>>7594895 >he literally thinks that the price/value of commodities can entirely be broken down into rent, profit, and wages >he fucks up the only true advancement made by classic political economy--Quesnay >can't distinguish between fixed capital, circulating capital, constant capital, and variable capital >fails completely to account for constant capital in the reproduction of total social capital
I'm not one to make a sharp distinction between the young and the old Marx but if your idea of Marx's critical political economy is rooted in his early Feurbachian stuff, then you're gonna be terribly misguided.
The young Hegelians were idealists in their communism. Capital, and in particular money, were seen as alienated forms of human social activity. If humans could only subjectively realize this then they would be free. The Marx of Capital agrees to a certain extent--capital and money are alienated forms of human social activity but no amount of changes in subjectivity will get you beyond them. They are *necessarily* alienated, *necessarily* taken on the form of autonomously moving objects given their position within the structural whole of capitalist production.
Marx in Capital is rigorously moving from the essential logic of capitalism to its appearance on the surface of society.
Here's a good introduction to the mature Marx: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MklmkoV3REE
>>7594929 >What more will I get out of reading Capital? Capital is the only place where one would truly get to understand Marx. It is where he employs his epistimological and sociological outlook that none of which are fully expressed in any of these writings. Neither the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts or the German Ideology where published in his lifetime, and most people have forgotten why the Communist Manifesto was influential in the first place.
>>7595033 you don't need to understand hegel to understand Marx. Yes, he gets his inspiration from Hegel but only in so far as the manner in which the arguments are constructed. The things he talks about are of a completely different nature. It's hard to read but there are loads of good lectures on youtube. David Harvey gives excelent ones to help you get through the thing
Oh, and it turns out we killed Gaddafi because he was going to sell oil for gold... https://www.foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_DecWebClearedMeta/31-C1/DOC_0C05779612/C05779612.pdf http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/#y5adaAlRc6wxuvsu.99
>>7595193 Go sheeps! If my fellow sheep says 'Behh' i put my fucking head in the sand and continue spending the rest of my life in my fapcave oblivious to the rest of the world! P.S. I love to know when Trumps next single comes out, i loved the first one
>>7594948 I'm mainly interested in philosophy; the nuances of economics put me to sleep desu
>>7594954 Thanks. But I think The German Ideology made clear the later Marx position you've indicated. I am on board with the fact that material conditions determine ideology, therefore people can't just 'think' differently to find freedom. >rigorously moving from the essential logic of capitalism to its appearance on the surface of society. sounds cool, but Capital is pretty thick and I kind of feel ready to jump into Freud and the Frankfurt school.
>>7594958 Neither the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts or the German Ideology where published in his lifetime So?
Marx and Smith were hack philosophers who tried to hide behind "le economics". Marx's "economics", and observations of capitalism became redundant within his lifetime, and the application of Marxian economics has never worked.
Smith is equally a pleb choice. If you had posted Turgot that would've been okay.
What I really hate is when "philosophers" or politicians wander into economics with no idea what they're doing. They often think that they can impose their beliefs to produce a desired outcome. Most of the time these people are either socialists or the far-right, religious groups, fascists and the like.
>>7596993 Marx's conclusion was that capitalism's inherent logic would lead to its own fracturing. He didn't predict social democracy or Keynes, but he wasn't trying to predict anything exactly. He merely exposed the structural flaws of capitalism, and that, the central point of his work, has yet to be proved wrong.
>>7597460 i used to have tons of marx and lenin shit but i dumped it all, i only kept a copy of tucker's marx and engles reader, which is a carefully curated collection of shit that isn't totally wrong
>>7597472 actually after wasting years of my life as a marxist the only "insight" that i have kept from those days of undergrad foolery is that all wealth creation comes from human labor...the prices of commodities move around but real wealth can only come from a human doing work
>>7597479 You are lost in a desert without water for for two days. I offer you two products: a glass of water I just got from the sink and a diamond I have spent years perfecting. Which one would you be willing to pay more for? Value is subjective. It has nothing to do with labour.
>>7597506 are you really trying to trick me with that or just dumb? if there is a free economy where i can do as i please then i will just go get my own water from the sink, the amount of labor in it is so small i can just do it myself
>>7597482 Protectionism, like social democratic interventionism, is just this crazy phase capitalism goes through when it's not feeling very well. You can't distinguish it from "free market" capitalism when both are part of the same process of the waxing and waning of capitalism's inherently destructive tendencies.
>>7597301 Reddit has the largest ancap community anywhere on the internet, and although no ideology is very patrician, communism has a significantly larger literary tradition than any competing ideology
>>7597539 Chile has the freest market in South America. Coincidentally, it became the most developed and stable nation in the continet after adopting liberal economic policies. The same thing happened with numerous other countries.
>>7597560 also, think about the labor required to defend a desert well from invaders, consider the labor required to build it, etc. turns out desert wells require a lot of labor! uh oh, looks like you're a fucking faggot
I'm an Indonesian, I can't english pretty well, I read recognitions and infinite jest alright, I can blend in literature? I am here hagag so tell me, am I lit yet? What to go from here? Btw I use colordict too hahag, I heard winds today in the morning rushing toward long and short stems mesmerized by the hauling green leaves whose sheer of rustling nearly beating the air in its coloring paradox of greens, sometimes brown but not wither, so tell me, am I lit yet? Haghsg
I absolutely love the point Zizek made about "free market" fundamentalists in this day and age. It's trivial, but amusing - that the people who now insist that it's not free market economics' fault that the world is how it is today, who are convinced we just need a "more free market" to make things work out, are basically in the same contradictory position as those communists who chant "communism has never been tried!".
>>7597595 the problem with people, and this goes back to the beginning of people, is thinking there is something wrong with the world and that it is someone or something's fault. if you want something, do work until you have it, or don't. there's nothing wrong with the world. the truth is this is the best of all possible worlds.
>>7597593 You're attacking a very fragile strawman. From Marx to Lenin to today's Chinese communists, admiration for and recognition of the successes of capitalism - emulation of those successes, even - has never been absent from communist thought. Marx himself played the stock market and mooched off of Engels' dirty capitalist money.
>>7597614 I have moved on. I think that Lenin had a lot of useful things to say and also made a lot of mistakes. "Industrial feudalism" is completely the wrong term for the Soviet experiment - likely derived from the fallacy-ridden "new class" argument pioneered by Dilas - but I also don't believe there's much to be gained in pining for that same experiment, whatever you call it. I just don't like this kind of ignorant strawmanning.
Are you really that naive, or are you just being dense on purpose?
I'm not talking about free trade, I'm saying that Chile is in a favourable position because it is a close ally of the United States. Consequently American companies are encouraged to set up businesses there. Think of it as the opposite of a trade embargo.
>>7597611 How did it work to those centroamerican countries that were under the wing of the US for now one hundred years, that always had a US backed coup whenever a nationalist/socialist/communist government got into power? They are shitholes. The most violent countries in the world today are the product of a hundred years of liberalism
>>7597627 wow you mean having good relations with the best economy in the world is good for your own economy? but i thought the united states was an imperialist exploiter! by marxism cuba should be rich as fuck and chile a shithole filled with prositutes and crumbling buildings yet the opposite is true, hmmmm....
>>7597624 You're really dumb, man. Chile was the only one that had its elected communist government overthrown in a coup specifically engineered by the US to discredit the idea of elected communism (that's not even conspiracy theory stuff, there's plenty of evidence). Do you really think the US would let their shiny new ally fall apart after that? It's like Japan after World War Two.
>>7597632 Having good relation with the US doesn't mean that they had economic liberalism. Those countries have always had big and bossy, yet weak governments, which is the main reason for their failures.
>>7597637 I'm South American. My country was also under a military regime during the second half of the 20th century. The coups, which happened in numerous south american nations, all targeted socialist political leaders. All countries had good relations with the US during that period, but Chile was the only one to go through with liberal reforms.
>>7597640 They had economic liberalism. Companies from the US were free to pay as much as they wanted to the labourers, paid little taxes, were able to export however they wanted, to set their own ports etc. Take a look at the history of the greatest fruit company (can't remember its name currently)
>>7597655 you'll find the root of Chile's success in it's lower than average (for latin america) amount of catholicism...the most corrupt and crime and violence ridden shitholes in latin america are also the most catholic, catholicism and corruption go hand in hand like italians and the mafia....
>>7597655 Argentina had liberal reforms. Martinez de Hoz and so on. Later Menem kept with those policies until everything went to shit on 01'. Chile wasn't the only country to have liberal reforms. I dare say most countries had them
The US is most likely investing in Chile and encouraging companies to go there to suit its political ends. The fact that it's a free market economy is at best, a means to an end. And if relations between the US and Chile were bad, their liberal economic policies would not save them.
>>7597655 Chile was also the posterboy, the most famous example. Chile was the playground given to Friedman and his hacks. It couldn't afford to fail. Come on, you don't really think the US allowed all that to happen out of the good of its heart, do you? It wanted to fuck over the commies. Again, just like Japan. If the US wants an example of the glories of capitalism, it damn well makes one.
>>7597667 >Again, just like Japan. If the US wants an example of the glories of capitalism, it damn well makes one.
this argument that america some how "made" japan is retarded, considering japan was already a heavily industrialized imperial power long before the war or else they wouldn't have even been a challenge for us in the war
>>7597663 During the 1980s it was. The 1990s were a completely different thing. Still those reforms worked in the long run. You have no idea how bad things were before them. They brought stability, low inflation and credibility and reduced government bureaucracy and inefficiency. Unfortunately, we are now moving back to unstable times thanks to the current leftist governments. Argentina is lucky to have finally freed itself.
>>7597678 Thats not what he said. >>7597667 Yeah, thats why Argentina is looking good 1 month after Macri got in and Colombia improvements over the last decade started with neoliberalism, go fuck yourself, thats intelectual dishonesty
>>7597663 Brazil had none, Argentina's one's werent signficant, also, a liberal economy doesnt work if people arent actually free, after Pinochet left the goverment is when Chile started seeing changes.
>>7597686 Would to be poor in Chile? That entails being some Indian that gets the shits from drinking well water, having no education, not enough money to pay your kids education and so on; or would you be an average citizen in other bumfuck country, where at least you have healthcare and free education? Would you like to live in a country where there are giant masses of extremely poor and ignorant people willing to do anything for shit amount of money, people that follow populist politicians that fuck them over in order to make the rich richer?
>>7597718 >That entails being some Indian that gets the shits from drinking well water, having no education, not enough money to pay your kids education
so that indian is doing the same thing it was doing before capitalism or contact with europe, so what? no one "made" indians poor, they just stayed the same while hard working whites prospered by the will of god
>>7597734 This is not your containment board >>7597695 So you be sayin, that if you give big capitals the freedom to pay slave wages and shit amount of taxes to some brown people third world country, they will refuse to do so? Or that if they do so, somehow the workers will prosper?
>>7598159 Read Adorno's preface and the final aphorism. It's an interesting way of working out a sort of inverted Marxist critique of value. Rather than work at the level of structural, conceptual moments of capitalist production and delineate the contradictions, necessary moments, etc. into a social totality represented at a high level of abstraction, he works out what amounts to a critique of value situated from the level of subjectivity, from the perspective of a fragmented view on the fragmentation of human social activity.
It's a mixed bag really, but as a whole it works. If you're not well versed in philosophical Marxism and the critique of political Marxism it may just come across as some old dude saying everything about anything is awful.
>>7598193 >If you're not well versed in philosophical Marxism and the critique of political Marxism it may just come across as some old dude saying everything about anything is awful. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about. I've just been told that my taste is similar to his.
>>7597343 >make a falsifiable marxist statement we'll see if it's wrong or not I always laugh when Austrian economists/libertarians say this shit because their own philosophies aren't falsifiable either.
>>7597676 >Japan >heavily industrialised long before the war
Get a load of this guy! Also you don't think the Americans occupying Japan, creating an artificial ruling party out of pre-war industrialist families and anti-communists, shutting out leftists and communists intentionally, and allowing a society of exploitation so extreme "death from overwork" is an actual thing to continue despite having the power to stop it constitutes "making" current Japan?
>>7598393 As at least one other person has pointed out, Reddit is more ancap and lolbertarian than commie. It's actually closer to 4chan politically, on the whole, than anywhere else online; 4chan just dresses up its contrarianism as the prerogative of some kind of intellectual elite rather than the resentful howl of the twenty-something it actually is.
>>7598422 I don't doubt the existence of genuine intellectuals on /lit/ (not me, I just write erotic fiction and like arguing about gommunism). But for the most part the politics of 4chan in general stem from a very unintellectual contarianism, a defining-yourself-against-others mentality that leads to the hilarious spectacle of "reactionaries" in their early twenties, young men who believe a hundred percent in liberal capitalism except for the parts that the modern (no less feeble, I must add) protest left supports, whatever they may be. This, of course, is the exact mirror of the protest left, which loathes the protest right. The majority of 4channers - and the majority of posts in this thread - fall within that sad, stupid dichotomy.
>>7597769 The "shit" wages you talk about are better than the ones they previously received, otherwise they wouldn't choose to work in your company. Take China as an example. Thanks to foreign companies that outsource labour, the chinese don't have to work on farms and not know if they will have anything to eat the next day. They wouldn't have chosen to work at those factories if it wasn't beneficial to them. And do you know what the best part is? Those "slave" wages lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, better than any other government social programme. Sure, there some chinese people got richer than others, but society in general benefited from the free-market reform implemented in China.
>>7598542 This is very true. For developing countries, the free (or semi-free, in China's case) market is a necessary step to modernisation. But what about the stagnation, alienation and indifference displayed in already-developed countries? When everyone from China to darkest Africa is 'developed', how will the world work?
>>7598562 I'd also like to add that when talking about China, we have to remember that the reason it's so much less of a shithole than India, for example, is because of the extreme level of state involvement in the economy. So this is not a black and white "market good/state bad" argument. Ignoring that kind of dogmatism, and its opposing pro-state anti-market lefty equivalent, is why China is so successful today.
>>7598562 Capital will move where it can get higher revenues while paying minimal costs. If a country offers those things more than the others, that is where capital will move to. For example: if, in a world where everyone is developed, Italy, for some unknown reason, gives more incentives for shoes to be produced than the other countries, investors from all over the world will see it as an opportunity and decide to install their industries there.
>>7598582 Where to begin? The most obvious one is probably the labour theory of value. Then you have all the predictions that didn't come true, the now-known to be inefficient centralised planning, foreign trade becomes necessary... The list goes on.
>>7598571 China received a larger influx of foreign capital exaclt because it had less state intervention in the economy than India. The chinese government let companies do what they wanted, as long as they payed minimal taxes. That does not happen in India, where bureaucracy, taxes, corruption and legislations make it a less desirable country to settle a company in.
>>7598579 But who makes the things China makes now? India? What about when India is developed too? If capitalism can truly, by itself, lead to a developed and prosperous standard of living, then that leaves no one left to be exploited, and therefore no foundation for its existence. >>7598595 >>7598597 Basically, the Chinese let foreigners into the economy in order to use them.. It kept foreigners away from the "commanding heights". This is why China is, to some western commentators, cheating at capitalism.
>>7598598 >But who makes the things China makes now? India? What about when India is developed too? Example: Everyone is developed. Italy goes into recession. People ger laid off, factories close, etc... Foreign investors notice that people are willing to work for less. They open their factories inside the country and hire the unemployed, who, in turn, think it is better to work as a shoemaker in a factory floor (provided that complete mechanisation is not a thing) than to not have a job at all.
>>7598659 >>7598663 A job is a blessing to, say, a Chinese farmer, because of the leap ahead it represents. But a job, to an Italian or an Englishman or American, is nothing more than what you do. Your proposed future is one where people are grateful for work and nothing more, is that correct? Why should anyone want to live there?
>>7598673 So you want people to not work at all to survive? Is that it? That could be true in a distant future where robots/A.I's do everything for us, but that surely is not the case right now. I'm sorry if the universe is not perfect, but capitalism still delivers more prosperity than any other economic system in history.
>>7598684 You're assuming too much about my views. I value work, and I value capitalism; but it delivers however much prosperity is profitable, nothing more, nothing less. Based upon such a limited goal, it can't last forever, no more than feudalism could before it. I myself don't refute capitalism's successes, or its dynamism or strength, but I do feel that we are reaching a point of ultimate contradiction - how will US workers feel when the people working in sweatshops are not the distant Chinese but themselves? In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the grievances of workers led to the formation of powerful anti-capitalist movements ranging from fascism to Soviet socialism, which were only subsumed by the rise of social democracy after World War Two. But now social democracy is plainly kaput. So what will happen next? It can't be the simple exportation of third world workers' woes to the first, without upheaval or complaint. If we continue towards "equal development" we will continue towards the end of capitalism.
>>7598697 > how will US workers feel when the people working in sweatshops are not the distant Chinese but themselves? You seem like an intelligent guy, but holy fuck, mate. American workers complain all the time that "the Chinese are stealing our jawbs!" The system is pefrectly sustainable and there is not a single person that has ever proved otherwise.
>>7598718 American workers complain about it now, but will they feel the same way when they're crammed into the conditions Chinese workers endure? The last time Americans did that kind of work, there were communist movements all over the country. And Chinese workers are only held back from outright unionizing by their government. There's no way Americans could tolerate the same treatment without the same kind of repression - and if a system has to be enforced through violent authoritarianism, is it really all that sustainable? Especially given that the "natural" nature of capitalism is half of the reason it is proposed as the best system we have.
>>7598722 >American workers complain about it now, but will they feel the same way when they're crammed into the conditions Chinese workers endure? Well, now you are making predictions. There is no way to know about the feelings of individual workers. >a system has to be enforced through violent authoritarianism, is it really all that sustainable? It doesn't have to. It is was not enorced through authoritarianism in Europe or in the US. There were some socilaists movements, but how did they turned out? Also, look at the number of democracies in the world. Now look at how many of them follow the capitalist system. All of them? That's right.
>>7598738 Well, that's what I'm saying. You're talking about the past. The past has happened. We know that capitalism was the best option in 1917, in 1945, in 1989. Now, however, the world is changing very rapidly, and to assume complacency based upon the past seems very misguided. The primary reason capitalism has triumphed over feudalism and early attempts at socialism is because it offers more material goods - but now if, as you suggest, capitalism will become a game in which there is no "developing" class to exploit (because they have known nothing better), then how can it argue the case against any alternative except through fear? Which I think is what we are already witnessing. Nothing is static.
>>7598744 It's not exploitation. Stop saying that. Capitalism still exists in the US mainly through the service sector. In a distant future, maybe all factory jobs will be automated and everyone will work in services. Or people will still work in factories if they need to in order to survive, without any government coercion. There is just no way of knowing.
>>7598738 >canada >more economically free than the US Meanwhile, in reality, the government has its hands in every industry. The government in most municipalities is one of, if not the, largest employer. The government takes every opportunity it can to implement price control in the form of price ceilings and price floors resulting in shortages and surpluses, respectively.
Oh yes, the Canadian economy is much freer than the American economy.
>>7598756 >It's not exploitation. Stop saying that.
There's no way getting around it--profit is surplus value is surplus labor is making workers labor more than the time necessary to provide with a value equivalent to the wage. Exploitation is what makes capital possible. If you paid workers an equivalent to what they provide in terms of value then there would be no profit, no capital.
>>7599030 The state is NECESSARY in capitalist formations. It arises spontaneously to attempt to reconcile conflict between capitalists and labor and capitalists themselves.
>>7599078 You're making the assumption that value is objective.
If you purchase a loaf of bread from a grocer for $3, the only reason you come to an agreement is because the bread is worth more to you than $3 and the $3 is worth more to the grocer than the loaf of bread. Value is entirely subjective.
It's the same circumstance with labour. If an employee and employer agree to $15/hour for labour, it's because the employee values $15/hour more than his hour of labour and the employer values the labour more than the money.
It's not exploitation because it's entirely voluntary and both parties win in the transaction. This balance and equilibrium is destroyed though when the state steps in and implements price control.
>>7599078 >If you paid workers an equivalent to what they provide in terms of value then there would be no profit, no capital.
this is called the return on the capitalist's investment, if there is no "exploitation" then no one will invest in capital and there will be no capital for the workers to use...this is why marx is a dummy. an industrial machine is not the same as a field, you can't compare agricultural exploitation to industrial work. only a lazy thinker would do that. without the landlord the field would still be there...without the capitalist the factory would be a field! marxism is fucking stupid, which is why it's in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
So you can coordinate total social reproduction on a global scale, maintaining socially necessary amounts of labour in different industries and sectors of the economy each dependent upon specific ratios of supply and demand to maintain their own continuity in production and profit realization through a collection of entirely subjective exchanges?
Because that's what one part of the LTV does. It actually explains how the fuck labor is able to, without central coordination, move within conditions of semi-equilibrium in conditions of high segmented, autonomously moving independent capitals.
Again. The state is a necessary moment in capitalist formations. Without the state, workers and capitalists would be in a continual state of antagonism and capitalists among themselves would in their self-interest destroy normal, sustainable capitalist production.
>without the capitalist the factory would be a field!
Funny how the capital fetish just can make itself expressed so spontaneously. "Capital", or constant capital (machinery, raw materials), is itself the product of labor. It's the labor-process congealed into an object. Without active, living labor (the worker), it's just a machine rusting away. So workers not only make the machine, they actually make it useful as well.
>>7599228 And who buys the machines? Who hires the workers? Who has brilliant ideas for products? Who puts their capital at risk? Who takes the initiative? Who orchestrates the whole thing? Entrepreneurs are just as, and sometimes even more, necessary than the workers themselves. He has to be compensated for the risk of investing , otherwise there would be no incentives. Also, there is no exploitation, since workers are aware of the contracts they have voluntarily signed with their employers.
>>7597608 >From Marx to Lenin to today's Chinese communists, admiration for and recognition of the successes of capitalism - emulation of those successes, even - has never been absent from communist thought What the fuck am I reading?
Chinese communists literally went from town to town and buried alive the "bourgeois"
Lenin absolutely loathed anything close to capitalism
>>7599399 Marx was enormously fascinated by the potential of industrial production and innovation realized by the capitalist mode of production. You forgot he thought the capitalist mode of production was the highest one achieved by humanity thus far?
Chinese communists literally emulated the 'industrialization is progress' trope like the USSR and the others
>>7600255 >On top of that, it's been proven that, like anarchy, communism doesn't work. howbout you find that out for yourself you parroting capitalist pig, no but really stop assuming, it is functionable, try, idk, reading it
>>7599399 >>7599749 Exactly. Communism is rooted in an admiration and acknowledgement of capitalism. China today is in many ways just the logical outcome of certain strands of Marx's thought - the current CCP might not be socialist, but it is definitely Marxist in outlook and rationale.
>>7600577 Marx also talked about the intertwining of state and market interests as a key part of capitalism - so even if the crisis wasn't caused by the market, by taking place in a world where the state interest is to serve the motive of endless accumulation, it was still inherently down to capitalism. Do you know anything about Marx, comrade?
>>7598697 corporations will just have to pay their employees better. some of them will bankrupt and local business will prosper and take their places. Also, somewhere there will always be scarcity of something, prices will float accordingly. what you see today is just one point of the sine function
>>7596937 Whoa! You've completely buttfucked Marx and Adam Smith at the same time in the same 4chan post! Now all you have to do is send it to some prestigious university and wait for your cathedra. And remember: if they ignore you it's all because there's a socialist conspiration against geniuses like you.
One is under the sway of ideology when one holds beliefs that are contrary to or obscure the 'really real reality' of socio-economic relations that determine class structure, distributions of power, etc etc etc.
>>7603280 Not only is that not a satisfactory definition of ideology, but it doesn't describe Marxism. Perhaps you have a general misinformed impression of what communism is and you're confusing that with Marxism.
>>7603257 I wasn't talking about Marx, but other marxist authors. One guy at /his/ told me to go read "Mandel" as if he was the most important theorist of our age. The first thing that comes up when you search for Mandel is a Canadian comedian.
>>7603372 Value is subjective. For example, I am selling two coffee mugs. One is red and the other is blue. Both required the same amount of work to be produced. You come into the store to buy a mug. You don't like red, so you are not willing to pay anything for the red one. You decide to buy the blue one, instead. Unfortunately, when you arrived home you accidently broke your newly aquired coffee mug. You start to get desparate, as you have a party at your house starting in 20 minutes and you need another mug. You then decide to go back to the store and buy the blue one, which you were previously not willing to pay anything for. Summing up, people's perception of value differs from each other and depends on the situation.
The recent lackluster successes of QE does not vindicate the gold standard, it merely highlights the difficulty of implementing effective monetary policy when you have uncooperative parties in both private and public sectors. It is also only one strategy that a sovereign currency allows you.
>>7603503 Let's try to explain it in another way. In times of crisis, the money banks receive from the central bank is not lent to individuals or firms, since the economy is too unstable and risky. Instead, they buy government bonds or speculate, thus making QE innefective at stimulating the economy. Alternatively: M*V = P*Q If V goes down, the policy is innefective.
Preventing QE is not a mark in the gold standard's favor, and its track record at preventing inflation is very spotty. It also limits your monetary policy to 'wait and watch', the end result being 'okay, the crisis resolved itself' or 'oh shit we gotta do something'. The first thing usually done is suspension of the god standard.
>>7603566 >Preventing QE is not a mark in the gold standard's favor It actually is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard >It also limits your monetary policy to 'wait and watch', the end result being 'okay, the crisis resolved itself' Exactly.
Except they usually don't resolve themselves, and if they did the social consequences would be untenable, which is why intervention occurs in the first place.
The 'magic' of the god standard paired with laissez-faire policy is mass cyclical unemployment on a global scale, which leads to massive social unrest, impoverishment, technical regression--the list goes on.
>>7603593 >What is Say's law Simply put: 1. The economy is in recession. People get laid off and stop buying products. 2. Entrepreneurs notice that people are now willing to work for less, since it is better than being unemployed. (prices in the labour market go down) 3. People get re-hired and the economy picks up again.
Say's law is 1) paradoxical; how, exactly, is supply suppose to create its own demand? Especially when NO ONE HAS ANY MONEY BECAUSE THEY'VE LOST THEIR JOBS and 2) rejected by basically everyone because of 1).
Who's rehiring? All the firms are closed, and new firms can't emerge because they can't raise the capital to start up, and they can't raise the capital because the arbitrary limitation on currency inflation prevents them from taking out a loan.
>>7603648 That is not even a valid criticism since even Keynes himself agreed that the economy could fix itself. He was just too impatient to let it do its thing. "In the long run, we will all be dead"
Yes, surely it's better to let three generations suffer in poverty until the next employment wave eddies its way to your country. Because the economy is not a mechanism for bettering mankind, but its own eternal, autonomous entity with sovereign rights that supersede the desires and aspirations of any puny mortal people.
>>7603725 I own a company. Times are rough and I have to lay people off. The supply in the job market just increased, meaning that workers are now worth less. I hire more workers for lower wages until the economiy picks up. It has nothing to do with wanting people to suffer. It is the exact opposite. Government intervention creates more problems than it solves.
The conversation developed organically out of a larger discussion about a piece of economic/sociological literature. The mods have kept the thread alive thus far, so I guess that's an implicit endorsement.
That kind of market flexibility is possible because of an elastic currency! How do you not get this? I am not advocating for any specific policy, only against the gold standard and for a sovereign currency.
>>7603796 I was saying that the austrian business cycle is still possible under the gold standard (especially under it) since prices can still freely change. The gold standard just prevents governments from artificially messing with prices.
The problems it produces far exceed the temporary and tenuous benefits it offers. We've already been over this. It's been tried, multiple times. It's failed, every time, and for the exact reasons mentioned above. It's a pipe dream. The desire to see it implemented might stem from positive motivations, but reality, especially political reality, doesn't care about that.
You hold your hand to a stovetop, planning to keep it there for 5 minutes. But wait, you're hand is burning. You retract your hand after 5 seconds rather than 5 minutes. Did this mean you didn't try to hold your hand to the stove?
>>7603890 The analogy is wrong. It is possible that the economy is a self-correcting mechanism, although am not entirely convinced. It does have cycles with painful downs, but those are only temporary.
>>7603960 There can be no stove considering you don't know if the economy is a self-correcting mechanism. Since Say's law has never been put in practice, there is no empirical evidence. Understand now?
>>7604009 I don't think you understand what Say's Law is, mate. The law is mainly used in laissez-faire theories to explain why the economy tends to full-employment on the long run. If you are not willing to consider empirical evidence as necessary for the establishment of economic policies, we have nothing more to talk about.
1) Economies do not tend toward full employment without intervention 2) Say's Law claims that supply will create its own demand and thus prevent gluts. This is demonstrably false, which is why Say's law is rejected by pretty much everyone but, apparently, you. 3) You were previously claiming Say's law had never been 'implemented', and now you are claiming empirical evidence supports it. Not only that, but your 'evidence' is a basic model that has nothing to do with what you're claiming.
>>7604083 1. There is no evidence of that. 2. How can you consider it is false, given that it has never been tried? 3. I didn't say that empirical evidence supports it. I said that there is no empirical evidence that disporves it. 3.5. The graph was not an evidence to economy self-correction. It was an evidence to what the Say's Law is actually about, something you don't seem to understand.
1) The evidence is in the fact that gluts DO OCCUR and that full employment IS NEVER ATTAINED 'naturally' 2) It's not something you 'try'. It's either tenants or untenable. It isn't tenable. 3) Your claims are confused and contradictory 3) The model you provided is demonstrating a recession, something that shouldn't be possible given Say's law
>>7604128 1. If given enough time, maybe it will 2. A laissez-faire approach to an economic crisis can be tried. 3. Sorry 4. Recessions can occur, but the economy naturaly moves towards full-employment in the long run. See that ASlr? Yeah, that's it. Basic classical economics.
'Misallocation' or not (why should this matter in the aggregate?) they should be impossible according to Say's law. For someone with a master's grasp on classical economics it's amazing that you aren't able to understand this very, very basic point.
>>7603404 Same question I asked earlier: how does a purely subjective theory of value account for the coordination of total social capital and its reproduction through necessary exchanges between independent capitals?
Value-subjectivism always likes these stupid examples and considers them profound without realizing that the vast majority of exchanges occur between capitals in such a way that insures the continued reproduction of both parties.
>>7604780 1. An equilibrium price is found for every product. 2. Marx's theory of reproduction is shit because value is not determined only by supply. I wouldn't become too attached to it if I were you. No one belives this shit in 2016.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.