A question for our Marxists - Page 18 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15176287
ckaihatsu wrote:
As already cited, I'd say 'sales' and 'account executive'.



wat0n wrote:
How so? Both are handled through the app.



(Already covered this -- customer must be satisfied with the on-the-ground service, etc.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So then you're tacitly admitting that there *are no* executive-type 'perks' or material 'incentives' offered to the service provider -- the provider of the service commodity.



wat0n wrote:
Higher payments early into the providing the service is not an incentive to you? :eh:



No, I already pointed out that this is 'gamification', and not actual *material incentives* (wages and benefits) to the worker.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Perhaps, then, you can explain why only the business-*internal* (necessarily white-collar) personnel receive material incentives. Shouldn't the commodity service providers receive the lion's share of the revenue since they're the ones producing the commodities that are sold -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Since when is this the case?



Since the beginning of wage labor and wages.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No disagreement -- are you *sure* that there are no cases where an inventor simply went straight-to-market with their creation, and got sales strictly through word-of-mouth -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if that had happened, particularly before mass media became a thing. However, it's often more profitable to just take the effort to actually market your invention.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a blurry-line, though -- when there's *so much* that's spread around internally, to the business personnel, that means there's less available for the business itself, and then financialization is necessary to increase the exchange-value-size of the business without expanding its *operations* and *net output* at all, and certainly without *increasing wages*. At *that* rate, pretty soon the production operation takes a back-seat to the *financial vehicle* that it's become (a monster), and so then it's a *Ponzi scheme* moreso than it's a productive enterprise. With government bailouts it's a *zombie corporation*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company



wat0n wrote:
Of course there is an optimization involved here. It's one reason why formalizing your model is actually useful.



What model?

And, there's no 'optimization' of finance capital, and financialization -- I just noted that it's a runaway *monster*, always, that inevitably becomes a *Ponzi* scheme. In the past two decades it's been pulling in *government* public funds as well.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
That's how it's been addressed by the world powers in the 20th century -- by *two* world wars, not to mention the preceding *regional* European wars of prior centuries.



wat0n wrote:
And yet the experience from those two world wars is precisely what deters war now.



I would certainly hope so, but I think it's moreso that the *political terrain* has now been stabilized, plus nuclear annihilation wouldn't be worth it, for *any* party / nationalist entity.

Much that's *economic* has also been established, and due to capitalism's declining rate of profit there's less to fuss over, anyway, especially with increased mechanization / computerization / automation.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why isn't *wage labor* being materially incentivized, so that workers are given a *real alternative* to pandemic payments? Where's the incentive?



wat0n wrote:
Because it was hazardous to get people back to work. Things are opening up now though.



I'll *clarify* -- here's from a recent news article:



Workers were tired before the pandemic. Now they're reaching a breaking point.

"These guys are just dumbasses if they actually think that the UI is the problem and not the wage," Matt Mies, an unemployed 28-year-old, told Insider.

He was referring to the dozens of Republican governors who have cited a so-called labor shortage, which they've blamed on the "disincentive" created by an expanded federal unemployment benefit from President Joe Biden's stimulus package. The leaders, who govern nearly half of the 50 states, have moved to cancel the benefit early, stripping it from millions within weeks.

[...]

Mies, who was a ground-crew worker in Hollywood before the pandemic, said most jobs like his had moved out of the area, but that's not the problem. "I just think that UI has just at least fixed everyone's brain enough to see how f---ed up the wages are," he said.

[...]

"Everybody should get a living wage," Scott Heide, an unemployed 35-year-old in Florida, told Insider. He said people getting more money staying home than working was "outrageous," but not for the reasons that labor-shortage critics cite. "I think if employers paid their employees a living wage, that would make a huge difference," he said.

[...]

Even in the 27 states that haven't prematurely ended the federal UI benefit, the boost is set to lapse in September. That includes programs like Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which extended eligibility for benefits and the number of weeks people could receive them. When both of those vanish, their recipients will no longer have any UI.

Payment freezes, such as the federal eviction moratorium and a pause to student-loan payments, will also expire in the fall. This spate of deadlines has been referred to as a "fiscal cliff," with millions of Americans on the brink of losing several forms of economic relief.



https://www.businessinsider.com/labor-s ... ges-2021-5



https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/redmarx ... tml#p25589



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah -- what do you think would be appropriate uses of eminent domain by the government?

Obviously the precedent is *interstate highways*, but why not to reclaim disused land? How about the same for *vacant apartments*, so as to provide *housing* that's available, to those who need it?

What's your position on these issues?



wat0n wrote:
My point is that it's already being used in the case you mentioned. In fact, in some jurisdictions you could actually squat on abandoned property and it becomes yours after some time.



Okay, then what about for *vacant rental units*, so as to provide *housing* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I argue for Universal Basic *Services*, so as to provide the public *services*, and concomitant *jobs* for such customized treatment, instead of the coarse UBI 'block grant' approach.

Banking got bailed-out in 2008-2009, so why not the average person? What does your 'social safety net' look like, exactly?



wat0n wrote:
Haven't plenty of people been bailed out during this pandemic?



You're thinking 'UBI', though -- I advocate Universal Basic *Services*, so as to recover from Trump's *austerity* policies (going back several decades / presidencies).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again -- why not *underwriting* and *bailouts* for everyday living -- ?

Then these potential employees wouldn't have to face market turbulence at all to do what they *want* to do in the economy, to provide a necessary *service* to the public.

Companies got bailed-out with public funds in 2008-2009, and then again in 2020. Are you a supply-sider -- ?



wat0n wrote:
They weren't simply "bailed out". They were bought by the government and resold for profit. Can you do that with the average Joe?



They *weren't* turned into profitable companies, though:



In political economy, a zombie company is a company that needs bailouts in order to operate, or an indebted company that is able to repay the interest on its debts but not repay the principal.



Zombie companies are indebted businesses that, although generating cash, after covering running costs, fixed costs (wages, rates, rent) they only have enough funds to service the interest on their loans, but not the debt itself.[1] As such, they are generally dependent on refinancing of maturing debt for their continued existence, and may face solvency risks should interest rates rise or investors withdraw from further financing.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you elaborate on what you mean by 'cancel culture' -- ? Is it *this*:



wat0n wrote:
That's a good definition, yes.



Okay, so you're *dismissive* of civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter, and any *funding* for such, because such politics is *critical*, politically, which you term 'cancel culture'.

Effectively, *you're* just being dismissive and 'cancel-ing' without even addressing the *issues* raised by civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter -- particularly killer cops and police brutality.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You already said that both blue-collar (manufacturing) labor, *and* white-collar / pink-collar (professional health care) labor can both be *collectivized* in labor-organization, implying *collective bargaining* power for both.



wat0n wrote:
I'm not sure about what does this have to do with which unions have more bargaining power.



If you're interested in this kind of *academic* topic then you can go *research* it, if you like.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The costs that workers face have *always* been large, hence the millennia-long predicament of the working class. It's ultimately a *rigged system*, though, so I don't think there's any way to 'sidestep' the necessity of proletarian revolution.



wat0n wrote:
But in times of technical change, where some occupations simply disappear, those workers face much steeper costs than whatever you have in mind.



Oh, you're changing the *scale* of analysis again -- for any given laid-off worker there could always be government *assistance*, as currently, with the pandemic, and you've expressed support for job *training* programs, as well.

But, regarding the whole *system* of capitalism, it's ultimately *unreformable*, and workers would collectively be far better off not having to work for *bosses*, but rather for *themselves*, collectively, worldwide -- hence revolution.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not even addressing the historical event that I provided. Start with *that*.



wat0n wrote:
Which one, the invention of that plough? Or you mean the comment about bourgeois institutions and counter-revolution I would like you to elaborate on?



This was the bourgeois counterrevolution that *tipped the scales* against revolution in Europe:



According to the predominant opinion of modern historians,[20] the establishment of a Bolshevik-style council government in Germany on 9–10 November 1918 was impossible. Yet the Ebert government felt threatened by a coup from the left, and was certainly undermined by the Spartakus movement; thus it co-operated with the Supreme Command and the Freikorps. The brutal actions of the Freikorps during the various revolts estranged many left democrats from the SPD. They regarded the behavior of Ebert, Noske and the other SPD leaders during the revolution as an outright betrayal of their own followers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Re ... revolution



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, you're mixing up 'labor productivity', with 'labor compensation', meaning wages-and-benefits.

Also you're not addressing the *definition* of labor *productivity* that I provided.



wat0n wrote:
I'm commenting on the graph. I actually recall we already had some discussion about this, didn't we?



Feel free to describe your definition of 'productivity'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Technology *itself*, though, doesn't explain why we aren't still using the mouldboard plow for farming. Same for the use of draft animals, etc., which worked reasonably well for thousands of years. Why would we happen to have *industrial* farming these days?



wat0n wrote:
Why not? I mean, new industrial technology is more profitable than ploughing, so it makes sense for agriculture in general to have switched and become based on industrial farming.



But then why didn't that just spontaneously happen *sooner* -- ? And why are some places in the world *still* using draft animals, under conditions of relative feudalism *today*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But even if your counterpart *did* increase productivity it doesn't mean that your counterpart would *pass along* the *benefits* from that increased productivity to *you* (or to me) -- that's exactly what's happened in the economy since the 1970s, and the workers haven't seen any wage increases to match the increase in labor *productivity* that capital has enjoyed over that period, due to increased use of computerization, mechanization, and automation.



wat0n wrote:
As I said, I think we discussed a similar plot before. I recall I brought this compensations series up:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB



Nominal wages isn't the same as *real* wages, which isn't the same as labor *productivity*.
#15176290
ckaihatsu wrote:(Already covered this -- customer must be satisfied with the on-the-ground service, etc.)


That's not the same as being an account exec.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, I already pointed out that this is 'gamification', and not actual *material incentives* (wages and benefits) to the worker.


You are earning more, and it's not like other sectors can't follow a similar strategy.

ckaihatsu wrote:Since the beginning of wage labor and wages.


How do you explain things like this?

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/m ... -9811.html

ckaihatsu wrote:What model?


Whatever theory you have in mind, if you want.

ckaihatsu wrote:And, there's no 'optimization' of finance capital, and financialization -- I just noted that it's a runaway *monster*, always, that inevitably becomes a *Ponzi* scheme. In the past two decades it's been pulling in *government* public funds as well.


Guess that decades of financial engineering never actually happened :eek:

ckaihatsu wrote:I would certainly hope so, but I think it's moreso that the *political terrain* has now been stabilized, plus nuclear annihilation wouldn't be worth it, for *any* party / nationalist entity.


Yes, that's my point.

ckaihatsu wrote:Much that's *economic* has also been established, and due to capitalism's declining rate of profit there's less to fuss over, anyway, especially with increased mechanization / computerization / automation.


Well, if that was true there would actually be more to fuss over.

ckaihatsu wrote:I'll *clarify* -- here's from a recent news article:


Yeah, quoting from those who are likely to benefit from UI is surely as credible as it gets :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, then what about for *vacant rental units*, so as to provide *housing* -- ?


I disagree mostly because they may be vacant only temporarily. In fact, that's what AirBnB and other rental platforms are for...

ckaihatsu wrote:You're thinking 'UBI', though -- I advocate Universal Basic *Services*, so as to recover from Trump's *austerity* policies (going back several decades / presidencies).


Trump didn't follow austerity policies. His administration had huge deficits even prior to the pandemic.

ckaihatsu wrote:They *weren't* turned into profitable companies, though:


Are you sure? They were privatized and are still private, without getting new bailouts.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so you're *dismissive* of civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter, and any *funding* for such, because such politics is *critical*, politically, which you term 'cancel culture'.

Effectively, *you're* just being dismissive and 'cancel-ing' without even addressing the *issues* raised by civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter -- particularly killer cops and police brutality.


It's ironic that you consider movements that go against civil rights like freedom of expression and equality before the law to be for "civil rights". Nonsense.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you're interested in this kind of *academic* topic then you can go *research* it, if you like.


So you don't really have anything intelligent to say about the obvious reality that surgeons have more bargaining power than luxury autoworkers?

ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, you're changing the *scale* of analysis again -- for any given laid-off worker there could always be government *assistance*, as currently, with the pandemic, and you've expressed support for job *training* programs, as well.


Sure, and those programs help alleviate the problem and are thus necessary. But even with them, having your profession basically disappear is a steep cost to pay.

ckaihatsu wrote:But, regarding the whole *system* of capitalism, it's ultimately *unreformable*, and workers would collectively be far better off not having to work for *bosses*, but rather for *themselves*, collectively, worldwide -- hence revolution.


It's odd to see you saying that, given how flexible capitalism has shown to be. Way more than real socialism at that.

ckaihatsu wrote:This was the bourgeois counterrevolution that *tipped the scales* against revolution in Europe:


Still doesn't explain why did working class people join their countries' armies in droves to fight in 1914 and 1915.

ckaihatsu wrote:Feel free to describe your definition of 'productivity'.


There are many ways to define it, actually, and the different definitions can all be useful to consider since they will measure productivity from different perspectives.

ckaihatsu wrote:But then why didn't that just spontaneously happen *sooner* -- ?


The Industrial Revolution? Well, for starters we're still living through it - it hasn't finished, at all.

ckaihatsu wrote:And why are some places in the world *still* using draft animals, under conditions of relative feudalism *today*?


I can think of several reasons, actually. For example, many of those places are contested regions of the world where different societies are fighting for the same land, which depresses investment and represents a much more immediate concern for them than industrialization.

ckaihatsu wrote:Nominal wages isn't the same as *real* wages, which isn't the same as labor *productivity*.


The series is in real terms, and it's not quite as flat as in the graph you posted...
#15176333
Wellsy wrote:And in regard to explaining the value of land, he does have a theory of rent which he elaborates on the work of Smith and Ricardo.
https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpres ... rent-pt-1/
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/view ... rkingpaper
The difficulty of that though is that it is premised on understanding concepts in Capital Volume I and II, as rent comes up in Volume III.


I glanced quickly at the text beyond those 2 links. I noticed the word marginal is used quite often ;).

I found a more condensed version (presumably) here:

Image
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 8016638975

That looks reasonable to me. Now apply the same principles to labor.

Wellsy wrote:But focusing on real wages, a worker can perhaps access greater commodities for their needs, but they also expand the divide between the worker and capitalist class.


No reason to believe that should be the case per se, in terms of factor income.

Wellsy wrote:Marginalists begin with the isolated individual making choices in a vacuum and erect all of their basic ideas upon some simple observations about these choices. As the model becomes increasingly complex, adding in more people, more commodities, money, the division of labor, private property, etc. it is claimed that all of their basic observations still hold.


First, the assumptions made about individual preferences are usually incredibly simple, such as more leisure or more consumption being better. Second, if you want to incorporate preferences informed by society, nothing stops you from doing it.

How is the labour theory of value any better anyway? It must also assume that individual actors (capitalists, workers) are motivated by things like consumption and profit. It's just less formalized.

Wellsy wrote:The emphasis son physiological needs is easier to make a case of in the earlier stages of capitalism, but less so with our industrialized nations.


The Nike sneaker is a bit of an unfair example, because it's a typical example of a need (partially) created by marketing. Most new products I buy are simply better than old ones. I don't need society to tell me that. It's rather that we live in a society that puts high value on getting new and better things.
#15176376
Julian658 wrote:I would like to add that Marx was a rabid anti-semite.

Marx also lived off Engels who came form a wealthy family. Engels paid a salary to Marx that came from the work and sweat of workers in his family businesses.

Marx was not a rabid anti semite. He was a man of his time for whom some of his comments are considered un PC today. Just like Charles Dickens (concerning Jews. Like in Oliver Twist, for instance.)

Marx was also himself a non practicing Jew.

On the Engels support thing. Have you ever heard of an endowed chair at a university?

And Engels was his collaborator and a very good academic and writer himself. I recommend his book "the condition of the working class in England."

He also cowrote The Communist Manifesto and edited and published volumes 2 and 3 of Capital after Marx died.
#15176379
Crantag wrote:Marx was not a rabid anti semite. He was a man of his time for whom some of his comments are considered un PC today. Just like Charles Dickens (concerning Jews. Like in Oliver Twist, for instance.)

Marx was also himself a non practicing Jew.

On the Engels support thing. Have you ever heard of an endowed chair at a university?

And Engels was his collaborator and a very good academic and writer himself. I recommend his book "the condition of the working class in England."

He also cowrote The Communist Manifesto and edited and published volumes 2 and 3 of Capital after Marx died.


I do not judge the past with 2021 criteria. That is called presentism. However, what Marx said about Jews was despicable even if he was himself a Jew.

The money given to Marx came from the work of oppressed laborers and this makes Marx a hypocrite. However, hypocrisy is a condition present in both the right and the left so he gets a pass.

Marx was 100% correct regarding the evils of capitalism. Marx biggest flaw is that he never came up with a workable alternative. Marx also severely misunderstood the human condition.
#15176380
Julian658 wrote:I do not judge the past with 2021 criteria. That is called presentism. However, what Marx said about Jews was despicable even if he was himself a Jew.

The money given to Marx came from the work of oppressed laborers and this makes Marx a hypocrite. However, hypocrisy is a condition present in both the right and the left so he gets a pass.

Marx was 100% correct regarding the evils of capitalism. Marx biggest flaw is that he never came up with a workable alternative. Marx also severely misunderstood the human condition.

No, the trouble is this. You know little about Marx and Marxism, except what you learned from rightwing propaganda.

Engels inherited the mill from his father, and supported Marx because he could. Many university chairs have been created by rich individuals. In their case, Marx and Engels were collaborators (and Engels was a very good scholar who made big contributions to the development of sociology, among other things).

If I had to guess, Engel's workers were probably treated pretty good for the time.

And money is necessary to live in a capitalist society. That is not hypocrisy it is practicality. Marx did not live a luxurious life by any means. He lived rather squalid. He worked in the Reading Room of the London Museum.
#15176382
Crantag wrote:No, the trouble is this. You know little about Marx and Marxism, except what you learned from rightwing propaganda.

Engels inherited the mill from his father, and supported Marx because he could. Many university chairs have been created by rich individuals. In their case, Marx and Engels were collaborators (and Engels was a very good scholar who made big contributions to the development of sociology, among other things).

If I had to guess, Engel's workers were probably treated pretty good for the time.

And money is necessary to live in a capitalist society. That is not hypocrisy it is practicality. Marx did not live a luxurious life by any means. He lived rather squalid. He worked in the Reading Room of the London Museum.


i don't doubt that Marx and Engels had good intentions. And as you said they were great men and deserve recognition. Nevertheless, socialism in the classical sense does not work in 2021. At beast all we have is capitalism that sponsors social programs.

In any event capitalism culminates in socialism, but it will take some time. Socialism will be a reality but the journey there was not what Marx envisioned.
#15176385
Julian658 wrote:i don't doubt that Marx and Engels had good intentions. And as you said they were great men and deserve recognition. Nevertheless, socialism in the classical sense does not work in 2021. At beast all we have is capitalism that sponsors social programs.

In any event capitalism culminates in socialism, but it will take some time. Socialism will be a reality but the journey there was not what Marx envisioned.

I agree with this. Communism leads to big institutions and big institutions lead to corruption.

Human civilization might yet reach a point where communism is feasible, but such a thing might take the form of hybrid technocracy-communism. (Which I am not an advocate for either.)

I am an anarchist (I believe governance is needed, but that it should be as local as possible).

And I agree that mixed capitalism-socialism is probably the most successful system which has been achieved. (In terms of human well-being; not necessarily in terms of blind economic growth. Although, capitalism has a tendency to stagnate, which is one of the things Marx and his generations of disciples can be credited with having demonstrated).
#15176390
ckaihatsu wrote:
(Already covered this -- customer must be satisfied with the on-the-ground service, etc.)



wat0n wrote:
That's not the same as being an account exec.



Can we compromise on 'customer service' -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, I already pointed out that this is 'gamification', and not actual *material incentives* (wages and benefits) to the worker.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You are earning more, and it's not like other sectors can't follow a similar strategy.



You're *dissembling* instead of dealing with the issue -- gamification and/or actual material incentives *per piece* of work. (Since it's piecework.)


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Perhaps, then, you can explain why only the business-*internal* (necessarily white-collar) personnel receive material incentives. Shouldn't the commodity service providers receive the lion's share of the revenue since they're the ones producing the commodities that are sold -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Since when is this the case?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Since the beginning of wage labor and wages.



wat0n wrote:
How do you explain things like this?

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/m ... -9811.html



You're being oblique again, instead of dealing with the topic of the / each segment *directly*.

A 401(k) plan isn't an *incentive* -- it's a *diminishing* of workers compensation from the former societal norm of *pensions*.

And you're sidestepping the core issue of why there's an *executive*, *non-productive* tier of business-internal positions that are *privileged* in their compensation compared to the *economically exploitative* wages that commodity-producers / workers get.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's a blurry-line, though -- when there's *so much* that's spread around internally, to the business personnel, that means there's less available for the business itself, and then financialization is necessary to increase the exchange-value-size of the business without expanding its *operations* and *net output* at all, and certainly without *increasing wages*. At *that* rate, pretty soon the production operation takes a back-seat to the *financial vehicle* that it's become (a monster), and so then it's a *Ponzi scheme* moreso than it's a productive enterprise. With government bailouts it's a *zombie corporation*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company



wat0n wrote:
Of course there is an optimization involved here. It's one reason why formalizing your model is actually useful.



ckaihatsu wrote:
What model?



wat0n wrote:
Whatever theory you have in mind, if you want.



I don't think you understand -- the 'labor credits' model I developed requires the *overthrow of capitalism* as a *prerequisite* for its proper functioning. Labor hours, on a fully *liberated* basis, can only be realistically compared to one another once labor itself is no longer commodified (and sold to employers).

Here's the model and a link to my labor credits FAQ, and you can always begin by asking a specific question about some *aspect* of a post-capitalist collectivized political economy.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And, there's no 'optimization' of finance capital, and financialization -- I just noted that it's a runaway *monster*, always, that inevitably becomes a *Ponzi* scheme. In the past two decades it's been pulling in *government* public funds as well.



wat0n wrote:
Guess that decades of financial engineering never actually happened :eek:



Or you could simply ask what it was all for when the stock market had to be *bailed out* with public funds in 2020.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I would certainly hope so, but I think it's moreso that the *political terrain* has now been stabilized, plus nuclear annihilation wouldn't be worth it, for *any* party / nationalist entity.



wat0n wrote:
Yes, that's my point.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Much that's *economic* has also been established, and due to capitalism's declining rate of profit there's less to fuss over, anyway, especially with increased mechanization / computerization / automation.



wat0n wrote:
Well, if that was true there would actually be more to fuss over.



No, it's the *opposite* -- again you're not learning the lessons of market saturation, falling prices, deflation, and the declining rate of profit.

Look at where *interest rates* have been for the past 20+ years -- is 1% interest any kind of a market to really *fight over* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll *clarify* -- here's from a recent news article:



wat0n wrote:
Yeah, quoting from those who are likely to benefit from UI is surely as credible as it gets :roll:



Again you're *sidestepping* the crux of the topic -- if you're going to tout 'incentives' so much, then you need to apply 'incentives' to the *labor market* as well. Why aren't unemployed workers being *incentivized* to take jobs, if there's such an aching lack of employees for so many unfilled job vacancies?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, thanks -- what about abandoned *real estate* -- ? Should the government apparatus (cops, etc.) be actively used to *guard* and *protect* parcels of land that are obviously in disuse? Shouldn't such be considered 'unclaimed' and be released to the *public* for actual active usage?



wat0n wrote:
That's an interesting question. I think eminent domain could apply here, right?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah -- what do you think would be appropriate uses of eminent domain by the government?

Obviously the precedent is *interstate highways*, but why not to reclaim disused land? How about the same for *vacant apartments*, so as to provide *housing* that's available, to those who need it?

What's your position on these issues?



wat0n wrote:
My point is that it's already being used in the case you mentioned. In fact, in some jurisdictions you could actually squat on abandoned property and it becomes yours after some time.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then what about for *vacant rental units*, so as to provide *housing* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
I disagree mostly because they may be vacant only temporarily. In fact, that's what AirBnB and other rental platforms are for...



Okay, but what about the overall *vacancy rate* -- ? It's always a percentage of *all* units that have been built:



Rental vacancy rate

The rental vacancy rate is an economic indicator which measures the percentage of rental homes that are vacant.

Residential vacancies

In the United States the Census Bureau keeps track of vacancy rates.[1] In Canada Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation measures vacancy rates of 25 metropolitan areas and for the 75 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) across the country [2] and publishes the findings semi-annually in June and December.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rental_vacancy_rate



So the point is that since vacant apartment rental units are available *now*, the government could certainly use *eminent domain* to put that housing to *active use* instead of spending money on policing and protecting *empty* apartments / housing.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're thinking 'UBI', though -- I advocate Universal Basic *Services*, so as to recover from Trump's *austerity* policies (going back several decades / presidencies).



wat0n wrote:
Trump didn't follow austerity policies. His administration had huge deficits even prior to the pandemic.




The Brutal Austerity of Trump’s Huge 2020 Budget

The president’s wish list for 2020 mixes massive military spending boosts with slashes to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and other domestic needs.

By Kriston Capps

March 11, 2019, 4:57 PM CDT



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... and-cities



My point remains that Universal Basic Services is *better* / more-anti-austerity, than UBI because it's more *customized* to the individual (than the UBI 'block grant' approach).


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
They *weren't* turned into profitable companies, though:


In political economy, a zombie company is a company that needs bailouts in order to operate, or an indebted company that is able to repay the interest on its debts but not repay the principal.

Zombie companies are indebted businesses that, although generating cash, after covering running costs, fixed costs (wages, rates, rent) they only have enough funds to service the interest on their loans, but not the debt itself.[1] As such, they are generally dependent on refinancing of maturing debt for their continued existence, and may face solvency risks should interest rates rise or investors withdraw from further financing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_company



wat0n wrote:
Are you sure? They were privatized and are still private, without getting new bailouts.



You're misunderstanding how zombie companies *operate* -- their bad debts get *refinanced* through government *underwriting* so that they can keep pushing back *repayments*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so you're *dismissive* of civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter, and any *funding* for such, because such politics is *critical*, politically, which you term 'cancel culture'.

Effectively, *you're* just being dismissive and 'cancel-ing' without even addressing the *issues* raised by civil rights movements like Black Lives Matter -- particularly killer cops and police brutality.



wat0n wrote:
It's ironic that you consider movements that go against civil rights like freedom of expression and equality before the law to be for "civil rights". Nonsense.



What about the civil rights of not-getting-shot-and-killed-by-police-over-nothing. I'd say that that qualifies as 'civil rights'.



According to The Washington Post, police officers shot and killed 1,001 people in the United States in 2019. About half of those killed were white, and one quarter were black, making the rate of deaths for black Americans (31 fatal shootings per million) more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans (13 fatal shootings per million).[93][94] The Washington Post also counts 13 unarmed black Americans shot dead by police in 2019.[95]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liv ... sive_force



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
If you're interested in this kind of *academic* topic then you can go *research* it, if you like.



wat0n wrote:
So you don't really have anything intelligent to say about the obvious reality that surgeons have more bargaining power than luxury autoworkers?



Where's your concrete *data*, academic?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll note that we still have to see how many of the major *life expenses* play-out -- home prices are obviously the major expense for most people, and 3D printing is just *starting* to cut into that, at the bleeding-edge. Ditto for car prices, where used vehicles have been quite affordable lately, due to the global glut of production.



wat0n wrote:
We have to wait and see, if the issue of land can be dealt with then it'll be great. But even then, the costs these workers face are indeed large.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The costs that workers face have *always* been large, hence the millennia-long predicament of the working class. It's ultimately a *rigged system*, though, so I don't think there's any way to 'sidestep' the necessity of proletarian revolution.



wat0n wrote:
But in times of technical change, where some occupations simply disappear, those workers face much steeper costs than whatever you have in mind.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you're changing the *scale* of analysis again -- for any given laid-off worker there could always be government *assistance*, as currently, with the pandemic, and you've expressed support for job *training* programs, as well.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, and those programs help alleviate the problem and are thus necessary. But even with them, having your profession basically disappear is a steep cost to pay.



Of course -- but the *tradeoff* is being *freer*, in having one's life-necessary *needs*, and even *wants*, met, by a rising standard of living due to automated mass industrial production, which wouldn't even *need* workers, or jobs, at some point.

It's as-if you were bemoaning the loss of *slavery* because people then had 'steady work' -- which is missing the point, of course.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But, regarding the whole *system* of capitalism, it's ultimately *unreformable*, and workers would collectively be far better off not having to work for *bosses*, but rather for *themselves*, collectively, worldwide -- hence revolution.



wat0n wrote:
It's odd to see you saying that, given how flexible capitalism has shown to be. Way more than real socialism at that.



Where's the 'real socialism' -- ? I certainly haven't seen any of it, or heard of it existing at any point in history -- remember that it requires *workers* to be collectively in *total control* of all of society's production.

Capital isn't 'flexible' for those whose *labor* is to be expropriated -- capitalism *takes* surplus labor value, for every hour of every job, from every worker, 24/7/365.

Workers have *no interest* in allowing this system to keep taking surplus labor value -- it's far more advantageous for workers to simply *control* their own productivity, collectively, thereby cutting-out the middleman of the capitalist employers / 'bosses'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
This was the bourgeois counterrevolution that *tipped the scales* against revolution in Europe:


According to the predominant opinion of modern historians,[20] the establishment of a Bolshevik-style council government in Germany on 9–10 November 1918 was impossible. Yet the Ebert government felt threatened by a coup from the left, and was certainly undermined by the Spartakus movement; thus it co-operated with the Supreme Command and the Freikorps. The brutal actions of the Freikorps during the various revolts estranged many left democrats from the SPD. They regarded the behavior of Ebert, Noske and the other SPD leaders during the revolution as an outright betrayal of their own followers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Re ... revolution



wat0n wrote:
Still doesn't explain why did working class people join their countries' armies in droves to fight in 1914 and 1915.



Since *you're* the academic between the two of us here, maybe that would be another 'thesis' for you to pursue.

Here's some more detail about the historical event itself:



The Spartacist uprising (German: Spartakusaufstand), also known as the January uprising (Januaraufstand), was a general strike (and the armed battles accompanying it) in Berlin from 5 to 12 January 1919. Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution, and two of the perceived paths forward were social democracy and a council republic similar to the one which had been established by the Bolsheviks in Russia. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) led by Friedrich Ebert and the radical communists of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who had previously founded and led the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund).

The revolt was improvised and small-scale and was quickly crushed by the superior firepower of government troops,[3] but Berlin was largely undisturbed.[3] Long-distance trains continued to run on time and newspapers remained on sale, as the rebels passively confined themselves to only a few select locations.[3] Similar uprisings occurred and were suppressed in Bremen, the Ruhr, Rhineland, Saxony, Hamburg, Thuringia and Bavaria, and a round of bloodier street battles occurred in Berlin in March.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Feel free to describe your definition of 'productivity'.



wat0n wrote:
There are many ways to define it, actually, and the different definitions can all be useful to consider since they will measure productivity from different perspectives.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But then why didn't that just spontaneously happen *sooner* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
The Industrial Revolution? Well, for starters we're still living through it - it hasn't finished, at all.



Okay, so you're *unable* to address 'combined and uneven development':



Uneven and combined development (or unequal and combined development or uneven development) is a concept in Marxian political economy [1] intended to describe dynamics of human history involving the interaction of capitalist laws of motion and starting world market conditions whose national units are highly heterogeneous.

The idea was applied systematically by Leon Trotsky around the turn of the 20th century to the case of Russia, when he was analyzing the developmental possibilities for industrialization in the Russian empire, and the likely future of the Tsarist regime in Russia.[2]

The notion was then generalized and became the basis of Trotskyist politics of permanent revolution,[3] which implied a rejection of the Stalinist idea that a human society inevitably developed through a uni-linear sequence of necessary "stages".



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven_an ... evelopment



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And why are some places in the world *still* using draft animals, under conditions of relative feudalism *today*?



wat0n wrote:
I can think of several reasons, actually. For example, many of those places are contested regions of the world where different societies are fighting for the same land, which depresses investment and represents a much more immediate concern for them than industrialization.



Prevailing warlordism, in other words, because bourgeois capitalist development didn't get around to developing social *infrastructure* in such less-profitable / less-desirable portions of the world's globe -- more likely European capital *colonized* and *plundered* such areas and extracted much mineral and labor wealth, leaving those areas -- Africa, Asia, Latin America -- undeveloped to this day.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nominal wages isn't the same as *real* wages, which isn't the same as labor *productivity*.



wat0n wrote:
The series is in real terms, and it's not quite as flat as in the graph you posted...



Again, what *you* posted was *nominal wages*, which isn't the same thing as *real* wages -- or a comparison of real wages to labor productivity, which is the data that *I* provided.
#15176392
Crantag wrote:I agree with this. Communism leads to big institutions and big institutions lead to corruption.

Human civilization might yet reach a point where communism is feasible, but such a thing might take the form of hybrid technocracy-communism. (Which I am not an advocate for either.)

I am an anarchist (I believe governance is needed, but that it should be as local as possible).

And I agree that mixed capitalism-socialism is probably the most successful system which has been achieved. (In terms of human well-being; not necessarily in terms of blind economic growth. Although, capitalism has a tendency to stagnate, which is one of the things Marx and his generations of disciples can be credited with having demonstrated).


The analysis of Marx is correct. However, the way to get did not take into consideration human greed which is ingrained into our DNA as a result of evolution (this assumes that the greedy ones had a better chance to pass DNA to the next generation).

The transition of capitalism to socialism started a long time ago. Capitalists understand that social programs are needed to avoid a revolution. That is where it starts. To this you can add technological progress and much more wealth creation. There is no limit to wealth creation and at some point wealth will be so ubiquitous that it will become redundant and not a big deal. We already see how people like Bill Gates have so much wealth that he could never expend it. At best all he can do is give it away. The piling up of wealth will continue to such a point that wealth will have to be shared with the masses.

Here is just one example of how it works:

Let's look at something as simple as a cell phone.

The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X commercial portable cellular phone received approval from the U.S. FCC on September 21, 1983. A full charge took roughly 10 hours, and it offered 30 minutes of talk time. It also offered an LED display for dialing or recall of one of 30 phone numbers. It was priced at $3,995.

In 1983 only the elite had cell phones. They were of poor performance by today's standards and rather expensive. Todays homeless people qualify for a free cell phone that is a 1000 times better than the pricey one 1n 1983. This is all due to technology and greater creation of excess wealth.
#15176393
If you don't mind....


Crantag wrote:
I agree with this. Communism leads to big institutions and big institutions lead to corruption.



By this you actually mean *Stalinism*, or a bureaucratic-elitist separatist professional administration that does not itself produce commodities, so that everyone *else* has to produce commodities for them, and for all of society.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Crantag wrote:
Human civilization might yet reach a point where communism is feasible,



What would be the material *minimum* for communism to be feasible?

It *emerged*, briefly, in the beginning of the 20th century, but was definitely overshadowed by *two* bourgeois international world wars.


Crantag wrote:
but such a thing might take the form of hybrid technocracy-communism. (Which I am not an advocate for either.)



What's a 'hybrid technocracy-communism', exactly? (First I've heard of it.)


Crantag wrote:
I am an anarchist (I believe governance is needed, but that it should be as local as possible).



How do the representatives of such 'governance' attain their positions of power?


Crantag wrote:
And I agree that mixed capitalism-socialism is probably the most successful system which has been achieved.



Where? When?


Crantag wrote:
(In terms of human well-being; not necessarily in terms of blind economic growth. Although, capitalism has a tendency to stagnate, which is one of the things Marx and his generations of disciples can be credited with having demonstrated).
#15176399
ckaihatsu wrote:If you don't mind....





By this you actually mean *Stalinism*, or a bureaucratic-elitist separatist professional administration that does not itself produce commodities, so that everyone *else* has to produce commodities for them, and for all of society.

Not just Stlanism. I don't trust large institutions. China is corrupt as hell. (But, in the case of recent China, a Chinese guy once described it as 'the most corrupt system that works'.)

The USSR under Lenin did achieve very high growth though. I know less about the social conditions. I also know little about conditions in say Yugoslavia. I don't know how rampant corruption is in say Cuba or North Korea. My proposal was more a surmising.


What would be the material *minimum* for communism to be feasible?

It *emerged*, briefly, in the beginning of the 20th century, but was definitely overshadowed by *two* bourgeois international world wars.


One cannot easily predict future conditions.


What's a 'hybrid technocracy-communism', exactly? (First I've heard of it.)


A phrase which I just coined. Which is why you haven't heard of it.

Essentially if computers could monitor relations so as to identify and punish corruption, and effectively allocate and distribute resources, through algorithms and AI. To me, a rather dystopian preposition. (And again, it is my original ideas, based on random musings.)

How do the representatives of such 'governance' attain their positions of power?


There would be no one-size-fits all approach. It would depend on the independent localities. And could amount to any method we know of, really.



Where? When?

Europe. Japan. Canada. Etc.
#15176400
ckaihatsu wrote:Can we compromise on 'customer service' -- ?


Sure, but that's expected from any worker and also any business owner that has to interact with buyers.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *dissembling* instead of dealing with the issue -- gamification and/or actual material incentives *per piece* of work. (Since it's piecework.)


I'm not. This gamification you are referring to has real world rewards among other things.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're being oblique again, instead of dealing with the topic of the / each segment *directly*.

A 401(k) plan isn't an *incentive* -- it's a *diminishing* of workers compensation from the former societal norm of *pensions*.

And you're sidestepping the core issue of why there's an *executive*, *non-productive* tier of business-internal positions that are *privileged* in their compensation compared to the *economically exploitative* wages that commodity-producers / workers get.


A 401(k) plan is voluntary for workers (for starters) and the paper does mention other incentives directed at manufacturing workers, including profit sharing, gain sharing and the like among some of the respondents ("An October 1997 survey of 427 companies found that almost every company was using some kind of positive-incentive bonus plan to motivate employees to raise output to meet customer orders. Of the 427 companies surveyed, 103 were machine-tool producers that used a variety of incentive plans to boost productivity and quality (Table I).").

ckaihatsu wrote:I don't think you understand -- the 'labor credits' model I developed requires the *overthrow of capitalism* as a *prerequisite* for its proper functioning. Labor hours, on a fully *liberated* basis, can only be realistically compared to one another once labor itself is no longer commodified (and sold to employers).

Here's the model and a link to my labor credits FAQ, and you can always begin by asking a specific question about some *aspect* of a post-capitalist collectivized political economy.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


But that's more like a political program. I'm more interested, given the OP, in models used to explain reality.

ckaihatsu wrote:Or you could simply ask what it was all for when the stock market had to be *bailed out* with public funds in 2020.


Because of COVID...? In any event, pretty much everyone got bailouts this time around.

ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's the *opposite* -- again you're not learning the lessons of market saturation, falling prices, deflation, and the declining rate of profit.

Look at where *interest rates* have been for the past 20+ years -- is 1% interest any kind of a market to really *fight over* -- ?


Interest rates aren't the same as profits, plus if the latter were smaller and harder to come by I can imagine the fight for them among rent seekers to be a lot harsher. Isn't that why capitalism would collapse according to Marxists?

ckaihatsu wrote:Again you're *sidestepping* the crux of the topic -- if you're going to tout 'incentives' so much, then you need to apply 'incentives' to the *labor market* as well. Why aren't unemployed workers being *incentivized* to take jobs, if there's such an aching lack of employees for so many unfilled job vacancies?


You do realize that large UI payments to exactly the opposite, right?

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, but what about the overall *vacancy rate* -- ? It's always a percentage of *all* units that have been built:

So the point is that since vacant apartment rental units are available *now*, the government could certainly use *eminent domain* to put that housing to *active use* instead of spending money on policing and protecting *empty* apartments / housing.


Why not wait until people actually rent them? I don't see a reason to use eminent domain if the property owner is investing in maintaining those properties and have them ready for rent.

ckaihatsu wrote:My point remains that Universal Basic Services is *better* / more-anti-austerity, than UBI because it's more *customized* to the individual (than the UBI 'block grant' approach).


I'd say UBI would likely do better in fulfilling that goal since recipients can spend it as they wish.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're misunderstanding how zombie companies *operate* -- their bad debts get *refinanced* through government *underwriting* so that they can keep pushing back *repayments*.


I know, but those banks aren't zombie corporations.

ckaihatsu wrote:What about the civil rights of not-getting-shot-and-killed-by-police-over-nothing. I'd say that that qualifies as 'civil rights'.


Sure, not that this justifies what I mentioned above.

ckaihatsu wrote:Where's your concrete *data*, academic?


Do you really want to compare earnings between both?

ckaihatsu wrote:Of course -- but the *tradeoff* is being *freer*, in having one's life-necessary *needs*, and even *wants*, met, by a rising standard of living due to automated mass industrial production, which wouldn't even *need* workers, or jobs, at some point.

It's as-if you were bemoaning the loss of *slavery* because people then had 'steady work' -- which is missing the point, of course.


Sure, again, it's short-term pain vs greater long-term gain, where the pain falls more heavily over some heads than others. I'm not making a case against technological development, that ought to happen either way, but the problem is still there and important.

ckaihatsu wrote:Where's the 'real socialism' -- ? I certainly haven't seen any of it, or heard of it existing at any point in history -- remember that it requires *workers* to be collectively in *total control* of all of society's production.


I think you realize I'm referring to real-world socialism, not the true scotsman version.

ckaihatsu wrote:Capital isn't 'flexible' for those whose *labor* is to be expropriated -- capitalism *takes* surplus labor value, for every hour of every job, from every worker, 24/7/365.

Workers have *no interest* in allowing this system to keep taking surplus labor value -- it's far more advantageous for workers to simply *control* their own productivity, collectively, thereby cutting-out the middleman of the capitalist employers / 'bosses'.


Maybe, but this doesn't negate capitalism's historically proven flexibility.

ckaihatsu wrote:Since *you're* the academic between the two of us here, maybe that would be another 'thesis' for you to pursue.

Here's some more detail about the historical event itself:


I repeat my point: How does this explain workers serving their countries' armies en masse circa 1914? Indeed, this question is what led Mussolini to ditch socialism in the 1920s IIRC.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, so you're *unable* to address 'combined and uneven development':


Not at all, but it's an important point to consider - although some countries have moved along further than others, it seems the process of development is still ongoing.

ckaihatsu wrote:Prevailing warlordism, in other words, because bourgeois capitalist development didn't get around to developing social *infrastructure* in such less-profitable / less-desirable portions of the world's globe -- more likely European capital *colonized* and *plundered* such areas and extracted much mineral and labor wealth, leaving those areas -- Africa, Asia, Latin America -- undeveloped to this day.


Is it really that simple? Would you invest in a country that is e.g. in the midst of civil strife?

ckaihatsu wrote:Again, what *you* posted was *nominal wages*, which isn't the same thing as *real* wages -- or a comparison of real wages to labor productivity, which is the data that *I* provided.


No, it was a series of real compensation
#15176419
Crantag wrote:
Not just Stlanism. I don't trust large institutions. China is corrupt as hell. (But, in the case of recent China, a Chinese guy once described it as 'the most corrupt system that works'.)



Just saw *this* today:


China Boosts Support for Myanmar Army, Countering U.S. Sanctions

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -sanctions


Crantag wrote:
The USSR under Lenin did achieve very high growth though. I know less about the social conditions. I also know little about conditions in say Yugoslavia. I don't know how rampant corruption is in say Cuba or North Korea. My proposal was more a surmising.



Lenin *preceded* the USSR -- which was basically *Stalin*, after Lenin's death:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_ ... government


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What would be the material *minimum* for communism to be feasible?

It *emerged*, briefly, in the beginning of the 20th century, but was definitely overshadowed by *two* bourgeois international world wars.



Crantag wrote:
One cannot easily predict future conditions.



The international warfare, at least in hindsight, can't be said to be 'out of the blue', either -- the various regional empires had been expanding, and it was *inevitable* that they would eventually encounter each other's turf.


WW1 - Oversimplified (Part 1) - YouTube




The international bourgeoisie *prefers* ('intramural') world war, though, to the alternative, which was the Bolshevik Revolution, which didn't successfully spread to Germany in 1918-1919.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What's a 'hybrid technocracy-communism', exactly? (First I've heard of it.)



Crantag wrote:
A phrase which I just coined. Which is why you haven't heard of it.

Essentially if computers could monitor relations so as to identify and punish corruption, and effectively allocate and distribute resources, through algorithms and AI. To me, a rather dystopian preposition. (And again, it is my original ideas, based on random musings.)



Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be?


Crantag wrote:
There would be no one-size-fits all approach. It would depend on the independent localities. And could amount to any method we know of, really.



The problem with the localist approach is that there's no *consistency*, or *standards*, from one locality to the next -- what rules would be used to sanction anti-social behavior, and what would prevent anti-social people from simply *moving* to whatever locality that had the *laxest* rules -- ?


---


Crantag wrote:
And I agree that mixed capitalism-socialism is probably the most successful system which has been achieved.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Where? When?



Crantag wrote:
Europe. Japan. Canada. Etc.



Those regions and countries are also known for their *imperialism* -- what good is somewhat-enlightened internal social policies when the entire society is tolerating colonialist *foreign policy*, and financial / militaristic imperialism -- ?
#15176420

Profits are good for investors, of course. And while it’s painful to pay subsidy-free prices for our extravagances, there’s also a certain justice to it. Hiring a private driver to shuttle you across Los Angeles during rush hour should cost more than $16, if everyone in that transaction is being fairly compensated. Getting someone to clean your house, do your laundry or deliver your dinner should be a luxury, if there’s no exploitation involved. The fact that some high-end services are no longer easily affordable by the merely semi-affluent may seem like a worrying development, but maybe it’s a sign of progress.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/tech ... bsidy.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Can we compromise on 'customer service' -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Sure, but that's expected from any worker and also any business owner that has to interact with buyers.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *dissembling* instead of dealing with the issue -- gamification and/or actual material incentives *per piece* of work. (Since it's piecework.)



wat0n wrote:
I'm not. This gamification you are referring to has real world rewards among other things.



I keep *juxtaposing* these alleged gamification "incentives", to *real* incentives (bonuses, profit-sharing) enjoyed by the executive tier that does not produce commodities, nor does it bring in any revenue, yet is rewarded disproportionately to whatever alleged "incentives" are available to the workers within the company's 'gamification' model.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're being oblique again, instead of dealing with the topic of the / each segment *directly*.

A 401(k) plan isn't an *incentive* -- it's a *diminishing* of workers compensation from the former societal norm of *pensions*.

And you're sidestepping the core issue of why there's an *executive*, *non-productive* tier of business-internal positions that are *privileged* in their compensation compared to the *economically exploitative* wages that commodity-producers / workers get.



wat0n wrote:
A 401(k) plan is voluntary for workers (for starters) and the paper does mention other incentives directed at manufacturing workers, including profit sharing, gain sharing and the like among some of the respondents ("An October 1997 survey of 427 companies found that almost every company was using some kind of positive-incentive bonus plan to motivate employees to raise output to meet customer orders. Of the 427 companies surveyed, 103 were machine-tool producers that used a variety of incentive plans to boost productivity and quality (Table I).").



As I said, the shift to 401(k)s has been a *diminishing* of workers benefits:



401(k) vs. Pension Plan: An Overview

A 401(k) plan and pension are both employer-sponsored retirement plans. The biggest difference between the two is that a 401(k) is a defined-contribution plan and a pension is a defined-benefit plan.

A defined-contribution plan allows employees and employers (if they choose) to contribute and invest funds to save for retirement, while a defined-benefit plan provides a specified payment amount in retirement. These crucial differences determine whether the employer or employee bears the investment risks. Pensions have become less common, and 401(k)s have had to pick up the slack, despite being designed as a supplement to traditional pensions rather than as a replacement.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A 401(k) is a retirement plan that employees can contribute to and employers may also make matching contributions.

• With a pension plan, employers fund and guarantee a specific retirement benefit for each employee and take on the risk of doing so.

• Once common, pensions in the private sector are rare and have been replaced by 401(k)s.

• The shift to 401(k)s has placed the burden of saving and investing for retirement⁠—and the risk involved⁠—on employees.



https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... n-plan.asp



---


wat0n wrote:
Of course there is an optimization involved here. It's one reason why formalizing your model is actually useful.



ckaihatsu wrote:
What model?



wat0n wrote:
Whatever theory you have in mind, if you want.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I don't think you understand -- the 'labor credits' model I developed requires the *overthrow of capitalism* as a *prerequisite* for its proper functioning. Labor hours, on a fully *liberated* basis, can only be realistically compared to one another once labor itself is no longer commodified (and sold to employers).

Here's the model and a link to my labor credits FAQ, and you can always begin by asking a specific question about some *aspect* of a post-capitalist collectivized political economy.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



wat0n wrote:
But that's more like a political program. I'm more interested, given the OP, in models used to explain reality.



But *you* yourself welcomed 'whatever theory [I] have in mind' -- and a theory certainly *implies* a political program. Yet you're moving-the-goalposts here even after I provided a post-capitalist model.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



Your concern with the *status quo* context is problematic, because the status quo is currently funding *zombie companies*, at the rate of tens of billions of dollars per month, which was your original concern, and why you welcomed an alternative model in the first place.

Whatever.


---


wat0n wrote:
Guess that decades of financial engineering never actually happened :eek:



ckaihatsu wrote:
Or you could simply ask what it was all for when the stock market had to be *bailed out* with public funds in 2020.



wat0n wrote:
Because of COVID...? In any event, pretty much everyone got bailouts this time around.



Here's the 'optimization' 'financial engineering' that happened *before* the pandemic:



The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA)[a] is a congressional revenue act of the United States signed into law by President Donald Trump which amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Major elements of the changes include reducing tax rates for businesses and individuals, increasing the standard deduction and family tax credits, eliminating personal exemptions and making it less beneficial to itemize deductions, limiting deductions for state and local income taxes and property taxes, further limiting the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and eliminating it for corporations, reducing the number of estates impacted by the estate tax, and cancelling the penalty enforcing individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).[5][6]

The Act is based on tax reform advocated by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration.[7] The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that under the Act individuals and pass-through entities like partnerships and S corporations would receive about $1.125 trillion in net benefits (i.e. net tax cuts offset by reduced healthcare subsidies) over 10 years, while corporations would receive around $320 billion in benefits. The CBO estimated that implementing the Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[8] or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt.[9]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_ ... ct_of_2017



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's the *opposite* -- again you're not learning the lessons of market saturation, falling prices, deflation, and the declining rate of profit.

Look at where *interest rates* have been for the past 20+ years -- is 1% interest any kind of a market to really *fight over* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Interest rates aren't the same as profits, plus if the latter were smaller and harder to come by I can imagine the fight for them among rent seekers to be a lot harsher. Isn't that why capitalism would collapse according to Marxists?



You think that the interest rate *wouldn't* reflect profit-making? If profit-making was such hot-shit people would be *scrambling* to get at some capital because they know they'd be able to make *money* off of it by using it as *equity* capital. Such an upsurge in demand for capital, for ready profit-making, would cause the interest rate to *rise*.

Rentier capitalists ('rent seekers') are *localist* by definition and don't really *compete* in the way that you imagine -- you're thinking of *equity* capital, which exploits wage-labor to varying degrees.

Again, why would rentier capitalists be *fighting* over any market that only offers up a 1%, or less, or even *negative* interest rate? Obviously asset-holders / 'savers' here are *losing out* in a low-interest-rate regime, and would not want to *squander* capital for imperialist militaristic conquests when the territory they would capture would *also* only offer 1% interest rates, since that's about where things are at now, *worldwide*.

Capitalism never really just entirely *collapses*, much as Marxists would like for that to happen -- capitalism obviously *grinds on*, as through these *zombie companies* that the government is funding, so, no, no collapse there. The only thing that can *replace* late-capitalism is the conscious collective co-administration of the world's working class, worldwide.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're *sidestepping* the crux of the topic -- if you're going to tout 'incentives' so much, then you need to apply 'incentives' to the *labor market* as well. Why aren't unemployed workers being *incentivized* to take jobs, if there's such an aching lack of employees for so many unfilled job vacancies?



wat0n wrote:
You do realize that large UI payments to exactly the opposite, right?



You're *still* not getting it -- the way to *easily* get workers off of UI payments is to offer *better* rates of wages, for actual job openings, so that there's no question about which rate is more desirable, the UI or the job wage.

Look at what *companies* do to incentivize executive-type participation -- they *entice* executives with pay packages, bonuses, golden parachutes, etc., so as to make it a no-brainer for the prospective employee.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, but what about the overall *vacancy rate* -- ? It's always a percentage of *all* units that have been built:

So the point is that since vacant apartment rental units are available *now*, the government could certainly use *eminent domain* to put that housing to *active use* instead of spending money on policing and protecting *empty* apartments / housing.



wat0n wrote:
Why not wait until people actually rent them? I don't see a reason to use eminent domain if the property owner is investing in maintaining those properties and have them ready for rent.



Yeah, but as things are, those properties are currently *vacant*. And there's *always* a vacancy rate, meaning that there's *always* a certain number of *thousands*, or *millions* of units that are going unused.

If *every* property owner simply claimed 'But I can *feel* that it's going to be rented *tomorrow*, I just *know* it', then the vacancy rate would remain *unchanged*.

This is why *government involvement* is required -- because no property owner is going to *voluntarily* admit that their units are going unused, when actual *people* could be using them.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
My point remains that Universal Basic Services is *better* / more-anti-austerity, than UBI because it's more *customized* to the individual (than the UBI 'block grant' approach).



wat0n wrote:
I'd say UBI would likely do better in fulfilling that goal since recipients can spend it as they wish.



The poster who initially *mentioned* UBS noted that many people require *individualized services*, such as people with certain disabilities -- just throwing cash at people with specific needs wouldn't really help them when they would have to do the extra step of navigating the market to find appropriate service providers, for the cash received. Why not just cut out the middleman and provide needed services *directly* to people on a customized, individualized basis -- ?


---


wat0n wrote:
Are you sure? They were privatized and are still private, without getting new bailouts.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're misunderstanding how zombie companies *operate* -- their bad debts get *refinanced* through government *underwriting* so that they can keep pushing back *repayments*.



wat0n wrote:
I know, but those banks aren't zombie corporations.



'Those banks' -- ? You're being *vague* because you didn't mention any banks by name previously. Maybe you were thinking of this:



Expenditures and commitments

As of June 30, 2012, $467 billion had been allotted, and $416 billion spent, according to a literature review on the TARP.[38] Among the money committed, includes:

• $204.9 billion to purchase bank equity shares through the Capital Purchase Program

• $67.8 billion to purchase preferred shares of American International Group (AIG), then among the top 10 US companies, through the program for Systemically Significant Failing Institutions;

• $1.4 billion to back any losses that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York might incur under the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility;

• $40 billion in stock purchases of Citigroup and Bank of America ($20 billion each) through the Targeted Investment Program ($40 billion spent). All that money had been returned.

• $5 billion in loan guarantees for Citigroup ($5 billion). The program closed, with no payment made, on December 23, 2009.

• $79.7 billion in loans and capital injections to automakers and their financing arms through the Automotive Industry Financing Program.

• $21.9 billion to buy "toxic" mortgage-related securities.

• $0.6 billion in capital for banks in Community Development Capital Initiative (CDCI) for banks serving disadvantaged communities.

• $45.6 billion for homeowner foreclosure assistance. Only $4.5 billion had been spent at the time.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_ ... rticipants



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What about the civil rights of not-getting-shot-and-killed-by-police-over-nothing. I'd say that that qualifies as 'civil rights'.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, not that this justifies what I mentioned above.



It's good that you see activism against killer cops and police brutality as being in the mode of *civil rights*, but you're continuing to be *vague* about whatever other points you're vaguely indicating. Don't expect me to address anything that you're merely *indicating*, and not describing *explicitly*.


---


wat0n wrote:
So you don't really have anything intelligent to say about the obvious reality that surgeons have more bargaining power than luxury autoworkers?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Where's your concrete *data*, academic?



wat0n wrote:
Do you really want to compare earnings between both?



No, *you* did.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course -- but the *tradeoff* is being *freer*, in having one's life-necessary *needs*, and even *wants*, met, by a rising standard of living due to automated mass industrial production, which wouldn't even *need* workers, or jobs, at some point.

It's as-if you were bemoaning the loss of *slavery* because people then had 'steady work' -- which is missing the point, of course.



wat0n wrote:
Sure, again, it's short-term pain vs greater long-term gain, where the pain falls more heavily over some heads than others. I'm not making a case against technological development, that ought to happen either way, but the problem is still there and important.



Far more-to-the-point is whether society's industrial mass production is being made *available* broadly, to all who need it. A good example would be the *housing* treatment, from previously, a few segments earlier.

If 'technological development' is able to produce *housing* / rental units to the point where quantities of them are lying *vacant* every month, then what *good* is that technological development when people aren't actually able to *benefit* from it, as with receiving housing that isn't being used anyway -- ?

I'm not going to worry about which numbers of workers are or aren't working in the construction industry as much as I'm going to be concerned with why absolutely *good housing* is being actively *kept vacant* with policing, paid for with public funds.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Where's the 'real socialism' -- ? I certainly haven't seen any of it, or heard of it existing at any point in history -- remember that it requires *workers* to be collectively in *total control* of all of society's production.



wat0n wrote:
I think you realize I'm referring to real-world socialism, not the true scotsman version.



But then why even use the term 'socialism' at all when what *you* mean is 'Stalinism', or 'historical Stalinism' -- ?

It's not *splitting hairs* over meanings, as you're indicating -- it's about the *dictionary definition* of what socialism actually *entails*, which hasn't existed historically, except for a flash in historical time in the early 20th century, in Russia.

If you *mean* elitist bureaucratic rule, just *say* so, and if you *mean* collective workers control of mass industrial production, then say 'socialism'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Capital isn't 'flexible' for those whose *labor* is to be expropriated -- capitalism *takes* surplus labor value, for every hour of every job, from every worker, 24/7/365.

Workers have *no interest* in allowing this system to keep taking surplus labor value -- it's far more advantageous for workers to simply *control* their own productivity, collectively, thereby cutting-out the middleman of the capitalist employers / 'bosses'.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe, but this doesn't negate capitalism's historically proven flexibility.



What kind of 'flexibility' do you mean here?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since *you're* the academic between the two of us here, maybe that would be another 'thesis' for you to pursue.

Here's some more detail about the historical event itself:


The Spartacist uprising (German: Spartakusaufstand), also known as the January uprising (Januaraufstand), was a general strike (and the armed battles accompanying it) in Berlin from 5 to 12 January 1919. Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution, and two of the perceived paths forward were social democracy and a council republic similar to the one which had been established by the Bolsheviks in Russia. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) led by Friedrich Ebert and the radical communists of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who had previously founded and led the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund).

The revolt was improvised and small-scale and was quickly crushed by the superior firepower of government troops,[3] but Berlin was largely undisturbed.[3] Long-distance trains continued to run on time and newspapers remained on sale, as the rebels passively confined themselves to only a few select locations.[3] Similar uprisings occurred and were suppressed in Bremen, the Ruhr, Rhineland, Saxony, Hamburg, Thuringia and Bavaria, and a round of bloodier street battles occurred in Berlin in March.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising



wat0n wrote:
I repeat my point: How does this explain workers serving their countries' armies en masse circa 1914? Indeed, this question is what led Mussolini to ditch socialism in the 1920s IIRC.



You tell me.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so you're *unable* to address 'combined and uneven development':



wat0n wrote:
Not at all, but it's an important point to consider - although some countries have moved along further than others, it seems the process of development is still ongoing.



You're not understanding -- it's not at the scale of *companies*, it's at the scale of *nations*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Prevailing warlordism, in other words, because bourgeois capitalist development didn't get around to developing social *infrastructure* in such less-profitable / less-desirable portions of the world's globe -- more likely European capital *colonized* and *plundered* such areas and extracted much mineral and labor wealth, leaving those areas -- Africa, Asia, Latin America -- undeveloped to this day.



wat0n wrote:
Is it really that simple? Would you invest in a country that is e.g. in the midst of civil strife?



Would *you*?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, what *you* posted was *nominal wages*, which isn't the same thing as *real* wages -- or a comparison of real wages to labor productivity, which is the data that *I* provided.



wat0n wrote:
No, it was a series of real compensation



Feel free to continue.
#15176422
ckaihatsu wrote:
Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be?





The problem with the localist approach is that there's no *consistency*, or *standards*, from one locality to the next -- what rules would be used to sanction anti-social behavior, and what would prevent anti-social people from simply *moving* to whatever locality that had the *laxest* rules -- ?

---

Those regions and countries are also known for their *imperialism* -- what good is somewhat-enlightened internal social policies when the entire society is tolerating colonialist *foreign policy*, and financial / militaristic imperialism -- ?


I will be the first to say, the ideas I put out are quite rough and rudimentary, the sort of stuff I have randomly thought about in bits and pieces during long walks on the streets and what not. Not the sort of thing I have developed at all, it was just my responses, largely based on my personal random musings.

On the first bit (Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be? ),

I don't know precisely the sense in which you are using these concepts. But, in my imagination, under the 'communist-technocracy' I was imagining, these concepts would most likely have little-to-no meaning.

Yes, the localist thing certainly comes off as idealistic. I don't think it is because I am an idealist, but because the questions you raise are hard to work out. (Or maybe I was just being idealist.)

But really, they are important points, and I don't really have an answer. It does seem almost feudalism though, the way I presented it. And maybe that is indeed all that it is. (Although, I am not really prepared to say one where or another. It may be that it is a question of structures and norms which have not yet ever existed anywhere.)


On the last bit (imperialism, etc.), I know what you are talking about. I think of what I was talking about as something a little different, how an 'advanced' country takes care of its people, but it might indeed be that you can't split these things. Of course, I was juxtaposition these countries with the US more or less, which in this day and age is probably the most imperialistic of all in all of the ways you mentioned.

I have read Lenin's book 'Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism' (quite carefully), and am generally familiar with the associations you are making, in Marxist theory.

I was not seeking to counter theoretical Marxism. I also intentionally chose them because they are advanced countries. As such, the comparison was essentially between them and the US, in terms of the mixed-economy spectrum (Capitalism/Socialism).

Indeed, when I wrote etc., I had in my mind not only advanced countries. I was referring really to the socio-economic system (the different degrees of regulated capitalism, essentially, and how the countries I mentioned are more successful than the US for taking care of the people and the societies, among the advanced capitalist countries, on account of their greater scale and scope of 'socialistic' policies). As we know, all of these countries (I know Europe is not a country, but still, being general here) still have many times, and do, experience severe capitalist crises.

But this gets into bigger stuff than I was seeking to address.
#15176442
Crantag wrote:
I will be the first to say, the ideas I put out are quite rough and rudimentary, the sort of stuff I have randomly thought about in bits and pieces during long walks on the streets and what not. Not the sort of thing I have developed at all, it was just my responses, largely based on my personal random musings.



No prob, and please excuse me in advance if I get to seeming *insistent* or *intense* -- I just happen to be *very* inquisitive about the particulars around political economy in general, and around socialism / communism specifically.


Crantag wrote:
On the first bit (Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be? ),

I don't know precisely the sense in which you are using these concepts. But, in my imagination, under the 'communist-technocracy' I was imagining, these concepts would most likely have little-to-no meaning.

Yes, the localist thing certainly comes off as idealistic. I don't think it is because I am an idealist, but because the questions you raise are hard to work out. (Or maybe I was just being idealist.)

But really, they are important points, and I don't really have an answer. It does seem almost feudalism though, the way I presented it. And maybe that is indeed all that it is. (Although, I am not really prepared to say one where or another. It may be that it is a question of structures and norms which have not yet ever existed anywhere.)



Maybe begin with the social basis of the *land*, and any and all *productivity*, and work your way out from that premise. I'm very critical of the localist / anarchist / market-socialist approach because I've found that the localism implies *balkanization*, and then it's just assumed that the market would fill in the gaps from commune to commune, which is barely better than current capitalism, through admittedly *incrementally* so. (And all workplaces would have to be locally *collectivized*, regardless.)

Regarding my question, I mean to address the *material* aspect, meaning goods and services, and how they're produced and distributed.

So 'who' would have the authority to put the gears in motion, and who wouldn't, from the 'consumer' point of view?


Crantag wrote:
On the last bit (imperialism, etc.), I know what you are talking about. I think of what I was talking about as something a little different, how an 'advanced' country takes care of its people, but it might indeed be that you can't split these things. Of course, I was juxtaposition these countries with the US more or less, which in this day and age is probably the most imperialistic of all in all of the ways you mentioned.

I have read Lenin's book 'Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism' (quite carefully), and am generally familiar with the associations you are making, in Marxist theory.



Okay.


Crantag wrote:
I was not seeking to counter theoretical Marxism. I also intentionally chose them because they are advanced countries. As such, the comparison was essentially between them and the US, in terms of the mixed-economy spectrum (Capitalism/Socialism).

Indeed, when I wrote etc., I had in my mind not only advanced countries. I was referring really to the socio-economic system (the different degrees of regulated capitalism, essentially, and how the countries I mentioned are more successful than the US for taking care of the people and the societies, among the advanced capitalist countries, on account of their greater scale and scope of 'socialistic' policies). As we know, all of these countries (I know Europe is not a country, but still, being general here) still have many times, and do, experience severe capitalist crises.

But this gets into bigger stuff than I was seeking to address.



Okay, I hear ya, and I see to some extent where you're coming from. Feel free to tackle these aspects as you like -- I think this discussion-board format is the best for such in-depth and complex topics, which are *very* unwieldy in-person, though arguably possible. I promise I won't bite -- much. (grin)
#15176464
ckaihatsu wrote:I keep *juxtaposing* these alleged gamification "incentives", to *real* incentives (bonuses, profit-sharing) enjoyed by the executive tier that does not produce commodities, nor does it bring in any revenue, yet is rewarded disproportionately to whatever alleged "incentives" are available to the workers within the company's 'gamification' model.


Those incentives for drivers are also "real incentives", they earn more when they reach different amount of trips/rating/whatever

ckaihatsu wrote:As I said, the shift to 401(k)s has been a *diminishing* of workers benefits:


That doesn't really negate the other incentives mentioned in Table I of the paper, and also some places may not even offer workers a 401(k).

ckaihatsu wrote:But *you* yourself welcomed 'whatever theory [I] have in mind' -- and a theory certainly *implies* a political program. Yet you're moving-the-goalposts here even after I provided a post-capitalist model.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image


I have no reason to trust or even consider your political program if you have no explanation of how society operates.

ckaihatsu wrote:Your concern with the *status quo* context is problematic, because the status quo is currently funding *zombie companies*, at the rate of tens of billions of dollars per month, which was your original concern, and why you welcomed an alternative model in the first place.

Whatever.


What zombie companies would those be?

ckaihatsu wrote:Here's the 'optimization' 'financial engineering' that happened *before* the pandemic:


Tax policy is not financial engineering :roll:

ckaihatsu wrote:You think that the interest rate *wouldn't* reflect profit-making? If profit-making was such hot-shit people would be *scrambling* to get at some capital because they know they'd be able to make *money* off of it by using it as *equity* capital. Such an upsurge in demand for capital, for ready profit-making, would cause the interest rate to *rise*.

Rentier capitalists ('rent seekers') are *localist* by definition and don't really *compete* in the way that you imagine -- you're thinking of *equity* capital, which exploits wage-labor to varying degrees.

Again, why would rentier capitalists be *fighting* over any market that only offers up a 1%, or less, or even *negative* interest rate? Obviously asset-holders / 'savers' here are *losing out* in a low-interest-rate regime, and would not want to *squander* capital for imperialist militaristic conquests when the territory they would capture would *also* only offer 1% interest rates, since that's about where things are at now, *worldwide*.

Capitalism never really just entirely *collapses*, much as Marxists would like for that to happen -- capitalism obviously *grinds on*, as through these *zombie companies* that the government is funding, so, no, no collapse there. The only thing that can *replace* late-capitalism is the conscious collective co-administration of the world's working class, worldwide.


I think this is a great example of why considering the interest as part of a business' profits, rather than the price of its capital, is a problem. If rentier capital is not profitable, then you may as well just look for investment outside the US or spend it on consumption. If you prefer to get that 1% rate, perhaps as a way to have a safe haven, then you're just accepting the lower returns for lower risk.

Evidently, I am referring to business profits.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *still* not getting it -- the way to *easily* get workers off of UI payments is to offer *better* rates of wages, for actual job openings, so that there's no question about which rate is more desirable, the UI or the job wage.

Look at what *companies* do to incentivize executive-type participation -- they *entice* executives with pay packages, bonuses, golden parachutes, etc., so as to make it a no-brainer for the prospective employee.


That's indeed something that may happen, but businesses that can't keep up will simply disappear and its potential employment will be lost. It's not radically different from raising the minimum wage too much.

ckaihatsu wrote:Yeah, but as things are, those properties are currently *vacant*. And there's *always* a vacancy rate, meaning that there's *always* a certain number of *thousands*, or *millions* of units that are going unused.

If *every* property owner simply claimed 'But I can *feel* that it's going to be rented *tomorrow*, I just *know* it', then the vacancy rate would remain *unchanged*.

This is why *government involvement* is required -- because no property owner is going to *voluntarily* admit that their units are going unused, when actual *people* could be using them.


If the owner stops investing in maintaining the property, then the usual laws to deal with it (including eminent domain, but it's not the only one) will kick in. But if the owners are paying to keep them up, then I think it's safe to assume they expect it will stop being vacant relatively soon.

ckaihatsu wrote:The poster who initially *mentioned* UBS noted that many people require *individualized services*, such as people with certain disabilities -- just throwing cash at people with specific needs wouldn't really help them when they would have to do the extra step of navigating the market to find appropriate service providers, for the cash received. Why not just cut out the middleman and provide needed services *directly* to people on a customized, individualized basis -- ?


Because you may fail to actually provide them on a customized, individualized basis?

ckaihatsu wrote:'Those banks' -- ? You're being *vague* because you didn't mention any banks by name previously. Maybe you were thinking of this:


Yes, and they are now back into being private and the government even posted a profit as a result.

ckaihatsu wrote:It's good that you see activism against killer cops and police brutality as being in the mode of *civil rights*, but you're continuing to be *vague* about whatever other points you're vaguely indicating. Don't expect me to address anything that you're merely *indicating*, and not describing *explicitly*.


So what I've mentioned about their lack of respect for freedom of expression isn't enough to you?

ckaihatsu wrote:No, *you* did.


You mean to comparing both?

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ ... eon-salary
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ryone-else

ckaihatsu wrote:Far more-to-the-point is whether society's industrial mass production is being made *available* broadly, to all who need it. A good example would be the *housing* treatment, from previously, a few segments earlier.

If 'technological development' is able to produce *housing* / rental units to the point where quantities of them are lying *vacant* every month, then what *good* is that technological development when people aren't actually able to *benefit* from it, as with receiving housing that isn't being used anyway -- ?

I'm not going to worry about which numbers of workers are or aren't working in the construction industry as much as I'm going to be concerned with why absolutely *good housing* is being actively *kept vacant* with policing, paid for with public funds.


Maybe you aren't worried about the construction workers who may lose income if the industry becomes automated, but believe me that they are.

ckaihatsu wrote:But then why even use the term 'socialism' at all when what *you* mean is 'Stalinism', or 'historical Stalinism' -- ?

It's not *splitting hairs* over meanings, as you're indicating -- it's about the *dictionary definition* of what socialism actually *entails*, which hasn't existed historically, except for a flash in historical time in the early 20th century, in Russia.

If you *mean* elitist bureaucratic rule, just *say* so, and if you *mean* collective workers control of mass industrial production, then say 'socialism'.


No true-scotsman?

ckaihatsu wrote:What kind of 'flexibility' do you mean here?


I think it's accurate to say it has been able to adapt to all sorts of different conditions (big cultural, ideological and technological changes, two world wars, etc). That's what I mean.

ckaihatsu wrote:You tell me.


I don't know, I'm not the Marxist here :)

Nationalists for instance would say it means class isn't all that important, or at least not as important as other categories like nation.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're not understanding -- it's not at the scale of *companies*, it's at the scale of *nations*.


Sure.

ckaihatsu wrote:Would *you*?


No, at least not my life savings :lol:

ckaihatsu wrote:Feel free to continue.


What else do you want me to say? It's just the data...
#15176479
crantag wrote:On the first bit (Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be? ),

I don't know precisely the sense in which you are using these concepts. But, in my imagination, under the 'communist-technocracy' I was imagining, these concepts would most likely have little-to-no meaning.

Yes, the localist thing certainly comes off as idealistic. I don't think it is because I am an idealist, but because the questions you raise are hard to work out. (Or maybe I was just being idealist.)

But really, they are important points, and I don't really have an answer. It does seem almost feudalism though, the way I presented it. And maybe that is indeed all that it is. (Although, I am not really prepared to say one where or another. It may be that it is a question of structures and norms which have not yet ever existed anywhere.)


ckaihatsu wrote:Maybe begin with the social basis of the *land*, and any and all *productivity*, and work your way out from that premise. I'm very critical of the localist / anarchist / market-socialist approach because I've found that the localism implies *balkanization*, and then it's just assumed that the market would fill in the gaps from commune to commune, which is barely better than current capitalism, through admittedly *incrementally* so. (And all workplaces would have to be locally *collectivized*, regardless.)


I think I caused a little confusion with how I responded previously. I should have composed the message better. Let me try again.



(In response to what I called my imagined communist-technoracy)
ckaihatsu wrote:Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be?


(My response was)
crantag wrote:On the first bit (Within this framework what would count as a valid 'demand' / 'request' / 'requisition', and what *wouldn't* be? ),

I don't know precisely the sense in which you are using these concepts. But, in my imagination, under the 'communist-technocracy' I was imagining, these concepts would most likely have little-to-no meaning.


(On the localist thing, you said):
ckaihatsu wrote:The problem with the localist approach is that there's no *consistency*, or *standards*, from one locality to the next -- what rules would be used to sanction anti-social behavior, and what would prevent anti-social people from simply *moving* to whatever locality that had the *laxest* rules -- ?


(My response was)
crantag wrote:Yes, the localist thing certainly comes off as idealistic. I don't think it is because I am an idealist, but because the questions you raise are hard to work out. (Or maybe I was just being idealist.) But really, they are important points, and I don't really have an answer. It does seem almost feudalism though, the way I presented it. And maybe that is indeed all that it is. (Although, I am not really prepared to say one where or another. It may be that it is a question of structures and norms which have not yet ever existed anywhere.)




These two very separate things ('communist-technocracy' and 'localist/anarchist stuff') seem to have got conflated in your response.

I do blame myself for how I composed my prior message.
#15176493
ckaihatsu wrote:
I keep *juxtaposing* these alleged gamification "incentives", to *real* incentives (bonuses, profit-sharing) enjoyed by the executive tier that does not produce commodities, nor does it bring in any revenue, yet is rewarded disproportionately to whatever alleged "incentives" are available to the workers within the company's 'gamification' model.



wat0n wrote:
Those incentives for drivers are also "real incentives", they earn more when they reach different amount of trips/rating/whatever



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
As I said, the shift to 401(k)s has been a *diminishing* of workers benefits:



wat0n wrote:
That doesn't really negate the other incentives mentioned in Table I of the paper, and also some places may not even offer workers a 401(k).



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But *you* yourself welcomed 'whatever theory [I] have in mind' -- and a theory certainly *implies* a political program. Yet you're moving-the-goalposts here even after I provided a post-capitalist model.


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
I have no reason to trust or even consider your political program if you have no explanation of how society operates.



'How society operates' -- ?

You mean *post-capitalist* society?

I'll remind you that we're discussing *political economy* -- I'm not building a *cult of personality* here. Either this model / framework *makes sense* for what it is / claims to be, or else it doesn't.

Here's the model framework, in full:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Your concern with the *status quo* context is problematic, because the status quo is currently funding *zombie companies*, at the rate of tens of billions of dollars per month, which was your original concern, and why you welcomed an alternative model in the first place.

Whatever.



wat0n wrote:
What zombie companies would those be?




The corporate debt bubble is the large increase in corporate bonds, excluding that of financial institutions, following the financial crisis of 2007–08. Global corporate debt rose from 84% of gross world product in 2009 to 92% in 2019, or about $72 trillion.[1][2] In the world's eight largest economies—the United States, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, and Germany—total corporate debt was about $51 trillion in 2019, compared to $34 trillion in 2009.[3] Excluding debt held by financial institutions—which trade debt as mortgages, student loans, and other instruments—the debt owed by non-financial companies in early March 2020 was $13 trillion worldwide, of which about $9.6 trillion was in the U.S.[4]

The corporate bond market historically centered in the United States.[5] The U.S. Federal Reserve noted in November 2019 that leveraged loans, corporate bonds made to companies with poor credit histories or large amounts of existing debt, were the fastest growing asset class, increasing in size by 14.6% in 2018 alone.[6] Total U.S. corporate debt in November 2019 reached a record 47% of the entire U.S. economy.[7][5] However, corporate borrowing expanded worldwide under the low interest rates of the Great Recession. Two-thirds of global growth in corporate debt occurred in developing countries, in particular China. The value of outstanding Chinese non-financial corporate bonds increased from $69 billion in 2007 to $2 trillion in 2017.[5] In December 2019, Moody's Analytics described Chinese corporate debt as the "biggest threat" to the global economy.[8]

Regulators and investors have raised concern that large amounts of risky corporate debt have created a critical vulnerability for financial markets, in particular mutual funds, during the next recession.[7] Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen has warned that the large amount of corporate debt could "prolong" the next recession and cause corporate bankruptcies.[9] The Institute of International Finance forecast that, in an economic downturn half as severe as the 2008 crisis, $19 trillion in debt would be owed by non-financial firms without the earnings to cover the interest payments, referred to as zombie firms.[3] The McKinsey Global Institute warned in 2018 that the greatest risks would be to emerging markets such as China, India, and Brazil, where 25-30% of bonds had been issued by high-risk companies.[5] As of March 2021, U.S. corporations faced a record $10.5 trillion in debt.[10] On March 31, 2021, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility re-established by the Federal Reserve the previous March ceased purchasing commercial paper.[11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_debt_bubble



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Here's the 'optimization' 'financial engineering' that happened *before* the pandemic:



wat0n wrote:
Tax policy is not financial engineering :roll:



Please enlighten your readers, then.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's the *opposite* -- again you're not learning the lessons of market saturation, falling prices, deflation, and the declining rate of profit.

Look at where *interest rates* have been for the past 20+ years -- is 1% interest any kind of a market to really *fight over* -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Interest rates aren't the same as profits, plus if the latter were smaller and harder to come by I can imagine the fight for them among rent seekers to be a lot harsher. Isn't that why capitalism would collapse according to Marxists?



ckaihatsu wrote:
You think that the interest rate *wouldn't* reflect profit-making? If profit-making was such hot-shit people would be *scrambling* to get at some capital because they know they'd be able to make *money* off of it by using it as *equity* capital. Such an upsurge in demand for capital, for ready profit-making, would cause the interest rate to *rise*.

Rentier capitalists ('rent seekers') are *localist* by definition and don't really *compete* in the way that you imagine -- you're thinking of *equity* capital, which exploits wage-labor to varying degrees.

Again, why would rentier capitalists be *fighting* over any market that only offers up a 1%, or less, or even *negative* interest rate? Obviously asset-holders / 'savers' here are *losing out* in a low-interest-rate regime, and would not want to *squander* capital for imperialist militaristic conquests when the territory they would capture would *also* only offer 1% interest rates, since that's about where things are at now, *worldwide*.

Capitalism never really just entirely *collapses*, much as Marxists would like for that to happen -- capitalism obviously *grinds on*, as through these *zombie companies* that the government is funding, so, no, no collapse there. The only thing that can *replace* late-capitalism is the conscious collective co-administration of the world's working class, worldwide.



wat0n wrote:
I think this is a great example of why considering the interest as part of a business' profits, rather than the price of its capital, is a problem. If rentier capital is not profitable, then you may as well just look for investment outside the US or spend it on consumption. If you prefer to get that 1% rate, perhaps as a way to have a safe haven, then you're just accepting the lower returns for lower risk.

Evidently, I am referring to business profits.



You're off on a tangent again -- low interest rates means that the entire *world economy* is 'meh', and there's not going to be a mad scramble to re-carve-up the world for neocolonialism, though that's certainly been *attempted* in the first two decades of the 21st century nonetheless, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *still* not getting it -- the way to *easily* get workers off of UI payments is to offer *better* rates of wages, for actual job openings, so that there's no question about which rate is more desirable, the UI or the job wage.

Look at what *companies* do to incentivize executive-type participation -- they *entice* executives with pay packages, bonuses, golden /parachutes, etc., so as to make it a no-brainer for the prospective employee.



wat0n wrote:
That's indeed something that may happen, but businesses that can't keep up will simply disappear and its potential employment will be lost. It's not radically different from raising the minimum wage too much.



This is rather *economistic*, though -- if bourgeois society really adhered to such a 'bottom-line' / by-the-numbers set of principles, as you outline, then the *company's* finances would come first, which typically *isn't* the case. Instead, as I keep repeating, there's a definite *executive tier* that benefits disproportionately from corporate finance -- known as 'Wall Street', for simplicity.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Yeah, but as things are, those properties are currently *vacant*. And there's *always* a vacancy rate, meaning that there's *always* a certain number of *thousands*, or *millions* of units that are going unused.

If *every* property owner simply claimed 'But I can *feel* that it's going to be rented *tomorrow*, I just *know* it', then the vacancy rate would remain *unchanged*.

This is why *government involvement* is required -- because no property owner is going to *voluntarily* admit that their units are going unused, when actual *people* could be using them.



wat0n wrote:
If the owner stops investing in maintaining the property, then the usual laws to deal with it (including eminent domain, but it's not the only one) will kick in. But if the owners are paying to keep them up, then I think it's safe to assume they expect it will stop being vacant relatively soon.



Good -- you're confirming what I'm saying. This housing problem parallels the *global warming* problem, in that everyone is just looking out for number-one, which is certainly understandable, but then at the scale of *the planet*, or *housing for people*, it falls short.

I've been meaning to include the following, since this dynamic / phenomena keeps popping up in these exchanges on this thread....



In neoclassical economics, market failure is a situation in which the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not Pareto efficient, often leading to a net loss of economic value.[1] Market failures can be viewed as scenarios where individuals' pursuit of pure self-interest leads to results that are not efficient– that can be improved upon from the societal point of view.[2][3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The poster who initially *mentioned* UBS noted that many people require *individualized services*, such as people with certain disabilities -- just throwing cash at people with specific needs wouldn't really help them when they would have to do the extra step of navigating the market to find appropriate service providers, for the cash received. Why not just cut out the middleman and provide needed services *directly* to people on a customized, individualized basis -- ?



wat0n wrote:
Because you may fail to actually provide them on a customized, individualized basis?



Okay, then most likely the government social programs (UBS / UBI / whatever) are *underfunded*, and subpar as a result.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Those banks' -- ? You're being *vague* because you didn't mention any banks by name previously. Maybe you were thinking of this:



wat0n wrote:
Yes, and they are now back into being private and the government even posted a profit as a result.



So everything's sunshine and rainbows now -- ? Banks and corporations are *hardly* independent now -- if anything we're now definitely in a *statist* kind of political economy, worldwide:



Europe

After the financial crisis in 2008, banks in Europe have been described as zombies; with some Eurozone banks becoming dependent on the European Central Bank (ECB) for liquidity. This keeps these banks lending to companies and fostering growth.[6]

On July 26, 2012 the ECB’s president Mario Draghi launched the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) Program, which led to a significant increase in the value of sovereign bonds issued by European periphery countries. The regained stability of the European banking sector has not fully transferred into economic growth. The slow recovery is explained by bad credit allocations by zombie banks.[7][8]

New restrictions imposed on European banks by the European Union, which took effect from January 2016, are meant to protect taxpayers from picking up the bill for rescuing banks as happened during the financial crisis.[citation needed]

United States

After the 2008 crisis, rigorous stress tests forced some banks to recapitalize. This may have prevented the phenomenon of zombie banks, but there is a possibility that zombie companies exist; their earnings are less than their interest expenses. Such companies are therefore incapable of making a profit, since all revenue is spent on repaying creditors and paying off expenses.[6]

Causes

Banks become zombies due to bad loans which they have made. In slow economies, businesses that borrowed from banks become unable to pay the loans back. Capital infusions to a bank, received primarily from the government but also from central bank loans, turn it into a zombie bank.

These infusions are generally referred to as regulatory forbearance. They enable the banks to postpone the recognition of their losses. The government gives zombie banks cash-flow leeway in the hope that they will be able to make profits over time, thus being able to cover their losses and revitalize. Rather than pressing businesses for repayment, however, zombie banks often use the money received from the government to extend the terms of their loans to businesses, which in turn causes the existence of zombie companies.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_bank



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's good that you see activism against killer cops and police brutality as being in the mode of *civil rights*, but you're continuing to be *vague* about whatever other points you're vaguely indicating. Don't expect me to address anything that you're merely *indicating*, and not describing *explicitly*.



wat0n wrote:
So what I've mentioned about their lack of respect for freedom of expression isn't enough to you?



Let me put it *this* way -- if you have something *political* to say then that message is going to rely entirely on how well or how poorly you elucidate it.

Going off on tangents all the time, as you do, shows a lack of *focus* on your part regarding issues of *political economy*. You often prefer to *evade* the topics, in favor of descending into mere empiricism, descriptions / demographics, and academizing.

I have no obligation to respond to your casual, unfocused, idiosyncratic personal spin-offs.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, *you* did.



wat0n wrote:
You mean to comparing both?

https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ ... eon-salary
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ryone-else



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Far more-to-the-point is whether society's industrial mass production is being made *available* broadly, to all who need it. A good example would be the *housing* treatment, from previously, a few segments earlier.

If 'technological development' is able to produce *housing* / rental units to the point where quantities of them are lying *vacant* every month, then what *good* is that technological development when people aren't actually able to *benefit* from it, as with receiving housing that isn't being used anyway -- ?

I'm not going to worry about which numbers of workers are or aren't working in the construction industry as much as I'm going to be concerned with why absolutely *good housing* is being actively *kept vacant* with policing, paid for with public funds.



wat0n wrote:
Maybe you aren't worried about the construction workers who may lose income if the industry becomes automated, but believe me that they are.



Okay -- by *extension*, whose fault is it that housing isn't being *constructed*, requiring construction *jobs*, and *workers* -- ?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But then why even use the term 'socialism' at all when what *you* mean is 'Stalinism', or 'historical Stalinism' -- ?

It's not *splitting hairs* over meanings, as you're indicating -- it's about the *dictionary definition* of what socialism actually *entails*, which hasn't existed historically, except for a flash in historical time in the early 20th century, in Russia.

If you *mean* elitist bureaucratic rule, just *say* so, and if you *mean* collective workers control of mass industrial production, then say 'socialism'.



wat0n wrote:
No true-scotsman?



No, the definitions themselves are *not* that controversial or about hair-splitting -- the 'no true Scotsman' characterization is a *dramatization*, and is about *individual* political leanings, when simple glossary / dictionary definitions would do just fine for the categories themselves. Here's mine:


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What kind of 'flexibility' do you mean here?



wat0n wrote:
I think it's accurate to say it has been able to adapt to all sorts of different conditions (big cultural, ideological and technological changes, two world wars, etc). That's what I mean.



And what was the cause of the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Since *you're* the academic between the two of us here, maybe that would be another 'thesis' for you to pursue.

Here's some more detail about the historical event itself:


The Spartacist uprising (German: Spartakusaufstand), also known as the January uprising (Januaraufstand), was a general strike (and the armed battles accompanying it) in Berlin from 5 to 12 January 1919. Germany was in the middle of a post-war revolution, and two of the perceived paths forward were social democracy and a council republic similar to the one which had been established by the Bolsheviks in Russia. The uprising was primarily a power struggle between the moderate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) led by Friedrich Ebert and the radical communists of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who had previously founded and led the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund).

The revolt was improvised and small-scale and was quickly crushed by the superior firepower of government troops,[3] but Berlin was largely undisturbed.[3] Long-distance trains continued to run on time and newspapers remained on sale, as the rebels passively confined themselves to only a few select locations.[3] Similar uprisings occurred and were suppressed in Bremen, the Ruhr, Rhineland, Saxony, Hamburg, Thuringia and Bavaria, and a round of bloodier street battles occurred in Berlin in March.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising



wat0n wrote:
I repeat my point: How does this explain workers serving their countries' armies en masse circa 1914? Indeed, this question is what led Mussolini to ditch socialism in the 1920s IIRC.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You tell me.



wat0n wrote:
I don't know, I'm not the Marxist here :)

Nationalists for instance would say it means class isn't all that important, or at least not as important as other categories like nation.



Are you a nationalist? Do you agree with Mussolini's break from socialism, to prefer cross-class nationalism?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, so you're *unable* to address 'combined and uneven development':


Uneven and combined development (or unequal and combined development or uneven development) is a concept in Marxian political economy [1] intended to describe dynamics of human history involving the interaction of capitalist laws of motion and starting world market conditions whose national units are highly heterogeneous.

The idea was applied systematically by Leon Trotsky around the turn of the 20th century to the case of Russia, when he was analyzing the developmental possibilities for industrialization in the Russian empire, and the likely future of the Tsarist regime in Russia.[2]

The notion was then generalized and became the basis of Trotskyist politics of permanent revolution,[3] which implied a rejection of the Stalinist idea that a human society inevitably developed through a uni-linear sequence of necessary "stages".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uneven_an ... evelopment



wat0n wrote:
Not at all, but it's an important point to consider - although some countries have moved along further than others, it seems the process of development is still ongoing.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding -- it's not at the scale of *companies*, it's at the scale of *nations*.



wat0n wrote:
Sure.



Okay, so you're confirming that you have no differences with Trotsky's theory of uneven and combined development -- correct?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Prevailing warlordism, in other words, because bourgeois capitalist development didn't get around to developing social *infrastructure* in such less-profitable / less-desirable portions of the world's globe -- more likely European capital *colonized* and *plundered* such areas and extracted much mineral and labor wealth, leaving those areas -- Africa, Asia, Latin America -- undeveloped to this day.



wat0n wrote:
Is it really that simple? Would you invest in a country that is e.g. in the midst of civil strife?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Would *you*?



wat0n wrote:
No, at least not my life savings :lol:



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Feel free to continue.



wat0n wrote:
What else do you want me to say? It's just the data...
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 11 Jun 2021 04:47, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
US Supreme Court Watch

The larger point is more contentious. While the d[…]

CRT

You don't have an argument, just lies. So when y[…]

Lawlessness in San Fransisco

No employee of a big retailer will stop shoplifte[…]

I do not think that this law amounts to "whit[…]