New York Times complains about lack of affordable "starter homes" - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15257111
Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe they don't understand how under the debt money system of finance capitalism, lower interest rates create inflation that favors those who are rich enough to be able to borrow billions to finance asset acquisitions.



The U.S. has been underwriting finance for the last *two decades*, since actual healthy national GDP growth has been lacking over that period.

If the finance is simply for *rentier*-type asset acquisitions, then what's the point? It's a free give-away of public funds to *non-productive* investments, like cryptocurrencies for example.

It's not even the use of public funds, borrowing, or finance -- normally politically objectionable -- but rather it's that:


---


Potemkin wrote:
[M]y understanding is that MMT claims that printing more money will not cause significant inflation if and only if that extra money supply is used to activate idle productive forces and labour power. So long as the extra money expands the economy, there’s no problem. If there are no or few idle productive forces or labour power in the economy, then obviously printing more money will just cause inflation. This means that, in a recession (when, by definition, there are idle productive forces and labour power), printing more money is generally a good idea, but doing so when the economy is booming is extremely inadvisable (not to mention unnecessary). None of this should be controversial; it’s basically just leftover Keynesianism taken out of the fridge and reheated in a pan.



viewtopic.php?p=15256668#p15256668
#15257149
ckaihatsu wrote:
If the finance is simply for *rentier*-type asset acquisitions, then what's the point?



Truth To Power wrote:
The usual: to shovel unearned wealth into the pockets of the privileged at the expense of everyone else.



So, if you don't mind, would you say that you recognize the distinction between *equity* capital and *rentier* capital -- ?
#15258194
ckaihatsu wrote:So, if you don't mind, would you say that you recognize the distinction between *equity* capital and *rentier* capital -- ?

Those are economically meaningless categories. I've been trying to teach you the difference between assets that signify contribution to production, assets that signify legal transfer of production from others to oneself, and assets that signify legal impairment of production to obtain payment from producers for permission to produce. So far, you have proved quite refractory in your refusal to know the difference.
#15258196
Truth To Power wrote:
Those are economically meaningless categories. I've been trying to teach you the difference between assets that signify contribution to production, assets that signify legal transfer of production from others to oneself, and assets that signify legal impairment of production to obtain payment from producers for permission to produce. So far, you have proved quite refractory in your refusal to know the difference.



If you have any *material* I'll take a look at it. Otherwise you're just throwing *terms* around.
#15258199
ckaihatsu wrote:If you have any *material* I'll take a look at it. Otherwise you're just throwing *terms* around.

I have given you the *material* in my posts. And I do not "throw" *terms* around. I identify the relevant facts of objective physical reality using terms that are clearly and validly defined specifically for the purpose of clearly identifying facts. Unlike Marxists, I do not use anti-concepts: invalid artificial concepts contrived to prevent use of valid natural concepts.
#15258202
Truth To Power wrote:
I have given you the *material* in my posts. And I do not "throw" *terms* around. I identify the relevant facts of objective physical reality using terms that are clearly and validly defined specifically for the purpose of clearly identifying facts. Unlike Marxists, I do not use anti-concepts: invalid artificial concepts contrived to prevent use of valid natural concepts.



Hard pass. You're unable / unwilling to impart where *value* is derived from.
#15258217
Truth To Power wrote:
I have stated numerous times that value (in the relevant sense) derives from the combination of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand) of something that can be exchanged.



Here's from earlier in the thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.



viewtopic.php?p=15253101#p15253101
#15258486
ckaihatsu wrote:Here's from earlier in the thread: You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.

There is nothing impossible about it. Money measures the value of manufacturing inputs, but the value of the inputs provides no information whatever about the value of the outputs, which derives solely from the intersection of utility (consumer utility expressed in money is demand) and scarcity. That is what makes devotion of one's purchasing power to production risky, and socialism ignorant piffle.
#15258503
ckaihatsu wrote:
Here's from earlier in the thread: You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.



Truth To Power wrote:
There is nothing impossible about it. Money measures the value of manufacturing inputs, but the value of the inputs provides no information whatever about the value of the outputs, which derives solely from the intersection of utility (consumer utility expressed in money is demand) and scarcity. That is what makes devotion of one's purchasing power to production risky, and socialism ignorant piffle.



Just *one* question here -- can an economic exchange / purchase take place *without* the information contained in [1] the price of production, [2] the price based on balance of supply-and-demand for the item, and [3] the consumer's own subjective needs or wants for 'utility' / use-value from the item.

I'm arguing that on the customer's purchase these *three* economic variables will have had to be resolved -- [1] Does the customer know what the price of production 'should' be (roughly, in the larger market), [2] Does the customer know if the item happens to be 'hot' or not right now, because if it *is* then yadda-yadda, and [3] Does the customer know *how important* this purchase is in relation to the person's own *unique budget*.

Here's the reality-check banging on the front door: These three qualities / variables are *different things*.

If the customer can send in their money and make the purchase as soon as the product is advertised, for a complete order, then at *that* moment the price of purchase dollar-amount is having to serve *three* masters, [1] the owner's interests for the initial price of production of the commodity, [2] the market's interests for a flexible, *elastic* number that reflects the ongoing realtime balance of supply and demand, and [3] the *customer's* interests for the *lowest* price possible, regardless of the *other* two stakeholders' interests in the item's pricing number / value.

The reality is that the *actual* price may not be quite 'valid' for one or the other party -- as in an *inflated* pricing environment. The pricing 'price' valuation is *overextended* as a matter of course in having to reflect three different market pairings *all at once*, for the same *one* item.

Will the equity investment into production yield an adequate markup *price*, for *profits* -- ? Has the government *intervened* into the markets, changing their regular activity -- ? Will the renter receive *satisfaction* for the price that they're paying every month -- ?

All of these everyday economic *dramas* / soap-operas are brought to us thanks to the slippages and uncertainties of *capitalism*, where a more *advanced* civilization might have *freed themselves up* by now by socio-economically-materially *resolving* such 'material factionalism', as I put it:



If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15258510
ckaihatsu wrote:Just *one* question here -- can an economic exchange / purchase take place *without* the information contained in [1] the price of production,

A price is what something traded for. Production has a cost, not a price.
[2] the price based on balance of supply-and-demand for the item, and [3] the consumer's own subjective needs or wants for 'utility' / use-value from the item.

Consumer utility is only relevant to value and price to the extent that is expressed in demand.
I'm arguing that on the customer's purchase these *three* economic variables will have had to be resolved -- [1] Does the customer know what the price of production 'should' be (roughly, in the larger market), [2] Does the customer know if the item happens to be 'hot' or not right now, because if it *is* then yadda-yadda, and [3] Does the customer know *how important* this purchase is in relation to the person's own *unique budget*.

None of that is relevant.
Here's the reality-check banging on the front door: These three qualities / variables are *different things*.

That and $4 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.
If the customer can send in their money and make the purchase as soon as the product is advertised, for a complete order, then at *that* moment the price of purchase dollar-amount is having to serve *three* masters, [1] the owner's interests for the initial price of production of the commodity, [2] the market's interests for a flexible, *elastic* number that reflects the ongoing realtime balance of supply and demand, and [3] the *customer's* interests for the *lowest* price possible, regardless of the *other* two stakeholders' interests in the item's pricing number / value.

As above.
The reality is that the *actual* price may not be quite 'valid' for one or the other party -- as in an *inflated* pricing environment. The pricing 'price' valuation is *overextended* as a matter of course in having to reflect three different market pairings *all at once*, for the same *one* item.

Anti-economic Marxist gibberish.
Will the equity investment into production yield an adequate markup *price*, for *profits* -- ? Has the government *intervened* into the markets, changing their regular activity -- ? Will the renter receive *satisfaction* for the price that they're paying every month -- ?

All of these everyday economic *dramas* / soap-operas are brought to us thanks to the slippages and uncertainties of *capitalism*, where a more *advanced* civilization might have *freed themselves up* by now by socio-economically-materially *resolving* such 'material factionalism', as I put it:

<Marxist gibberish mercifully snipped>
#15258512
ckaihatsu wrote:
Just *one* question here -- can an economic exchange / purchase take place *without* the information contained in [1] the price of production,

A price is what something traded for. Production has a cost, not a price.
[2] the price based on balance of supply-and-demand for the item, and [3] the consumer's own subjective needs or wants for 'utility' / use-value from the item.



Truth To Power wrote:
Consumer utility is only relevant to value and price to the extent that is expressed in demand.



A regular commodity *sale* is the basic premise / scenario here.


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm arguing that on the customer's purchase these *three* economic variables will have had to be resolved -- [1] Does the customer know what the price of production 'should' be (roughly, in the larger market), [2] Does the customer know if the item happens to be 'hot' or not right now, because if it *is* then yadda-yadda, and [3] Does the customer know *how important* this purchase is in relation to the person's own *unique budget*.



Truth To Power wrote:
None of that is relevant.



Just to *confirm* -- you're saying that *information* (of these various types) has 'no relevance' to the customer / consumer's intrinsic interests for *low pricing* -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
Here's the reality-check banging on the front door: These three qualities / variables are *different things*.



Truth To Power wrote:
That and $4 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.



You're just being blithely *dismissive*, of my thesis statement, instead of *addressing* it.


ckaihatsu wrote:
If the customer can send in their money and make the purchase as soon as the product is advertised, for a complete order, then at *that* moment the price of purchase dollar-amount is having to serve *three* masters, [1] the owner's interests for the initial price of production of the commodity, [2] the market's interests for a flexible, *elastic* number that reflects the ongoing realtime balance of supply and demand, and [3] the *customer's* interests for the *lowest* price possible, regardless of the *other* two stakeholders' interests in the item's pricing number / value.



Truth To Power wrote:
As above.



How is the one, finalized 'price' / cost value *not* straining to serve three different masters, each with their own divergent material *interests* -- if you're going to demur.


ckaihatsu wrote:
The reality is that the *actual* price may not be quite 'valid' for one or the other party -- as in an *inflated* pricing environment. The pricing 'price' valuation is *overextended* as a matter of course in having to reflect three different market pairings *all at once*, for the same *one* item.



Truth To Power wrote:
Anti-economic Marxist gibberish.



The capitalist pricing system is 'perfect', then -- no one's ever felt 'ripped off' -- ?


ckaihatsu wrote:
Will the equity investment into production yield an adequate markup *price*, for *profits* -- ? Has the government *intervened* into the markets, changing their regular activity -- ? Will the renter receive *satisfaction* for the price that they're paying every month -- ?

All of these everyday economic *dramas* / soap-operas are brought to us thanks to the slippages and uncertainties of *capitalism*, where a more *advanced* civilization might have *freed themselves up* by now by socio-economically-materially *resolving* such 'material factionalism', as I put it:



Truth To Power wrote:
<Marxist gibberish mercifully snipped>
#15258553
ckaihatsu wrote:In other words, TTP, why do you favor a political-economy of *exchanges*, and exchange values -- ?

Because consensual exchange preserves the participants' rights, and is one of the mechanisms that enable relief of scarcity, the ultimate purpose of all economic activity. The other two mechanisms -- production and allocation -- depend on value (price) information that can only be generated by exchange. Capitalism, by contrast, is founded on forcible theft, not exchange, as private ownership of land (natural resources) is initially obtained by the nonconsensual and uncompensated removal of people's natural individual liberty rights to use such resources. No amount of subsequent exchange can ever erase that inherent criminality, any more than buying and selling slaves subsequent to their capture can make the slave trade a matter of consensual market exchange.
Its functioning makes the very notion of a 'meritocracy' downright *laughable* because the whole system is based on flows of *capital*:

Wrong. The system I favor -- geoism, not capitalism -- is based on relief of scarcity by production, allocation and exchange, all of which which predate capital and are both dependent on and reward participants' merit.
#15258555
ckaihatsu wrote:A regular commodity *sale* is the basic premise / scenario here.

Then money does the job just fine.
Just to *confirm* -- you're saying that *information* (of these various types) has 'no relevance' to the customer / consumer's intrinsic interests for *low pricing* -- ?

No, I'm saying that the consumer's desire to get things at lower prices does not affect the information that generates the market price.
You're just being blithely *dismissive*, of my thesis statement, instead of *addressing* it.

Because it's meaningless gibberish:
How is the one, finalized 'price' / cost value *not* straining to serve three different masters, each with their own divergent material *interests* -- if you're going to demur.

See?
The capitalist pricing system is 'perfect', then -- no one's ever felt 'ripped off' -- ?

There is no such thing as a "capitalist pricing system." Capitalism is a form of ownership that is compatible with all sorts of non-market pricing arrangements.

See?
#15258557
Truth To Power wrote:
Because consensual exchange preserves the participants' rights, and is one of the mechanisms that enable relief of scarcity, the ultimate purpose of all economic activity. The other two mechanisms -- production and allocation -- depend on value (price) information that can only be generated by exchange. Capitalism, by contrast, is founded on forcible theft, not exchange, as private ownership of land (natural resources) is initially obtained by the nonconsensual and uncompensated removal of people's natural individual liberty rights to use such resources. No amount of subsequent exchange can ever erase that inherent criminality, any more than buying and selling slaves subsequent to their capture can make the slave trade a matter of consensual market exchange.


Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. The system I favor -- geoism, not capitalism -- is based on relief of scarcity by production, allocation and exchange, all of which which predate capital and are both dependent on and reward participants' merit.



Have you ever *considered* that relief of scarcity, production of goods and services, and allocation of resources do not *require* the exchanges / markets system -- ?

Even *today* we have mega-corporations like Amazon that take your info online and then may have the product shipped *directly* from the manufacturer to you, the consumer. That's 'direct distribution', and the *other* component of the communist political economy is 'free-access'. Together those two components / aspects completely *obviate* any need for conventional economic 'exchanges', and [exchange] 'value' / prices.

I'll suggest the following diagram illustration as a depiction of how a *non*-exchange, *post-capitalist* approach to social distribution could potentially be arranged.


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
#15258559
ckaihatsu wrote:
A regular commodity *sale* is the basic premise / scenario here.



Truth To Power wrote:
Then money does the job just fine.



No, it doesn't, mostly because money's *valuation* is not the same as its *face values*.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Just to *confirm* -- you're saying that *information* (of these various types) has 'no relevance' to the customer / consumer's intrinsic interests for *low pricing* -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
No, I'm saying that the consumer's desire to get things at lower prices does not affect the information that generates the market price.



But just a *moment* ago you said:


Truth To Power wrote:
Consumer utility is only relevant to value and price to the extent that is expressed in demand.



So the point here is 'Does the consumer's interest for lower prices affect the *demand-side* of the economic exchange at all -- ?'

Does consumer economic demand *impact* on value and price at all -- ?

I'm arguing that consumer economic demand *does* affect the market-pricing information that's part and parcel of the markets mechanism. Greater demand, as for petroleum or natural gas, will enable the seller to fetch *higher prices* than usual, 'profiteering', thanks to the markets' responsiveness to the value of *money*, overshadowing the consumer's interest for realistic / affordable *pricing* for what they need to buy for their lives and living.

Market pricing is not *nearly* as simple as straight supply-and-demand. There are many *other* factors in the mix that affect moment-by-monent prices, so that no one can really say that market prices are 'pure', or 'dependable', really, even -- note Evergreen, etc.

No-dependable-markets means there's *no meritocracy* to the economy, and definitely no 'accurate' pricing regime, thanks to interceding market-mechanism *exchanges* on the road from the manufacturer to the consumer.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're just being blithely *dismissive*, of my thesis statement, instead of *addressing* it.



Truth To Power wrote:
Because it's meaningless gibberish:



ckaihatsu wrote:
How is the one, finalized 'price' / cost value *not* straining to serve three different masters, each with their own divergent material *interests* -- if you're going to demur.



Truth To Power wrote:
See?



Of course I *don't agree* with your opinionating here -- I maintain that one commodity's market 'price' will be functionally stretched *too thin* to cover the disparate interests of the [1] equity investor, [2] commodity speculator, and [3] consumer.

This means that the resulting price itself is a *zero-sum game* -- higher post-production prices will benefit the *investor* and *speculator*, but not the consumer. *Lower* prices will benefit the *consumer*, but not the investor.


---


Truth To Power wrote:
A price is what something traded for. Production has a cost, not a price.



So 'cost', and/*or* 'price'. It's *not* either-or, as you're positing.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The capitalist pricing system is 'perfect', then -- no one's ever felt 'ripped off' -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
There is no such thing as a "capitalist pricing system." Capitalism is a form of ownership that is compatible with all sorts of non-market pricing arrangements.

See?



What the hell is a 'non-market pricing arrangement' -- ?

You were just *touting* the bounty of *market* pricing arrangements:


Truth To Power wrote:
Then money does the job just fine.
#15258561

Production takes place, they claim, according to the ‘law of supply and demand’. Demand depends upon the choices individuals make, the margins by which they prefer some things to others as shown by the way they spend their money. Supply depends upon the cost of producing goods – how much it costs to employ the workers and to use the tools they work on. And something will be produced whenever the extra amount people are prepared to pay for it equals the extra cost of producing it.

Wonderful graphs can be constructed from these theories with supply moving in one direction and demand moving in the other, with what is finally produced depending on where the two graphs meet. The trouble is, these graphs in reality explain nothing since they do not explain where supply and demand come from in the first place. On the demand side they do not explain why the desires of some people (rich landowners, property millionaires or heads of privatised industries) translate themselves into ‘effective demand’, ie demand backed up by hard cash, while the desperate needs of other people (the unemployed, the low paid, the hungry peoples of Africa and Latin America) are ignored. On the supply side they do not explain why things which are desperately needed are not produced when the resources for them exist in abundance.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman ... onemad.htm
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]