Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Recent Posts
I Read This
October 18, 2018, 17:01:57 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 91 
 on: July 12, 2009, 11:39:11 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by Psy
Note first that I neither adhere to, nor care about, nor like, any of the broad theories offered by economists, be they capitalist/communist in bent.  As a Decision Science major, I think they are full of propagandized illogical garbage, and that a fresh approach that actually takes into account concepts such as people having emotions is necessary, rather than existing models, which insist that anything that can't be measured currently/precisely is of no relevance.  That's nonsense, and you should be focusing on figuring out how to measure it, rather than abandoning it.
In LTV emotional responses are lumped in with utility (use value).

Quote from: wodan46
I apologize for misuse of any economic jargon, I am simply using terms as a layman would.

Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.
Products have an inherent utility.  The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.
Yes and in LTV that utility is it use value.

Quote from: wodan46
What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system
Define what you mean by Wall Street, what actions it does, and how they constitute redistribution.
Wall Street deals in fictional capital, pieces of paper that are claims on value that doesn't yet exist (thus fictional at that production cycle), when/if the value is created they simply distribute that value to other capitalists.

Quote from: wodan46
The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable. 
But it is not creating value in the system.  For example if person A and person B trades claims on the profits of person C it doesn't create any new value.  The capitalist mode of production is M-C-C1-M1, Money is transformed into commodities that are transformed into more valuable commodities that are sold for more money, this is how value is created in capitalist societies and Wall Street doesn't partake in this mode of value creation.


Quote from: wodan46
The work done by middlemen and bureaucrats is valuable, and even the actions taken by the upper administrators and CEOs is valuable.  My problem is that said individuals are often given ample opportunity and freedom to redistribute said value into their pockets, whereupon they start becoming as valuable as a tapeworm. 
But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth. 

Quote from: wodan46
Despite what economists insist, the selective forces of the market encourage such tapeworms, rather than eliminating them.  As a society, we need to figure out a cure for said tapeworm proliferation, one that isn't worse than the disease.  Government interference simply leads to government tapeworms, additional power to workers results in union tapeworms.  Neither deals with the central problem:

1. Administrative positions are necessary for a system to function on a large scale.
2. Administrative positions are prone to corruption and misuse of their power without oversight.
3. The only thing that can provide oversight of an Administrative position is another Administrative position.

Best solution I can see is to pit the administrative systems against each other in a way that makes them keep each other in check, essentially a snake that eats its own tail, so to speak.
All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.

Quote from: wodan46
, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.
I don't see how we are bailing out Wall Street anyways.  Maybe you use a different definition for Wall Street.
AIG, CitiBank,ect

Quote from: wodan46
Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.
I think you use the term Capitalist where I use Administrator.  My point is that taking away Administrative powers away from the capitalists and giving them to the workers merely means that the workers become the new Administrators.  If a system tries to avoid having administrators, it will collapse unless someone takes on the administrative duties, except that in this case, there is no built in oversight for them.
I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.


Quote from: wodan46
Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.
Which is accurate, except for the last part about capitalists.  General Motors was a bloated system.  There was no way it could justify having two to three times as many employees as its foreign competitor even though it sold the same number of cars.  That is a problem regardless of whether or not the administrators have gone tapeworm.
General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital.  Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.

Quote from: wodan46
He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.
That's life.  The problem existed long before that, it had mainly been concealed.
Yet it amplifies the crisis of over production.

Quote from: wodan46
Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM
This is because there is no way he would have been allowed to, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't because he is center right.  Instead we get this half assed partial nationalization.
Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.

Quote from: wodan46
in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits
How?
If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.

Quote from: wodan46
even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.
How?

While military contracting is a big mess and a pretty good representation of that military industrial complex Ike was nervous about, nationalizing the contracting components so that they work for the government instead wouldn't help given how corrupt the government already is in those areas.
If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production.  Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.

 92 
 on: July 11, 2009, 22:29:05 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by wodan46
Note first that I neither adhere to, nor care about, nor like, any of the broad theories offered by economists, be they capitalist/communist in bent.  As a Decision Science major, I think they are full of propagandized illogical garbage, and that a fresh approach that actually takes into account concepts such as people having emotions is necessary, rather than existing models, which insist that anything that can't be measured currently/precisely is of no relevance.  That's nonsense, and you should be focusing on figuring out how to measure it, rather than abandoning it.

I apologize for misuse of any economic jargon, I am simply using terms as a layman would.

Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.
Products have an inherent utility.  The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.

What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system
Define what you mean by Wall Street, what actions it does, and how they constitute redistribution.

The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable.  The work done by middlemen and bureaucrats is valuable, and even the actions taken by the upper administrators and CEOs is valuable.  My problem is that said individuals are often given ample opportunity and freedom to redistribute said value into their pockets, whereupon they start becoming as valuable as a tapeworm. 

Despite what economists insist, the selective forces of the market encourage such tapeworms, rather than eliminating them.  As a society, we need to figure out a cure for said tapeworm proliferation, one that isn't worse than the disease.  Government interference simply leads to government tapeworms, additional power to workers results in union tapeworms.  Neither deals with the central problem:

1. Administrative positions are necessary for a system to function on a large scale.
2. Administrative positions are prone to corruption and misuse of their power without oversight.
3. The only thing that can provide oversight of an Administrative position is another Administrative position.

Best solution I can see is to pit the administrative systems against each other in a way that makes them keep each other in check, essentially a snake that eats its own tail, so to speak.

, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.
I don't see how we are bailing out Wall Street anyways.  Maybe you use a different definition for Wall Street.

Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.
I think you use the term Capitalist where I use Administrator.  My point is that taking away Administrative powers away from the capitalists and giving them to the workers merely means that the workers become the new Administrators.  If a system tries to avoid having administrators, it will collapse unless someone takes on the administrative duties, except that in this case, there is no built in oversight for them.

Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.
Which is accurate, except for the last part about capitalists.  General Motors was a bloated system.  There was no way it could justify having two to three times as many employees as its foreign competitor even though it sold the same number of cars.  That is a problem regardless of whether or not the administrators have gone tapeworm.

He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.
That's life.  The problem existed long before that, it had mainly been concealed.

Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM
This is because there is no way he would have been allowed to, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't because he is center right.  Instead we get this half assed partial nationalization.

in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits
How?

even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.
How?

While military contracting is a big mess and a pretty good representation of that military industrial complex Ike was nervous about, nationalizing the contracting components so that they work for the government instead wouldn't help given how corrupt the government already is in those areas.

 93 
 on: July 11, 2009, 21:51:28 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by wodan46
Well look at the post by wodan46 were he is unaware post LTV theories doesn't think the solution to this crisis is for workers to consume more but to restore the rate of profit through making consume less which is why Obama said workers had to sacrifice while capitalists didn't have to sacrifice anything.   Most people are totally ignorant over the long debate over how value is created in society.
However, we would like threads that don't revolve around LTV discussions as well.  I'm willing to give the LTV discussion itself a brief shot here, mainly because I normally tune out such concepts for conserving my meager sanity.

 94 
 on: July 11, 2009, 14:58:09 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by Psy
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. Tongue

Which is what I was trying to get at. But, no, I had to forget that Psy has a one-track mind. "LTV", or economics, appearing anywhere in a thread leads to immediate attempts to derail it into conversion bullshit.

Apologies. I should have known better.

Well look at the post by wodan46 were he is unaware post LTV theories doesn't think the solution to this crisis is for workers to consume more but to restore the rate of profit through making consume less which is why Obama said workers had to sacrifice while capitalists didn't have to sacrifice anything.   Most people are totally ignorant over the long debate over how value is created in society.

 95 
 on: July 11, 2009, 10:54:35 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by Psy
Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.
Is LTV loan to value ratio?  If so, what does what you say have to do with lending measures?
Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.  What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.

Quote from: wodan46

Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less)
Wouldn't that just lead to a new set of capitalists?  People are greedy bastards.  Also, honestly, spreading the money like that is problematic for economies large fiscally and literally, you do need power networks, and capitalists are a necessary evil of that network.
Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.

Quote from: wodan46

so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class)
That is in theory something we should be aiming for.  If the masses consume, they create demand, and they are also more likely to be productive, and thus able to meet the demand, keeping the system going.  I think we will dissagree on how to meet that.

that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.
...Is that conventional wisdom?   As far as I can tell, neither the republicans nor democrats have implemented systems that would directly reduce workers ability to consume, beside the crippling of the economy, which reduces everything else as well.
Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.  He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.  Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits, even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.

 96 
 on: July 11, 2009, 09:02:35 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by Medivh
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. Tongue

Which is what I was trying to get at. But, no, I had to forget that Psy has a one-track mind. "LTV", or economics, appearing anywhere in a thread leads to immediate attempts to derail it into conversion bullshit.

Apologies. I should have known better.

 97 
 on: July 11, 2009, 08:58:54 EDT 
Started by Medivh - Last post by Medivh
I didn't think many of them were tried in the US supreme court...

 98 
 on: July 11, 2009, 02:19:14 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by wodan46
Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.
Is LTV loan to value ratio?  If so, what does what you say have to do with lending measures?
 
Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less)
Wouldn't that just lead to a new set of capitalists?  People are greedy bastards.  Also, honestly, spreading the money like that is problematic for economies large fiscally and literally, you do need power networks, and capitalists are a necessary evil of that network.

so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class)
That is in theory something we should be aiming for.  If the masses consume, they create demand, and they are also more likely to be productive, and thus able to meet the demand, keeping the system going.  I think we will dissagree on how to meet that.

that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.
...Is that conventional wisdom?   As far as I can tell, neither the republicans nor democrats have implemented systems that would directly reduce workers ability to consume, beside the crippling of the economy, which reduces everything else as well.

 99 
 on: July 11, 2009, 02:08:27 EDT 
Started by Medivh - Last post by wodan46
Awesome, I guess.  Isn't that still just the usual State vs. Federal power squabble that seems to be omnipresent?

 100 
 on: July 10, 2009, 22:12:52 EDT 
Started by wodan46 - Last post by Psy
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. Tongue

Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.

Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less) so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class) that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!