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.
On October 31 2013 10:54 Acrofales wrote: However, in contrast to other areas of the world, poor people in Cuba don't starve, they have a good education, and are generally healthy. Coming from a western mindset, this is super paradoxical.
bourgeois economy and history struggled with this paradox for hundreds of years. how can it be, they asked, that it seems that poverty and immiseration of the poorest stratum of society seems to vary with the enrichment of the upper class?
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.
I'm not talking about rate of profit, I'm talking in general terms. Ex. you rake a lot of leaves one afternoon and describe your endeavor as "productive". Or conversely you rake few leaves and say you were not productive.
I'm not getting into the economic philosophy mumbo jumbo.
why don't we just face up to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and no desire to stretch your brain trying to learn, and the best you can do is rely on a handful of pathetic anti-intellectual platitudes in an attempt to save appearances?
I kinda like the self responsibility part, though having the friggin poverty line as a guide line in this day and age where the rich became FILTHY rich is just chutzpah...
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.
I'm not talking about rate of profit, I'm talking in general terms. Ex. you rake a lot of leaves one afternoon and describe your endeavor as "productive". Or conversely you rake few leaves and say you were not productive.
I'm not getting into the economic philosophy mumbo jumbo.
why don't we just face up to the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and no desire to stretch your brain trying to learn, and the best you can do is rely on a handful of pathetic anti-intellectual platitudes in an attempt to save appearances?
There are things I'm just not interested in. I've read more than enough economic philosophizing on this thread and others here to last me a good while. Sorry if I was rude about it.
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.
Correct, but that would happen in any type of economy undergoing drastic change. It was even worse when Russia changed to USSR a few decades before that.
Also the economic growth and the standards of living in USSR were not that high, so for an average person market economy or some mixture of market and planned economy appears to usually be better, at least in terms of material wealth.
On the other hand the minimal (not average) standard of living in USSR was quite a bit higher than that in typical capitalist economies with comparable GDP per capita. Also the inequality and insecurity in late USSR was very low. Everybody was guaranteed a job more or less corresponding to his/her skills, everyone was guaranteed a living wage, everyone was guaranteed free roof over the head, free medical care, free education. I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.
I just recently noted how people who most criticize communist countries are often people who never lived in them or were born after the communism ended. They are surprised when I tell them that for majority of the population, life was not bad. People were often as happy as they are now, sometimes more so due to lack of stress. Especially in Czechoslovakia, which was rather rich compared to other communist countries, life was not SO bad. It was actually ok. Of course communists were stupid in regards to economy and their repressions were brutal and thus the whole regime is indefensible. But that does not change that they actually did a lot of things well and life for most of the population was pretty good. People who suffered most were those suffering political oppression and people with entrepreneurial spirit. First obviously, the second group since unlike the rest they could not achieve their ambitions.
Lack of stress? I imagine the political oppression, and the continual rationing and shortage or oversupply of various and sundry goods, provided them less stress than liberty does. I always find it hilarious and communists can sit there and defend communit countries and then turn around and berate Fascist countries. Here's a little pointer: Communists are worst than they are. Communists have killed more people, oppressed more people, and still yet, they seem to never go away.
It's always the rich. It doesn't matter how they got their money, only that they have money. I am sure we'd all be better off without choice - just let the State and its Commissar's decide for us! How wonderful life would be! So carefree and innocent...
PS: I think Yuri Maltsev is a good enough counter-voice as someone who used to be apart of the Politburo.
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.
Correct, but that would happen in any type of economy undergoing drastic change. It was even worse when Russia changed to USSR a few decades before that.
Also the economic growth and the standards of living in USSR were not that high, so for an average person market economy or some mixture of market and planned economy appears to usually be better, at least in terms of material wealth.
On the other hand the minimal (not average) standard of living in USSR was quite a bit higher than that in typical capitalist economies with comparable GDP per capita. Also the inequality and insecurity in late USSR was very low. Everybody was guaranteed a job more or less corresponding to his/her skills, everyone was guaranteed a living wage, everyone was guaranteed free roof over the head, free medical care, free education. I and my parents actually really enjoyed living in USSR. Much less stress, no worries about the economy or about where the next meal is coming from etc. That being said, overall people in USSR were not wealthy or even well-off in material terms.
I just recently noted how people who most criticize communist countries are often people who never lived in them or were born after the communism ended. They are surprised when I tell them that for majority of the population, life was not bad. People were often as happy as they are now, sometimes more so due to lack of stress. Especially in Czechoslovakia, which was rather rich compared to other communist countries, life was not SO bad. It was actually ok. Of course communists were stupid in regards to economy and their repressions were brutal and thus the whole regime is indefensible. But that does not change that they actually did a lot of things well and life for most of the population was pretty good. People who suffered most were those suffering political oppression and people with entrepreneurial spirit. First obviously, the second group since unlike the rest they could not achieve their ambitions.
Lack of stress? I imagine the political oppression, and the continual rationing and shortage or oversupply of various and sundry goods, provided them less stress than liberty does. I always find it hilarious and communists can sit there and defend communit countries and then turn around and berate Fascist countries. Here's a little pointer: Communists are worst than they are. Communists have killed more people, oppressed more people, and still yet, they seem to never go away.
It's always the rich. It doesn't matter how they got their money, only that they have money. I am sure we'd all be better off without choice - just let the State and its Commissar's decide for us! How wonderful life would be! So carefree and innocent...
PS: I think Yuri Maltsev is a good enough counter-voice as someone who used to be apart of the Politburo.
There is a quote I love about communism (from Vladimir Poutine nonetheless) "The one that wish to restore communism has no head. The one that don't regret it has no heart". Seems like you have no heart friend.
On November 01 2013 02:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So it seems that Ted Cruz has a father problem, as in a backward religious nut with a racist on top.
Yeah. But why now let him speak for himself
Having the audacity to compare Castro's policies to Obama's. Mindblowing. However, Republicans should run with this. It will turn off independents so much that some kind of catharsis should inevitably occur sooner or later.
On November 01 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote: Meh, he's a Democrat from Florida, he's bound to be a tad unwound.
But it's enough to bug me a little bit when I see all these posts about "Crazy tea parties people" when they ignore the lunatics/idiots in their own ranks.
And as I said, Rafael doesn't even have any power.
second edit: Let the old man have his fun. Many people say far worse things. He doesn't even run anything.
Totally the same thing dude. Being shitty at making analogies and rather stupid, and comparing the POTUS to a communist dictator and his policies the beginning of the end. Yeah.
second edit: Let the old man have his fun. Many people say far worse things. He doesn't even run anything.
Totally the same thing dude. Being shitty at making analogies and rather stupid, and comparing the POTUS to a communist dictator and his policies the beginning of the end. Yeah.
The second edit :D paddling back more and more.
Far better than comparing the TP to the KKK. I mean, to Farvacola's point, I could just say "Rafael is an old man from a communist country, he's bound to see communism everywhere." Yet somehow, the only ones worth nothing are from the right. Funny, isn't it? No consistency.
Edit:
So was Hillaries dad. Not sure point I'm not allowed to vote for either and they are not running.
An important difference is that Grayson speaks on no one's behalf, whereas Cruz's father is very clearly campaigning for his son. That alone changes the light in which the two should be compared.
second edit: Let the old man have his fun. Many people say far worse things. He doesn't even run anything.
Totally the same thing dude. Being shitty at making analogies and rather stupid, and comparing the POTUS to a communist dictator and his policies the beginning of the end. Yeah.
The second edit :D paddling back more and more.
Far better than comparing the TP to the KKK. I mean, to Farvacola's point, I could just say "Rafael is an old man from a communist country, he's bound to see communism everywhere." Yet somehow, the only ones worth nothing are from the right. Funny, isn't it? No consistency.
On November 01 2013 03:37 farvacola wrote: An important difference is that Grayson speaks on no one's behalf, whereas Cruz's father is very clearly campaigning for his son. That alone changes the light in which the two should be compared.
What? He's a US congressman who speaks for himself (and supposedly his constituents). He ALSO has a vote in the US House. Far worse than a non-elected official. But I suppose not as bad as Joe "they'll have you all back in chains" Biden.
Edit:
Yeah. Far better. Got it.
Why yes, yes it is. Thank you for agreeing with me. US congressmen/KKK is worse than an old guy who grew up in Cuba and says what's on his mind.
On November 01 2013 03:26 Introvert wrote: Because if you mean his "Go back to Kenya" remark, then it should be noted that such a statement is not meant to be taken literally, nor is it racist.
On November 01 2013 03:37 farvacola wrote: An important difference is that Grayson speaks on no one's behalf, whereas Cruz's father is very clearly campaigning for his son. That alone changes the light in which the two should be compared.
What? He's a US congressman who speaks for himself (and supposedly his constitutes). He ALSO has a vote in the US House. Far worse than a non-elected official. But I suppose not as bad as Joe "they'll have you all back in chains" Biden.
On November 01 2013 03:26 Introvert wrote: Because if you mean his "Go back to Kenya" remark, then it should be noted that such a statement is not meant to be taken literally, nor is it racist.
are you serious
What is literal about it? What is racist about it?
I didn't hear any negative remarks about black people. The implication is that Obama's not really an American (in philosophy). Race has exactly zero to do with it. I know the left has a knee-jerk "racist!" reaction, but just think about it for a second.
EPT
