt too. they do this with le banks pretty regularly
|
On October 31 2013 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 10:02 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 09:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 09:24 sam!zdat wrote:On October 31 2013 08:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but now it is the hard question. what does it mean to be productive? Produce a lot of output relative to input. Unless you want to get philosophical about it... well, no. read the quote. unless it's too philosophical for your delicate bourgeois sensibilities. please, don't strain yourself Surplus value would be an excess of outputs over inputs. The problem with your quote is that it requires a marxist setup which isn't necessarily appropriate for all situations in which you want to discuss productivity. It's too restrictive and needlessly wordy. no, surplus value is the value extracted from labor-power above the value of labour-power (i.e. what is required for the reproduction of labour-power). How is that not the same thing?
because what you are talking about is the rate of profit, not the production of surplus value. bourgeois political economy conflates profit and surplus value because they don't want to investigate where surplus value comes from - it just happens magically (there is a whole debate about this, whether you are a physiocrat and you hold that surplus value comes from the land, or a Ricardian and you think that surplus value comes from comparative advantage and trade, but economists today simply ignore the problem because it is politically delicate, because of course the answer is that all surplus value comes from labor). But they're not the same thing (when you treat the rate of profit and the production of surplus value as identical, you make, among others, the mistake of thinking that machines - constant capital - produce value, when in fact constant capital merely stores value that requires labor - variable capital - in order to valorize itself).
basically you are looking at things purely from the point of view of the firm, not the point of view of the worker. and that means that you are trapped in the fetish.
edit: actually, this is the point where capitalists themselves fall prey to the fetish and are harmed by it, because capitalists seek to maximize the rate of profit when really, if they were a fully conscious class acting in their own interests, they should seek to maximize the rate of exploitation, not profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
