ckaihatsu wrote:
It *has*, and it has to do with the organic composition of capital -- as labor gets increasingly *leveraged*, a commodity produced has a lesser and lesser portion of it due to *labor power*. (Consider a hand-made item versus a plastic soda bottle.)
So increased mechanization / reduced human labor means that industrial mass production approaches the point of *full automation*, at which point it becomes like a 'hobby' (my phrasing) because *anyone* knows how to get the stuff they need for their hobby, to produce stuff.
And, of course, if anyone can produce anything they need through hobby-type procurements then there are *zero* profits to be made from the manufacture of the stuff, because *anyone* can produce the stuff for *themselves* -- consider computational power today, versus scheduling time on a mainframe decades ago.
wat0n wrote:
I'm referring to the empirical literature on the matter. Normally, one would prefer to base his politics on that kind of thing.
I'm sorry that you're not accepting my points / arguments on the topic of declining rate of profit, but if all you're doing is *ignoring* falling prices (in a mature, oversaturated market), overproduction, market saturation, and declining rates of profit, I can't do anything about that.
I just provided *another* way of seeing it, by describing *endpoints*, but you're not addressing any content here.
You've *acknowledged* falling prices in previous posts, *and* you've noted that Okishio is only applicable on a *temporary* basis.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
If it's not a logistical or a funding problem then why does homelessness continue to be an outstanding social issue? Isn't ending government support for killer cops and housing un-housed people worthwhile enough, at least as much as military spending, to actually *accomplish* -- ?
wat0n wrote:
What makes you believe there is a significant support for building more houing in many urban areas? In particular, since that would mean densifying cities and affecting quality of life.
Are you a Malthusian -- ? Do you really think that *overpopulation* is a social problem?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're not actually attached to the practice of capitalism's middling *exchanges*, then -- most products *could* be readily supplied directly to the consumer from the manufacturer.
wat0n wrote:
Sure, but it's more convenient to be able to shop and compare in the same website, and such retailer could also be more efficient in terms of economies of scale and scope in delivery/transportation
Okay, since you're in *partial* agreement, I'll just reiterate that that proves 'direct distribution' (from the manufacturer to the consumer) is logistically possible, meaning that capitalist exchange values are no longer logistically required for a realistic post-capitalist political economy.
If you *agree* then your politics would be for *nationalization* at least, as recently spelled-out at another thread:
Is Bolshevik Communism really Marxist
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=180496---
wat0n wrote:
That's macroeconomic stabilization and affects the economy as a whole. They are not just handing out money to zombie companies
ckaihatsu wrote:
At this point I really don't see any difference -- propping up companies, with the government underwriting of their bad debt, just encourages irresponsible fiscal management, and ongoing public support for zombie companies, all for the sake of saying that the sky won't fall today.
wat0n wrote:
You sound like a libertarian. Countercyclical policy and propping up zombies are most certainly not the same thing.
No, not a libertarian, because I have no (class) interest in seeing the continuation of the capitalist / market system. I guess I *do* share some common ground with the libertarian position on wanting to let the markets fail entirely, if that's what they're prone to do. My politics would call for the *workers* to then run social production without the capitalist market 'software' (economy) functioning anymore.
You'll have to denote what 'countercyclical policy' is, but I suspect that current government underwriting of corporate bad debt is the current *implementation* of 'countercyclical policy'.
Here's a refresher from that previous Wikipedia entry:
Record debt purchases in April
Between 1 January and 3 May, a record $807.1 billion of U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds were issued.[91] Similarly, U.S. corporations sold over $300 billion in debt in April 2020, a new record. This included Boeing, which sold $25 billion in bonds, stating that it would no longer need a bailout from the U.S. government.[92] Apple, which borrowed $8.5 billion potentially to pay back the $8 billion in debt coming due later in 2020; Starbucks, which raised $3 billion.;[91] Ford, which sold $8 billion in junk-rated bonds despite just losing its investment rating; and cruise line operator Carnival, which increased its offering to $4 billion to meet demand.[93] The main reasons for the lively market are the low interest rates and the Fed's actions to ensure market liquidity. The iShares iBoxx USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond, an exchange-traded fund with assets directly benefiting from Fed actions, grew by a third between March 11 and the end of April.[94] However, companies are growing increasingly leveraged as they increase their debt while earnings fall. Through the end of April 2020, investment-grade corporate bonds gained 1.4% versus Treasury bonds' 8.9%, indicating potential investor wariness about the risk of corporate bonds. Morgan Stanley estimated 2020 U.S. investment-grade bond issuance at $1.4 trillion, around 2017's record, while Barclays estimated the non-financial corporations will need to borrow $125–175 billion in additional debt to cover the drop in earnings from the pandemic recession.[92] Warren Buffett noted that the terms offered by the Fed were far better than those that Berkshire Hathaway could offer.[95]
On 9 May, Goldman Sachs warned that U.S. investors may be overestimating the Fed guarantees to junk-rated debt. Between 9 April and 4 May, the two largest junk exchange-traded funds (ETFs), the SPDR Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Bond ETF and the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF, respectively received $1.6 billion and $4.71 billion in net inflows. However, Goldman cautioned that even the BB-rated bonds that make up half of these two ETF's portfolios are likely to experience further downgrades. State Street Global Advisors commented on the distortions being created by the Fed's implicit guarantee: "The disconnect between the underlying fundamentals of bond issuers and bond prices is tough to reconcile."[102]
On 12 May, the Fed began buying corporate bond ETFs for the first time in its history. It stated its intention to buy bonds directly "in the near future". As companies must prove that they can not otherwise access normal credit to be eligible for the primary market facility, analysts opined that it may create a stigma for companies and be little used. However, the guarantee of a Fed backstop appears to have ensured market liquidity.[103]
In its annual review on 14 May, the Bank of Canada concluded that its three interest rate cuts in March and first ever bond buying program had succeeded in stabilizing Canadian markets. However, it expressed concern about the ability of the energy sector to refinance its debt given historically low oil prices. About C$17 billion in Canadian corporate bonds was sold in April 2020, one of the largest volumes since 2010.[104]
On 15 May, J. C. Penney filed for bankruptcy. It followed the filings of Neiman Marcus and J.Crew, but was the largest U.S. retailer to file by far.[105]
On 22 May, The Hertz Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This bankruptcy allows them to continue operations as a company, while attempting to work out some form of a deal between them and their creditors.[106]
On 5 August, Virgin Atlantic filed for bankruptcy.[107]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate ... s_in_April
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding -- you're conflating full *Stalinist-type* bureaucratic administration, with present-day capitalist-financial central banking.
Note that at least Stalinism doesn't have *private property* and doesn't export finance capital, which bourgeois governments *do*, and thus they're *capitalist* and *imperialist*.
wat0n wrote:
I'm referring to what Marx himself advocated for. You could claim it was an intermediate stage thing, though.
No, my understanding of it is that it's a *Stalinism*-type thing -- or a *workers state* thing, as a socialist transition to overthrow the bourgeoisie, on the road to communism.
Take a look back at this prior segment:
ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're not actually attached to the practice of capitalism's middling *exchanges*, then -- most products *could* be readily supplied directly to the consumer from the manufacturer.
wat0n wrote:
Sure, but it's more convenient to be able to shop and compare in the same website, and such retailer could also be more efficient in terms of economies of scale and scope in delivery/transportation
In this scenario, without the need for *retail*-type parceling-up of wholesale inventories, what you're describing is basically *word-of-mouth*, or blogging and YouTube-type *opinionating* about the market, because in the end the consumer would just order what they want, perhaps with a preference for a manufacturer within their own *continent*.
And how would those manufacturers build their factories in the first place, and hire labor, and pay for operational expenses -- ? That's where nationalization and Marx's 'central banking' come into play, since a global centralized allocation of productive *priorities*, without the market mechanism, would be what we're talking about at this point.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Of course they're of concern, and I'd rather breathe clean air, myself.
wat0n wrote:
Indeed.
And now it's a left-leaning jobs-market portal. Congratulations. (grin)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well how is the oppressed working class supposed to get out of being subordinated by the world's *ruling* class? It's the *ruling* class that owns everything, like factories, in particular.
wat0n wrote:
Incrementalism is a thing, you know.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you tell Julian Assange to 'incrementally' get out of prison?
Why should *anyone* tolerate an extended, delayed 'incrementalism', instead of justice itself -- ?
wat0n wrote:
Because revolution need not be just, actually.
What kind of a revolution are *you* indicating here -- ?
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Please let us know when you find out.
wat0n wrote:
I'm curious to learn about your explanation. Canada for instance had and still has a different banking regulatory framework from that the US had by 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Rec ... cas#CanadaYou're welcome. Now you're down to *two* wishes. (grin)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Again, I'm not *obligated* to entertain your intellectual pathfinding. If you have nothing to say, you can say it *elsewhere*.
wat0n wrote:
So you are in fact reifying the Marxian paradigm. Bad idea.
Uh-oh. (grin)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd call that 'mass media'. (Ever see 'All Quiet on the Western Front'?)
wat0n wrote:
Why did workers fall for mass media?
The mass media is a form of *power*, you know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate---
ckaihatsu wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War
wat0n wrote:
That had already been over several years prior to Stalin's rise to power.
I maintain that it had a lasting deleterious effect on the economy that enabled Stalin to rise to power, and to consolidate.
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Dunno, but offhand I'd say it was due to the forced degeneration of the initial revolutionary policies:
• All private property was nationalized by the government.
• All Russian banks were nationalized.
• Private bank accounts were expropriated.
• The properties of the Russian Orthodox Church (including bank accounts) were expropriated.
• All foreign debts were repudiated.
• Control of the factories was given to the soviets.
• Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
wat0n wrote:
Could it be that the Orthodox Church was a referent for many Russians and thus coopting was actually valuable for the Soviets?
No, I wouldn't agree -- they were political *rivals*.