The economy

[Howl]

Re: The economy

i agree with howl, you are thinking inside the box camper. theres no country who lacks capitalism, and theres no such wonderfull world where the capitalism provides wealth and nice lifes for everyone.
the base of capitalism is exploitation. every wealth depends of an exploit, if someone sells gold and get rich, there are a thousand of poor miners working for the boss to get rich.
capitalism isnt a flawed system. its actually a vampire system.

That's correct, surplus value comes from surplus labour.

 

[Feersum Endjinn]

Re: The economy

The public sector does not produce wealth...

The Public Sector does not exist to produce wealth. The Public Sector is the last bastion against selfishness, exploitation and profit. Unlike the Private Sector, the Public Sector is all about solidarity and improved living conditions for everyone.

We have public tv to provide culture, education and entertainment to every sector of society - not to make money.

We have public transport systems to provide everyone with a safe, cheap, ecological way of getting around - not to make money.

We have Public Health Systems to provide every single person with quality health care independent of their background, status or wealth - not to make money.

Making money just for the sake of making money produces nothing.

Well-being and economic development decoupled long ago.

When profit is #1, people do not matter.

Some interesting data concerning the current crisis:

To avoid reducing annual profits, businesses needed to reduce the number of employees by approximately 3%. In fact, what many big businesses did (especially but not only in the US) was to take the opportunity to reduce their staff by over 6% so as to actually increase their benefits. The Private Sector does not give a flying f*ck about the country, the lives they ruin or anything except their own bottom line.


FE


PS

ps: lol FE you talk like if the cap had fitted very well in your head

Because I am an "old player"?

I'll tell you a secret: I am actually Ryan's alter-ego...

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

Er, a couple things.

First off, there isn't anything inately incorrect with trickle down economics. The general idea is to give tax breaks etc to the upper class and in particular to business owners and their business. The idea is that they will take this extra money and invest it back into their business. The way they do this is by hiring more workers, buying new plants, buying new machines, etc. Basically by expanding. This expansion eventually will work its way down to the lower classes who are typically the ones producing the machines, plants, or working at the company.

There is nothing "incorrect" about it. However, it does have its flaws. Mostly that there is no guarantee that the businesses will invest the money. Some businesses waste the money, save the money, or pay off debts. None of these will put the capital back into the market and the money will stagnate and not trickle down like its supposed to. The problem in alot of cases is that trickle down is used in economic crises where the company is already in debt. So the money received is only used to repay old debts. So the intended growth from the subsidy actually occurs when the company picks up the debt in the first place not when they receive the subsidy that pays off that debt.

This is the opposite of trickle up. Where you give money to the lower classes with the intentions for them to buy things. Them buying things gives money to the corporations they buy from. Those corporations can then expand as above.

I typically favor trickle up during times of crisis because the lower class NEEDS to spend that money to survive. So there is a very very good chance it won't get saved, but will rather be spent on items that are needed. I would favor trickle down during normal economic times, because those tend to be the times where companies are growing and able to invest that money properly to continue growth. Although over expansion is a whole new problem so it must be considered.


Capitalism is the general idea of how a country runs its market place. More specifically capitalism is a free market system with no government interference. Even proclaimed capitalist countries such as the United States do not run an entirely capitalist market place. However its considered a capitalist state because it is mostly capitalism. Third world countries are often times socialist. They may have aspects of capitalism in their market, but these influences are usually very minor.

Capitalism has been proven to be an effective economic base for sustained growth. Socialism has never been used properly by any government. The power hungry and corrupt typically ruin its chances at success. Also it has the problem of motivation, where there is little reason to go above and beyond the norm. While in capitalism, greed and human rights violations may present moral dilemmas they can be beneficial to economic growth. You can decide on your own which holds more value.


That's as far as world economics is concerned. As far as in game, they generally run the same way as a free market system as far as player interaction is concerned. The restricting factor is not resources, but time and luck. NPCs usually reward time with gold. Players reward luck with time by purchasing another players items with gold. Typically, you can consider gold and time interchangeable as everything has a monetary value. So if an orny is worth 30m and you can earn 1m/hour, then you are essentially buying an orny for 30hours of someone elses time. Consider the time you spend farming as "work" except instead of a paycheck you are rewarded with gold and items. You then use this gold and items to buy and sell with other players in what is essentially a free market system. However the system isn't doomed to inflate forever. There's a few reasons for this. 1st - the obvious gold sinks to take gold out of the game and out of the economy period. 2nd - not all items that are on the market now will remain on the market. Ex. if I want an orny and buy one, that orny that was previously on the market is no longer on the market because I will not sell it. So rare/useful items stay expensive, while not rare/useful items remain cheaper. Usually a shard with a player base that's growing or staying constant will see as many new players entering the economy along with the new items they farm will equal the amount of players leaving and items being purchased/leaving the market.

 

[Xeneize]

Re: The economy

I'd love to know who they are.

If you're going to point the finger, the least you can do is have the cojones to name names...



FE

Cojones? lol Cojones to get banned or cojones to be flamed by the onces part of the corruption?

This is simple dude.

Im not talking about Demise especificly... Im saying that corruption is everywhere. In the streets, in the companies, in the goverment.

Some people use the power to get rich ilegaly, and the onces that are against die or go to jail.

So if corruption is everywhere. Why wouldnt be in a game?

 

[New Deity]

Re: The economy

i agree with howl

wait.. WUT??

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

Er, a couple things.

First off, there isn't anything inately incorrect with trickle down economics. The general idea is to give tax breaks etc to the upper class and in particular to business owners and their business. The idea is that they will take this extra money and invest it back into their business. The way they do this is by hiring more workers, buying new plants, buying new machines, etc. Basically by expanding. This expansion eventually will work its way down to the lower classes who are typically the ones producing the machines, plants, or working at the company.

There is nothing "incorrect" about it. However, it does have its flaws. Mostly that there is no guarantee that the businesses will invest the money. Some businesses waste the money, save the money, or pay off debts. None of these will put the capital back into the market and the money will stagnate and not trickle down like its supposed to. The problem in alot of cases is that trickle down is used in economic crises where the company is already in debt. So the money received is only used to repay old debts. So the intended growth from the subsidy actually occurs when the company picks up the debt in the first place not when they receive the subsidy that pays off that debt.

This is the opposite of trickle up. Where you give money to the lower classes with the intentions for them to buy things. Them buying things gives money to the corporations they buy from. Those corporations can then expand as above.

I typically favor trickle up during times of crisis because the lower class NEEDS to spend that money to survive. So there is a very very good chance it won't get saved, but will rather be spent on items that are needed. I would favor trickle down during normal economic times, because those tend to be the times where companies are growing and able to invest that money properly to continue growth. Although over expansion is a whole new problem so it must be considered.


Capitalism is the general idea of how a country runs its market place. More specifically capitalism is a free market system with no government interference. Even proclaimed capitalist countries such as the United States do not run an entirely capitalist market place. However its considered a capitalist state because it is mostly capitalism. Third world countries are often times socialist. They may have aspects of capitalism in their market, but these influences are usually very minor.

Capitalism has been proven to be an effective economic base for sustained growth. Socialism has never been used properly by any government. The power hungry and corrupt typically ruin its chances at success. Also it has the problem of motivation, where there is little reason to go above and beyond the norm. While in capitalism, greed and human rights violations may present moral dilemmas they can be beneficial to economic growth. You can decide on your own which holds more value.


That's as far as world economics is concerned. As far as in game, they generally run the same way as a free market system as far as player interaction is concerned. The restricting factor is not resources, but time and luck. NPCs usually reward time with gold. Players reward luck with time by purchasing another players items with gold. Typically, you can consider gold and time interchangeable as everything has a monetary value. So if an orny is worth 30m and you can earn 1m/hour, then you are essentially buying an orny for 30hours of someone elses time. Consider the time you spend farming as "work" except instead of a paycheck you are rewarded with gold and items. You then use this gold and items to buy and sell with other players in what is essentially a free market system. However the system isn't doomed to inflate forever. There's a few reasons for this. 1st - the obvious gold sinks to take gold out of the game and out of the economy period. 2nd - not all items that are on the market now will remain on the market. Ex. if I want an orny and buy one, that orny that was previously on the market is no longer on the market because I will not sell it. So rare/useful items stay expensive, while not rare/useful items remain cheaper. Usually a shard with a player base that's growing or staying constant will see as many new players entering the economy along with the new items they farm will equal the amount of players leaving and items being purchased/leaving the market.

i agree, mostly, but i do think that socialism problem isnt that no country properly used.
imo cuba`s socialism doesnt work mainly because of the US embargos fucking up their economics. yet they have the best medicine of the world.
i think that the main problem of socialism is it being the enemy number one of capitalism, so none gives it a chance and in the same time its impossible for a not-self suficient country to run a welthy socialism while all its neighbours are capitalists.
capitalism is actually a very nice system too but its not aplyed correctly by the nations. because of that, the system is consuming itself slowly. i dont think any of us will live to see it, but im pretty sure that the capitalism is coming to an end.
im not sure what will come next but capitalism wont stand much longer.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

wait.. WUT??

just because i dont like him it doesnt mean everything he says is bs

 

[Feersum Endjinn]

Re: The economy

Wait...

Let's define "Socialism" first.

Because as well as having various changing definitions for almost every decade of the last century - today, it also seems to mean something very different on either side of the Atlantic.



FE

PS However you define it - Socialism and Capitalism are neither opposites nor mutually exclusive...

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

ive just seen a video that sums up very well everything here.
specially for the ones that think capitalism is a very nice system.
enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYgfD8t9Y4I&feature=related

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

“First off, there isn't anything inately incorrect with trickle down economics. The general idea is to give tax breaks etc to the upper class and in particular to business owners and their business. The idea is that they will take this extra money and invest it back into their business. The way they do this is by hiring more workers, buying new plants, buying new machines, etc. Basically by expanding. This expansion eventually will work its way down to the lower classes who are typically the ones producing the machines, plants, or working at the company.”

Incorrect. Surplus value as capital is invested into ‘dead’ labour – technological improvements and a greater amount of mechanical productive ability. Surplus value comes from surplus labour so as the ratio of dead labour to human labour increases rate of profit falls. Falling rate of profit causes capitalists to exploit work force more for a higher value of surplus labour to combat tendency for rate of profit to fall. How can you say that money for bosses trickles down to workers in such times? The UK has never faced such cuts since the Thatcher years, and things can only get worse. Bosses are not interested in giving people jobs, they are interested in short-term profits – “accumulate or die” – and exploiting the human labour for the reason I will discuss below. Investing more capital into the means of production does nothing to meet human need in a socio-economic structure that has profit for the sake of profit as its number one priority, after all, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the Prophets!” – it merely serves to create more profit for big bosses in the short term and just widens the yawning gap between man and nature. In a world where the distinction between use value and market value has so been blurred, increased productive capacity is not rational.

There is nothing "incorrect" about it. However, it does have its flaws. Mostly that there is no guarantee that the businesses will invest the money. Some businesses waste the money, save the money, or pay off debts. None of these will put the capital back into the market and the money will stagnate and not trickle down like its supposed to. The problem in alot of cases is that trickle down is used in economic crises where the company is already in debt. So the money received is only used to repay old debts. So the intended growth from the subsidy actually occurs when the company picks up the debt in the first place not when they receive the subsidy that pays off that debt.

“This is the opposite of trickle up. Where you give money to the lower classes with the intentions for them to buy things. Them buying things gives money to the corporations they buy from. Those corporations can then expand as above.”

I thought you were all for the wealth of the private sector’s owners and corporate wealth? Surely, the point is that the working class are better off. If the first priority is their needs, then that is fine. In my socioeconomic vision there is no private sector anyway.

“I typically favor trickle up during times of crisis because the lower class NEEDS to spend that money to survive. So there is a very very good chance it won't get saved, but will rather be spent on items that are needed.”

Further to this, don’t you think that because they’ll be spending more it will create a greater demand for goods and services and cause more people to employed, in both public and private sector? This would improve the GDP, which in your books is a good thing, I presume.

“I would favor trickle down during normal economic times, because those tend to be the times where companies are growing and able to invest that money properly to continue growth. Although over expansion is a whole new problem so it must be considered.”

What is growth for? Well-being and economic development are divorced. If the public do not see the wealth but rather a minute number of absent owners, what is the point in it?

“Capitalism is the general idea of how a country runs its market place. More specifically capitalism is a free market system with no government interference. Even proclaimed capitalist countries such as the United States do not run an entirely capitalist market place. However its considered a capitalist state because it is mostly capitalism. Third world countries are often times socialist. They may have aspects of capitalism in their market, but these influences are usually very minor.”

Capitalism is not a general idea, it is an economic system based on the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit for the sake of profit. Price, distribution, demand and development are controlled by the invisible hand of the market and mutual competition. It is a system of “unpaid debts” and is about accumulation.

The influences of capitalism are NOT very minor. Capitalism is globalised. Look at Nestlé and Coca Cola’s impact on the third world. Look at sweat shops in third world countries. Consider the fact that the US government has overthrown over 50 governments in other countries. The corporate-state partnership controls the world, both humans and their environment. People are dying because of climate change right now and it is because capitalism is about exponential growth and limitless economic development which is not possible in a finite world – we are already making changes to the planet that rival its own basic biogeochemical processes.


“Capitalism has been proven to be an effective economic base for sustained growth. Socialism has never been used properly by any government. The power hungry and corrupt typically ruin its chances at success. Also it has the problem of motivation, where there is little reason to go above and beyond the norm. While in capitalism, greed and human rights violations may present moral dilemmas they can be beneficial to economic growth. You can decide on your own which holds more value.”

The power hungry and corrupt are the ones who are running the world in globalised capitalism, too. Yeah, the Russian Revolution had great potential – just look at what it did for woman’s education right in the early stages – but the historical examples we have are where any potential dissolved into state capitalism. There is no example of a truly socialist state today because capitalism is globalized.

There is plenty of reason to go above and beyond the norm in the absence of capitalism. You really have to understand what a socialist world would mean for standards of living, community and labour. Less division of labour, no need for exploitation due to the lack of the tendency of rate of profit to fall under a system other than capitalism and due to the socioeconomic structure having human need (and consequently environmental need) as the top priority, rather than profit for the sake of profit, means that there would be a lot more useful jobs that people would be proud to do, especially in a new culture (say, a generation or two after a socialist revolution) where people felt very grateful to society for what it is now providing (a welfare state, socialized healthcare and education, employment, etc). We had meaningful and enjoyable labour before capitalism, just think about it, people could have really enjoyed their jobs when we lived in ecosystem cultures rather than biosphere cultures. So you say that economic development can outweigh human rights violations? Shouldn’t economic development be for the purpose of promoting human welfare? Economic development no longer drives the standard of living – those factors decoupled long ago as I have already said and that should be clear to anyone who lives in the developed world. What is wealth for? Yes the private sector generates wealth but why? Only 5% actually receive that and it doesn’t really make them happy either, does it?

 

[New Deity]

Re: The economy

“First off, there isn't anything inately incorrect with trickle down economics. The general idea is to give tax breaks etc to the upper class and in particular to business owners and their business. The idea is that they will take this extra money and invest it back into their business. The way they do this is by hiring more workers, buying new plants, buying new machines, etc. Basically by expanding. This expansion eventually will work its way down to the lower classes who are typically the ones producing the machines, plants, or working at the company.”

Incorrect. Surplus value as capital is invested into ‘dead’ labour – technological improvements and a greater amount of mechanical productive ability. Surplus value comes from surplus labour so as the ratio of dead labour to human labour increases rate of profit falls. Falling rate of profit causes capitalists to exploit work force more for a higher value of surplus labour to combat tendency for rate of profit to fall. How can you say that money for bosses trickles down to workers in such times? The UK has never faced such cuts since the Thatcher years, and things can only get worse. Bosses are not interested in giving people jobs, they are interested in short-term profits – “accumulate or die” – and exploiting the human labour for the reason I will discuss below. Investing more capital into the means of production does nothing to meet human need in a socio-economic structure that has profit for the sake of profit as its number one priority, after all, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the Prophets!” – it merely serves to create more profit for big bosses in the short term and just widens the yawning gap between man and nature. In a world where the distinction between use value and market value has so been blurred, increased productive capacity is not rational.

There is nothing "incorrect" about it. However, it does have its flaws. Mostly that there is no guarantee that the businesses will invest the money. Some businesses waste the money, save the money, or pay off debts. None of these will put the capital back into the market and the money will stagnate and not trickle down like its supposed to. The problem in alot of cases is that trickle down is used in economic crises where the company is already in debt. So the money received is only used to repay old debts. So the intended growth from the subsidy actually occurs when the company picks up the debt in the first place not when they receive the subsidy that pays off that debt.

“This is the opposite of trickle up. Where you give money to the lower classes with the intentions for them to buy things. Them buying things gives money to the corporations they buy from. Those corporations can then expand as above.”

I thought you were all for the wealth of the private sector’s owners and corporate wealth? Surely, the point is that the working class are better off. If the first priority is their needs, then that is fine. In my socioeconomic vision there is no private sector anyway.

“I typically favor trickle up during times of crisis because the lower class NEEDS to spend that money to survive. So there is a very very good chance it won't get saved, but will rather be spent on items that are needed.”

Further to this, don’t you think that because they’ll be spending more it will create a greater demand for goods and services and cause more people to employed, in both public and private sector? This would improve the GDP, which in your books is a good thing, I presume.

“I would favor trickle down during normal economic times, because those tend to be the times where companies are growing and able to invest that money properly to continue growth. Although over expansion is a whole new problem so it must be considered.”

What is growth for? Well-being and economic development are divorced. If the public do not see the wealth but rather a minute number of absent owners, what is the point in it?

“Capitalism is the general idea of how a country runs its market place. More specifically capitalism is a free market system with no government interference. Even proclaimed capitalist countries such as the United States do not run an entirely capitalist market place. However its considered a capitalist state because it is mostly capitalism. Third world countries are often times socialist. They may have aspects of capitalism in their market, but these influences are usually very minor.”

Capitalism is not a general idea, it is an economic system based on the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit for the sake of profit. Price, distribution, demand and development are controlled by the invisible hand of the market and mutual competition. It is a system of “unpaid debts” and is about accumulation.

The influences of capitalism are NOT very minor. Capitalism is globalised. Look at Nestlé and Coca Cola’s impact on the third world. Look at sweat shops in third world countries. Consider the fact that the US government has overthrown over 50 governments in other countries. The corporate-state partnership controls the world, both humans and their environment. People are dying because of climate change right now and it is because capitalism is about exponential growth and limitless economic development which is not possible in a finite world – we are already making changes to the planet that rival its own basic biogeochemical processes.


“Capitalism has been proven to be an effective economic base for sustained growth. Socialism has never been used properly by any government. The power hungry and corrupt typically ruin its chances at success. Also it has the problem of motivation, where there is little reason to go above and beyond the norm. While in capitalism, greed and human rights violations may present moral dilemmas they can be beneficial to economic growth. You can decide on your own which holds more value.”

The power hungry and corrupt are the ones who are running the world in globalised capitalism, too. Yeah, the Russian Revolution had great potential – just look at what it did for woman’s education right in the early stages – but the historical examples we have are where any potential dissolved into state capitalism. There is no example of a truly socialist state today because capitalism is globalized.

There is plenty of reason to go above and beyond the norm in the absence of capitalism. You really have to understand what a socialist world would mean for standards of living, community and labour. Less division of labour, no need for exploitation due to the lack of the tendency of rate of profit to fall under a system other than capitalism and due to the socioeconomic structure having human need (and consequently environmental need) as the top priority, rather than profit for the sake of profit, means that there would be a lot more useful jobs that people would be proud to do, especially in a new culture (say, a generation or two after a socialist revolution) where people felt very grateful to society for what it is now providing (a welfare state, socialized healthcare and education, employment, etc). We had meaningful and enjoyable labour before capitalism, just think about it, people could have really enjoyed their jobs when we lived in ecosystem cultures rather than biosphere cultures. So you say that economic development can outweigh human rights violations? Shouldn’t economic development be for the purpose of promoting human welfare? Economic development no longer drives the standard of living – those factors decoupled long ago as I have already said and that should be clear to anyone who lives in the developed world. What is wealth for? Yes the private sector generates wealth but why? Only 5% actually receive that and it doesn’t really make them happy either, does it?

FOR FUCK'S SAKE. where do you find the time to write essays on a forum?

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

Wait...

Let's define "Socialism" first.

Because as well as having various changing definitions for almost every decade of the last century - today, it also seems to mean something very different on either side of the Atlantic.



FE

PS However you define it - Socialism and Capitalism are neither opposites nor mutually exclusive...

Every sane socialist I know is an anti-capitalist. And socialism is essentially the theory of public/common ownership, workers controlling the means of production and allocation of resources. It is in stark contrast to capitalism, especially when one considers the metabolism between nature and man. Socialist revolutions have always been turned into state capitalism and of course a socialist state is the natural pathway to communism. The revolution needs to be global since capitalism is a globalized.

Maybe I've misunderstood you?!

Nature, nature, nature... I know, I know... I study environmental sciences after all = /

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

FOR FUCK'S SAKE. where do you find the time to write essays on a forum?

Lawl. This kinda thing is my day job at the moment as well = /

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

Every sane socialist I know is an anti-capitalist. And socialism is essentially the theory of public/common ownership, workers controlling the means of production and allocation of resources. It is in stark contrast to capitalism, especially when one considers the metabolism between nature and man. Socialist revolutions have always been turned into state capitalism and of course a socialist state is the natural pathway to communism. The revolution needs to be global since capitalism is a globalized.

Maybe I've misunderstood you?!

Nature, nature, nature... I know, I know... I study environmental sciences after all = /

true. capitalism and socialism defenately dont fit.
and i also agree that a revolution needs to be global since capitalism is global. but i do think there wont be such a revolution. whats going to happen is that capitalism will start to consume itself. tbh i think it already started.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

true. capitalism and socialism defenately dont fit.
and i also agree that a revolution needs to be global since capitalism is global. but i do think there wont be such a revolution. whats going to happen is that capitalism will start to consume itself. tbh i think it already started.

The demise of capitalism is inevitable, yes, exponential growth and limitless economic development is impossible in a finite world. Global economic input has increased 16-fold over the last century, how can that continue when we're nearing the peak of oil production and when we're already changing the planet as much as the planet is changing itself? Ecological crises will be the downfall of capitalism if a revolution is not. But think about class struggle. Read about the poll-tax riots in the UK. Consider the Russian Revolution. I don't have too many examples to tell you about but what I strongly believe is that times of hardship create stronger class consciousness and struggle. People in the UK are now beginning to wake up to the reality of a centre-right government after proposed cuts to the public sector and their axing of 80 quangos (quasi autonomous non governmental organisations). Think about the environmental movement too. In contrast to the 'new paradigm' of environmentalism which is divorced of the polemic of class struggle and the immutability of a left-right divide there is an uproar against capitalism in the name of environmental justice: Look at the Cochabamba accord developed by the left-wing government of Bolivia - the 30 000 strong audience, largely composed of indigenous Bolivians, many of them peasants, sounding horns and cheering at the proposals of the accord to abolish capitalism as the root cause of anthropogenic climate change and associated environmental degradation. I don't think a socialist revolution is inevitable but I think it's very possible.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

The demise of capitalism is inevitable, yes, exponential growth and limitless economic development is impossible in a finite world. Global economic input has increased 16-fold over the last century, how can that continue when we're nearing the peak of oil production and when we're already changing the planet as much as the planet is changing itself? Ecological crises will be the downfall of capitalism if a revolution is not. But think about class struggle. Read about the poll-tax riots in the UK. Consider the Russian Revolution. I don't have too many examples to tell you about but what I strongly believe is that times of hardship create stronger class consciousness and struggle. People in the UK are now beginning to wake up to the reality of a centre-right government after proposed cuts to the public sector and their axing of 80 quangos (quasi autonomous non governmental organisations). Think about the environmental movement too. In contrast to the 'new paradigm' of environmentalism which is divorced of the polemic of class struggle and the immutability of a left-right divide there is an uproar against capitalism in the name of environmental justice: Look at the Cochabamba accord developed by the left-wing government of Bolivia - the 30 000 strong audience, largely composed of indigenous Bolivians, many of them peasants, sounding horns and cheering at the proposals of the accord to abolish capitalism as the root cause of anthropogenic climate change and associated environmental degradation. I don't think a socialist revolution is inevitable but I think it's very possible.

this makes sense, but even if people in europe and america wake up, we will still have the whole africa and the majority of asia people who dont even know whats happening and do not have even a little chance of fighting against it. a revolution would need to be made all over the world, not only in certain countrys or continents. specially not the more well developed ones.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

I think it'd be simpler than one would expect. Do you know anything about Greece's economic turmoil and the cuts that were imposed there that caused so much strike action and brought the country to a halt? We still have speakers from Greece coming to meetings here because they really please the audiences because the struggle in Greece is such an emotive, positive thing to us. In the EU, if Greece, the UK and Spain fell into turmoil from cuts and the public resisted, it could destabilise our economy enough to make it an agent for great change. Capitalism is a global system and it relies on growth or it dies. Destabilising forces in the world could disrupt it's growth and bring it to a halt. That would destroy it, as capitalism is a dynamic system and cannot stand still, that's what distinguishes it from all other socio-economic structures in history. I could be talking shit now because I'm so tired. But if the peasants of Bolivia can cheer for the downfall of capitalism then we have hope.

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

Incorrect. Surplus value as capital is invested into ‘dead’ labour – technological improvements and a greater amount of mechanical productive ability. Surplus value comes from surplus labour so as the ratio of dead labour to human labour increases rate of profit falls. Falling rate of profit causes capitalists to exploit work force more for a higher value of surplus labour to combat tendency for rate of profit to fall. How can you say that money for bosses trickles down to workers in such times? The UK has never faced such cuts since the Thatcher years, and things can only get worse. Bosses are not interested in giving people jobs, they are interested in short-term profits – “accumulate or die” – and exploiting the human labour for the reason I will discuss below. Investing more capital into the means of production does nothing to meet human need in a socio-economic structure that has profit for the sake of profit as its number one priority, after all, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the Prophets!” – it merely serves to create more profit for big bosses in the short term and just widens the yawning gap between man and nature. In a world where the distinction between use value and market value has so been blurred, increased productive capacity is not rational.


I thought you were all for the wealth of the private sector’s owners and corporate wealth? Surely, the point is that the working class are better off. If the first priority is their needs, then that is fine. In my socioeconomic vision there is no private sector anyway.


Further to this, don’t you think that because they’ll be spending more it will create a greater demand for goods and services and cause more people to employed, in both public and private sector? This would improve the GDP, which in your books is a good thing, I presume.


What is growth for? Well-being and economic development are divorced. If the public do not see the wealth but rather a minute number of absent owners, what is the point in it?



Capitalism is not a general idea, it is an economic system based on the means of production being privately owned and operated for profit for the sake of profit. Price, distribution, demand and development are controlled by the invisible hand of the market and mutual competition. It is a system of “unpaid debts” and is about accumulation.

The influences of capitalism are NOT very minor. Capitalism is globalised. Look at Nestlé and Coca Cola’s impact on the third world. Look at sweat shops in third world countries. Consider the fact that the US government has overthrown over 50 governments in other countries. The corporate-state partnership controls the world, both humans and their environment. People are dying because of climate change right now and it is because capitalism is about exponential growth and limitless economic development which is not possible in a finite world – we are already making changes to the planet that rival its own basic biogeochemical processes.


The power hungry and corrupt are the ones who are running the world in globalised capitalism, too. Yeah, the Russian Revolution had great potential – just look at what it did for woman’s education right in the early stages – but the historical examples we have are where any potential dissolved into state capitalism. There is no example of a truly socialist state today because capitalism is globalized.

There is plenty of reason to go above and beyond the norm in the absence of capitalism. You really have to understand what a socialist world would mean for standards of living, community and labour. Less division of labour, no need for exploitation due to the lack of the tendency of rate of profit to fall under a system other than capitalism and due to the socioeconomic structure having human need (and consequently environmental need) as the top priority, rather than profit for the sake of profit, means that there would be a lot more useful jobs that people would be proud to do, especially in a new culture (say, a generation or two after a socialist revolution) where people felt very grateful to society for what it is now providing (a welfare state, socialized healthcare and education, employment, etc). We had meaningful and enjoyable labour before capitalism, just think about it, people could have really enjoyed their jobs when we lived in ecosystem cultures rather than biosphere cultures. So you say that economic development can outweigh human rights violations? Shouldn’t economic development be for the purpose of promoting human welfare? Economic development no longer drives the standard of living – those factors decoupled long ago as I have already said and that should be clear to anyone who lives in the developed world. What is wealth for? Yes the private sector generates wealth but why? Only 5% actually receive that and it doesn’t really make them happy either, does it?

I don't know why you think that trickle down is incorrect. Perhaps your meaning of "incorrect" should be "ineffective"? Otherwise it is supposed to work exactly as I stated. For example, me being the government, gives 1 million dollars to a business. The natural state of man in a capitalist system is greed. So that business owner takes that 1 million dollars and reinvests it into his company under the impression that the 1 million dollars could turn into more based of off whatever returns he is looking at. That 1 million dollars is used to purchase workers, machines, factories, materials, etc. Those things are supplied by the working middle/lower class. So those who were previously unemployed now have a job opening and make money. They spend that additional income to purchase things. Those things they purchase grow both the starting business as well as other businesses.

That is exactly how it is supposed to work. Again there are a few things that can block this process, the most notable being debt. I'm not sure where you are getting "dead labor" from. In fact most of what you've said about trickle down economics simply doesn't make sense or isn't even true. Like I said before, it might not be the best thing for the environment or human rights, but it WORKS for economic development.

Both trickle up and trickle down create more jobs, more wealth, and more GDP. They simply approach the task from different angles. Neither one nor the other can be used for every single situation. For some problems trickle up can be better than trickle down. While in some cases the opposite is true.

The standard of living and GDP are directly tied to one another whether you like it or not. The business owners and lower class are directly tied together. So when businesses see an increase in profit, that profit is invested back into the company as stated above. In fact, the vast majority of businesses are corporations and their owners are everyone that owns stock from the company. The CEOs job is to do whats in the best interest of the stake holders. He is governed and held accountable by a board of directors. If a CEO simply pocketed his earnings and failed to grow the company he would most likely be fired by the board after pissing of all of the stake holders.


Socialism fails because of the motivation problem. If you receive whatever you need what is the point of work? If there is no possible way to better yourself than someone else, why bother doing things well? There is no rewards, and no motivations. Economic development is directly correlated with the standard of living. Just because of a few people are hurt by the system does not mean that the system is flawed or bad for the vast majority of people.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

I think it'd be simpler than one would expect. Do you know anything about Greece's economic turmoil and the cuts that were imposed there that caused so much strike action and brought the country to a halt? We still have speakers from Greece coming to meetings here because they really please the audiences because the struggle in Greece is such an emotive, positive thing to us. In the EU, if Greece, the UK and Spain fell into turmoil from cuts and the public resisted, it could destabilise our economy enough to make it an agent for great change. Capitalism is a global system and it relies on growth or it dies. Destabilising forces in the world could disrupt it's growth and bring it to a halt. That would destroy it, as capitalism is a dynamic system and cannot stand still, that's what distinguishes it from all other socio-economic structures in history. I could be talking shit now because I'm so tired. But if the peasants of Bolivia can cheer for the downfall of capitalism then we have hope.

yup i agree but you are still talking about europe and america. and i dont think that for at least more a thousand years, african people and asian people will have a chance to know whats happening and fight against their opressors. their system is so caothic that they are not able to think in a globalized manner neither their opinion and worries matter to the countrys that rule the capitalism. that being said, the capitalist countrys will still have, for a long time, their "farms" to exploit and get richer.

 

[Oaks]

Re: The economy

Wow, who got out their text books and copy pasted from them ? ;p