Marx and Automation
- This topic has 650 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote:@Robbo post number #241, the last paragraph Again, in post-industrial, post-modern capitalist society, every moment of a workers life is immersed in production and in consumption, simultaneously, both mental and physical, whether he is at the office and/or at home and/or on holiday. So the lines are blurred between production and consumption, as a result, surplus value is realized in the two forms, both quantifiable and unquantifiable. Why do you hold on to the idea that somehow value must be solely produced in production, as Marx did. Marx seem to think production and consumption were rigid, separated, definite spheres, and maybe, in 1867, they were. But they are not anymore, they are blurred. Increasingly, in this thread, me and some are speaking from two different epistemes, paradigms etc. I am speaking from the 21st century, dealing with real 21st century issues such as inflated CEO salaries that have nothing to do with labor-time expenditures, while, many of the responses on this thread are speaking from a by-gone era, really, out of date stuff.I understand Marx quite well, I've been reading him for 20 years, and I don't think another 20 years will bring me to ever accept that his 1867 analysis is whole-heartedly valid, across the board, for the current post-industrial era, we are currently living in.The fact that capitalism has not come to an end, as Marx predicted a long-time ago, is because capitalism has found a way to subvert socially necessary labor-time as the determinant of price, value and wage. Capialism has unshackled itself from any rational labor theory of value. Hence, capitalism's jump to post-industrialism and post-modernism in many spheres of production and consumption. This incongruity in capitalism and in its relation to a rational labor-theory of value has made Marx's analysis suspect. Hence, for the last 5 years, I've been reading Marx trying to pin-point areas where capitalism has overturned his rational analysis. Where capitalism has out-done itself in relation to Marx's analysis. And a primary area where capitalism, is outdoing Marx's analysis, is the area concering value, price and wage. Another glarring area, I have discovered, is where Marx discusses decreasing production costs in relation to decreasing prices. I have found the socio-economic phenomenon of decreasing productions costs in relation to ever-increasing prices. This is fundamentally, a post-industrial, post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, not a modern one. Where modernity still holds then Marx's notion still exists. But the post-industrial, post-modern, socio-economic phenomena, I've outlined, is real and is occuring, as well.It may be that both the socio-economic phenomena, the one I outline and the one Marx outlines, are part of one mechanism by which capitalists can shift gears. (That is where my thinking is at with this socio-economic analysis).I am not on this forum to argue whether I am right or wrong, whether I have understood Marx correctly or Not!I am here to explore, constructively, our contemporary socio-economic situation, specifically, these areas. Not to get Marx regurgitated at me, verbatim. Because my socio-economic analysis does not fit his analysis. My analysis is not suppose to fit Marx's analysis verbatim, we are living in two different eras, two different types of capitalism.I would like to hear from others on this forum where my socio-economic analysis overlaps with Marx's analysis, instead. Where are our points of agreement, rather than our points of disagreement.
Michel, I would not disgaree with your point that Marx got it wrong on occasions. He clearly did make mistakes. And I understand your point about the tendency in the modern world for production to become more blurred with consumpton. Years ago I read several books by the futurologist, Alvin Toffler , in which he talked of an emerging "prosumer economy" (the combination of prpducton and consumption) and the decline of Fordist mass production techniques being increasing crowded out by computer-aided "Lean production" techniques originating after the Second World War in Toyota's factories So yes in many respects the world is a very different place today compared to the one in which Marx wrote Das Kapital. Even so, I have very serious reservations about your claim that his core theory his been marginalised by the development of capitalism into a post-modern post-industrial system (though you seem to acknowlege that his theory still holds good in some parts of the world where old fashioned factory production cntinues such as in the export processing zones of so called Third World countries and elsewhere You say "Increasingly, in this thread, me and some are speaking from two different epistemes, paradigms etc". This may be part of the problem – that you are employing a definition of "value" that is radically different from Marx's. But that doesnt invalidate Marx's definition or marginalise its significance and you can only attempt to demonstrate that it does by starting from within the theory itself and relating it to the world around us. As I said, the basic postulate of the theory is that aggregate prices must equate in the end with aggregate values and that this logically follows from the very essence of the theory itself – that value only reveals itself in exchange, in market sales. Individual prices can and must diverge from their values but overall, in the aggregate, they must logically equate .Your argument however, as I understand it, is that they increasingly do not equate and that there is growing divorce at the macro or aggregate level between Value and Prices and this is expressed as a tendency for the costs of production to decline and for the price of commodities to keep on rising. I have pointed out that while it is certainly true that some prices notably those of branded goods have risen it is equally true that other have fallen in relative terms. I have also pointed out – see the detailed arguments in post 198 – that if prices in general were rising then this would include also the prices of inputs or intermediate goods and that would then contradict your claim about the costs of production declining since in this case they would be rising. And finally I have pointed out that there are opportunity costs involved in just arbitrarily raising proces. Consumers have limited budgets and if they have to pay more for some things then that means they have less money to spend on other things. That means the market for those other things must surely contract and the way businesses responding to contracting markets is not to raise their prices but to lower them. Therse are important criticisms of your main theory, Michel, and I do urge you to deal with them. There is a lot of useful stuff that you say in your theory but I think by accommodating more of what Marx has to say on the subject of value and price, a more robust theory could emerge as result
Hello Michel,You say“It may be that both the socio-economic phenomena, the one I outline and the one Marx outlines, are part of one mechanism by which capitalists can shift gears. (That is where my thinking is at with this socio-economic analysis).I am not on this forum to argue whether I am right or wrong, whether I have understood Marx correctly or Not!I am here to explore, constructively, our contemporary socio-economic situation, specifically, these areas. Not to get Marx regurgitated at me, verbatim. Because my socio-economic analysis does not fit his analysis. My analysis is not suppose to fit Marx's analysis verbatim, we are living in two different eras, two different types of capitalism.I would like to hear from others on this forum where my socio-economic analysis overlaps with Marx's analysis, instead. Where are our points of agreement, rather than our points of disagreement.”(Your comment 255)To help so we can agree I have no problem in thinking of two different types as parts of one big capitalist mechanism. That’s just what any consistent socialist reads into the SPGB Object.“PreambleCapitalist ownership is a hindrance to production.The small capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to that of the big capitalist.The big capitalist enterprise is a hindrance to production compared to Socialist Production.”(The Socialist Preamble to SPGB Object)Again to help so we can agree please: 1) Think of the average rate of profit for small type. 2) Think of average rate of profit for big type. 3) Add the two rates and divide by two.Now we are on same page with average rate of profit overall.Or we can split the whole down the line of sheep and goats. On one side crooked traders. On the other side put honest traders if you can find honest ones. Or we can think of lying thieving idle bosses and management teams. We both know how we can quote chapter and verse on all that from Marx.When we think of different parts, we can always add and divide for the average.We always have our way back onto the same page with Marx.But here our search for truth boils down to this. Which way to produce wins in the end? Is it the way which is best at cheating? Or is it rather the way which saves and does not waste human labour hours?
@robbo, All in all, you have described my position pretty accurately. What you have introduced is something I can work with. Yes, I agree with you, robbo, I would argue that value and price are functioning differently, than Marx concieved. The aggregate values and aggregate prices no longer have to equate, since unquantifiable elements infiltrate value, price and wage-determinations. I would state that value/price are no longer primarily determined the way Marx stipulated, in the sense that by controling price, enterprising-networks, can artificially fabricate unquantifiable values, simply by their sheer size and/or their sheer power. That behind the invisible hand of socially necessary labor-time, lies capitalists making decisions, pertaining to value, price and wage, in their favor, pertaining to the fundametal logic of capitalism, "to maximize profit by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible".I would also argue that rising debt in the working population is indicative that people are increasingly paying more for less. That commodities, both conceptual and material, in general, are costing more despite production costs going down. The rising debt-load supports my argument, against Marx, I believe. Here is an another little morsel that supports what I am saying: https://www.newsbud.com/2017/09/14/the-not-so-hidden-hand-government-wall-street-manipulation-of-stock-markets/ Now about your prices of input rising, if I understand your position correctly, I would respond that prices of inputs do not have to necessarily rise, they rise when there is consolidation in a particular sphere of production, which short-circuits competition between specific producers within a sphere of production. So some spheres are more consolidated than others, thus can command artificially inflated prices, values and wages over other spheres. On another broader issue, to anticipate your critique a little, where is the extra value coming from, to support ever-increasing prices in relation to lower and lower production costs and wage stagnation: I would argue: 1. Debt…debt by its very existence means that people are paying more for less. This runs counter-Marx's argument that as production costs drop, prices drop also. Marx's notion may be going on in some spheres, but, when spheres begin to consolidate their power, thus minimizing competition among producers, this effect is short-circuited and prices rise as costs of production drop. Debt becomes the answer to bridge the gap between rising prices and wage-stagnation. 2. Unquantifiable labor-power, which is one element, more or less, of the broader term of creative-power, which manufactures unquantiable values, which infiltrate and influence value, price and wage-determinations, beyond measurements. These unquantifiable impurities seeping into values, prices and wages, are destabilizing aggregate prices and aggregate values to such an extent as to make them incompatible and forever unable to equate. Examples are branding, network-control, the ability to influence government policy etc.Now, my analysis is congruent with Marx's analysis in the sense that he argued that capitalism was fundamentally unstable in its expanded-reproductive-form (Capital Volume 2), meaning that aggregate value and aggregate price do not necesarily equate because this would mean stabilization, akin to his simple reproduction schemata. In my estimation, only in a simple reproduction model, do aggregate value and aggregate price equate, because, according to Marx's analysis, price and value are finite and quantifiable. However, because, we are, in actuality, always in an expanded reproductive form, instability, divisions between values and prices are always in effect and must be increasingly aggravated so as to keep capitalism expanding. Its seems to me that for profit to ever-increase, ad infinitum, as capitalism wants it to, requires that real values be distorted, manipulated, and/or go unacknowledged/unrecognized by the capitalist-system so that profit can be maximized, by the very fact that price and value are kept separated and continually distorted, both in production and consumptive realization.Free, unrecognized, unquantifiable labor, both mental and physical, which extended beyond the factory has transformed society. Society, today, is a vast labor-camp, i.e. a military-industrial-complex, where tons of free unrecognized labor, unquantifiable labor, both mental and physical, continually destabilize aggregate value and aggregate price, why is this, because once unquantifiability enters the picture, there is no limit to what constitutes value, and the distortion of value beyond Marx's rational analysis. This is increasingly the safety-measure by which capitalism can continue to magnify an ever-increasing distortion between aggregate value and aggregate price, so as to maximize profit continually. (This is a fundamental condition for the accumulation fo capital/profit)Marx had the notion that value was finite and quantifiable and that price was also finite and quantifiable. Because price/value were finite and quantifiable, at the macro-level, they could equate, but equate only in a simple reproductive model where things are finite and quantifiable, thus balanced and stable. In an exansive-reproductive-model, something unquantifiable always reaches out, introducing a new variable into the system, which destabilizes the system, which destablizes aggregate value and aggregate price at the micro-level, constantly. In my estimation, this proves the multi-varied nature of value as something which is creative, unquantifiable and infinite, meaning that price can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased (in theory, may be not in actuality).
No Michel,You need to show who or what is shifting labour from where we have too much, to where we have not enough first. That’s before you argue as if the market is no longer doing that job.When were you thinking of showing this?
I don't see your point Alan, As we are continually in a moment of production, both mental and conceptual, both quantifiable and unquantifiable, across a vast globalized labor-camp, i.e., a highly regulated, highly-monitored, military-industrial-complex. The better to suck our creative-power so that the capitalist military-industrial-complex can live evermore, the more it sucks, via increasing destabilization of value, price and wage.
Lets see if I can unpack your question, Alan,In brief, the logic of capitalism, decides: 1. The logic of capitalism decides what constitutes real labor! Eventhough, the human species is productive in all sorts of manners and ways, that are both quantifiable and unquantifiable. Capitalism acknowledges only a very narrow-limited type of labor-power, eventhough it benefits from both unquantifiable labor-power and quantifiable labor-power, both mental and physical, which seeps into value, price and wage-determinations, enabling powerful capitalist entities to machinate values, prices and wages. Capitalism recognizes only quantifiable financial labor-power, despite utilizing and benefiting from many types of unquantifiable labor-power, both mental and physical. This is different, from Marx. 2. Under capitalism, entities, human or otherwise, are given freedom to roam the earth in order to increase the influence of their creative-power! The only imperative, capitalism inposes on all entities, human or otherwise, is the capitalist logic, "to maximize profit by any means necessary, at the lowest financial cost, as soon as possible". This means that any new-found influence for their creative-power, by any entity, must be able to be translated into financial quantifiable capital. Contrary to Marx, who would argue that the regulative mechanism of socially necessary labor-time is the primary mechanism that motivates laborers to moved around to more profitable spheres of production. I would argue that it is economic anarchy, i.e., the free-for-all and/or total lawlessness, that is the prime motivator, which moves around laborers around spheres of production. Here is an example I love to use: The west-ward colonization of the american wild-west. It was the hope/dream of crazy fortunes, that drove pioneers westward across the United-States, it was the anarchy, i.e., the free-for-all and/or lawlessness that the west offered, that drove settlers west in search of wealth and prosperity in the lawless wilderness. Many believed they were escaping the logic of Capitalism, wanting to live outside its grasp, its rules, its regulations and its laws. "Live Free or Die" was the American Motto. It was the roling of dice against fate and the Gods, not any governing economic laws, that provided the impetus for the westward move. It was the anarchy of wide-open-lawless-spaces, of the lawless carte blanche/tabula rasa, to live under no government, that prompted the american workers/laborers to move towards new burgeoning productive spheres, opening in the wild american west.Another example, a post-industrial example is the Dot.com boom, which in the early stages was a free-for-all, total lawless anarchy, to make a killing in an instant, which prompted people to move professions, i.e. spheres of production, that is, a sphere of production, which was not really a sphere of production, due to the fact that it had open boundaries. Such was the American wild west also. Its was lawlessness, not some governing law as socially necessary labor-time. It was anarchy. Hence, also, why neoliberal capitalists want deregulation, because it creates economic anarchy. The sort of economic anarchy where those with a lot of power and capital can dominate and reap huge dividents, because the sphere of production is without definition, without limits, without boundaries. However, by and large, the capitalist system as a whole, today, is immersed in a plethora of various exploitive processes to the point where entities, human or otherwise, are always producing, expending creative-power, both mental and physical, both quantifiable and unquantifiable, even if this is not acknowledged/recognized in financial terms by the logic of capitalism. It is the logic of capitalism's narrowed-limited definition of meritorious quantifiable labor-power, that enables it to benefit from all that free unquantifiable creative-power that seeps into value, price and wage-determinations.
@MBellemareYou are complicating your answer. “1. The logic of capitalism decides”That reads like saying that the market decides.If the rest of your comment is saying, the market is not your answer then we are still waiting for your answer.I’m sorry but what you give instead of an answer is so long and full of things that I can’t agree with that I would need more than a short reply. That would take us away from the question.We have private ownership of the means of production. No one owner knows what other owners are doing. So who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?
Alan Kerr wrote:@MBellemareYou are complicating your answer. “1. The logic of capitalism decides”That reads like saying that the market decides.If the rest of your comment is saying, the market is not your answer then we are still waiting for your answer.I’m sorry but what you give instead of an answer is so long and full of things that I can’t agree with that I would need more than a short reply. That would take us away from the question.We have private ownership of the means of production. No one owner knows what other owners are doing. So who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?Who or what is shifting total sunlight around in a way that keeps trees alive? We have private ownership by treas of the means for production of biomass. no one tree knows what all the other trees are doing, but individual trees know when they fall under the shade of nearby trees or if they have an early sunset because of a mountain or if there's a cyclic seasonal variation in sunlight. A market is one approximiation model or solution for a forest, but not a very good one. It's true that the amount of sunlight on a valley is going to be equivalent to the amount of biomass of a valley. Marx labor theory of value isn't wrong just like early theories stating that the sunlight on a valley is equal to the biomass production capability of a valley aren't wrong. But early theories of sunlight equalling biomass don't explain things like invasive species or why the valley next door is a desert with nothing living in it and lots of sunshine. Marx theory of labor value seems the same in that it doesn't explain why some economies collapse or a why a monoculture plantantion like the bannana republics can exist and how they work. Classical capitalist economics with the supply and demand curves you were taught in school also fail to explain why one island is a bannana republic and another island is a diverse economy like cuba. Classical economics of either the marx or the capitalist pre-conception don't explain why economies collapse and can stay collapsed or why they recover or grow.You need an ecosystem model of the economy that can accurately predict the future economic events much like a weather simulation can accurately predict future weather events. After you have rudimentary weather modeling technology applied to the economy for understanding basics, you can start to compare simulations for the most accurate simulation that has the best predictive ability in the short term and thereby enhance your economic model or simulation. the next step after some degree of success is acheived is to go from predicting weather change to predicting climate change. For the economy this would be analogous to going from prediting market share and start predicting economic tipping points and economic state changes such as the average marginal markup for non-durable goods. Our present science is actually fairly good at predicting markets as is used by advertising agencies but none of that research and market simulation modeling reaches the public for obvious reasons. Also, it's just analogous to local weather simulations and isn't integrated like for a global climate simulation. If there exists a market simulation that integrates a global market to produce knowledge about markets analogous to climate change for the economy, then it's pretty deep in some think tank that aint going to see the light of public disclosure (IMO). I could speculate on finding it, but such speculaton would be counterproductive and only get us into trouble at this stage of our understanding of the economy. But since the price of processing and creating simulations is going down, it won't be long before the knowledge is available to the general public. Leaks happen. Self evident knowledge is discovered independently. the cost of creating a complex simulation on any matter is going down rapidly and soon will be an AI function. There's probably an AI somewhere connected to the stock market that knows what's really going on well enough to simulate an economy in ways that marx or milton freedman never even dreamed possible. It might be watching this forum now. That's what I'd have it do if I built it (but I didn't build it and this is all just speculative crazy talk).
MBellemare wrote:Marx had the notion that value was finite and quantifiable and that price was also finite and quantifiable. Because price/value were finite and quantifiable, at the macro-level, they could equate, but equate only in a simple reproductive model where things are finite and quantifiable, thus balanced and stable. In an exansive-reproductive-model, something unquantifiable always reaches out, introducing a new variable into the system, which destabilizes the system, which destablizes aggregate value and aggregate price at the micro-level, constantly. In my estimation, this proves the multi-varied nature of value as something which is creative, unquantifiable and infinite, meaning that price can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased (in theory, may be not in actuality).If prices can be" infinitely increased" or even massively increased, Michel. what would be the point of the exercise if it meant the workers/consumers could no longer afford the commodities in question? Any capitalists who priced their goods too high would simply price themselves out of the market and out of business. The law of competition has historically entailed businesses undercutting each other pricewise and if perchance certain prices do go up for reasons of fashion or fad then necessarily certain other prices have to come down as the pattern of market demand shifts from the latter to the former. You cannot conjure market demand out of nowhere or pluck it off a magic money treeAlso while we are talking of prices, what about the price of labour power – our wages? Would you say that this too "can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased"? I only wish that were true!
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:Alan Kerr wrote:@MBellemareYou are complicating your answer. “1. The logic of capitalism decides”That reads like saying that the market decides.If the rest of your comment is saying, the market is not your answer then we are still waiting for your answer.I’m sorry but what you give instead of an answer is so long and full of things that I can’t agree with that I would need more than a short reply. That would take us away from the question.We have private ownership of the means of production. No one owner knows what other owners are doing. So who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?Who or what is shifting total sunlight around in a way that keeps trees alive? We have private ownership by treas of the means for production of biomass. no one tree knows what all the other trees are doing, but individual trees know when they fall under the shade of nearby trees or if they have an early sunset because of a mountain or if there's a cyclic seasonal variation in sunlight. A market is one approximiation model or solution for a forest, but not a very good one. It's true that the amount of sunlight on a valley is going to be equivalent to the amount of biomass of a valley. Marx labor theory of value isn't wrong just like early theories stating that the sunlight on a valley is equal to the biomass production capability of a valley aren't wrong. But early theories of sunlight equalling biomass don't explain things like invasive species or why the valley next door is a desert with nothing living in it and lots of sunshine. Marx theory of labor value seems the same in that it doesn't explain why some economies collapse or a why a monoculture plantantion like the bannana republics can exist and how they work. Classical capitalist economics with the supply and demand curves you were taught in school also fail to explain why one island is a bannana republic and another island is a diverse economy like cuba. Classical economics of either the marx or the capitalist pre-conception don't explain why economies collapse and can stay collapsed or why they recover or grow.You need an ecosystem model of the economy that can accurately predict the future economic events much like a weather simulation can accurately predict future weather events. After you have rudimentary weather modeling technology applied to the economy for understanding basics, you can start to compare simulations for the most accurate simulation that has the best predictive ability in the short term and thereby enhance your economic model or simulation. the next step after some degree of success is acheived is to go from predicting weather change to predicting climate change. For the economy this would be analogous to going from prediting market share and start predicting economic tipping points and economic state changes such as the average marginal markup for non-durable goods. Our present science is actually fairly good at predicting markets as is used by advertising agencies but none of that research and market simulation modeling reaches the public for obvious reasons. Also, it's just analogous to local weather simulations and isn't integrated like for a global climate simulation. If there exists a market simulation that integrates a global market to produce knowledge about markets analogous to climate change for the economy, then it's pretty deep in some think tank that aint going to see the light of public disclosure (IMO). I could speculate on finding it, but such speculaton would be counterproductive and only get us into trouble at this stage of our understanding of the economy. But since the price of processing and creating simulations is going down, it won't be long before the knowledge is available to the general public. Leaks happen. Self evident knowledge is discovered independently. the cost of creating a complex simulation on any matter is going down rapidly and soon will be an AI function. There's probably an AI somewhere connected to the stock market that knows what's really going on well enough to simulate an economy in ways that marx or milton freedman never even dreamed possible. It might be watching this forum now. That's what I'd have it do if I built it (but I didn't build it and this is all just speculative crazy talk).
I do not know if you know what is the real meaning of "The Banana Republic" , a concept which is no longer applicable, despite that it was a degrading name given to countries impoverished by the US corporations, and its corporate gangsters. Al Capone was a Boy Scout compared to the CEO of those corporations. Capitalist development was held backThe name comes from Chiquita Bananas ( United Fruit Company ) which was a banana exporting corporation that exists in South and Central America. The real conception is applicable to several countries who had a mono production, and one corporation was the owner of the whole country, and that corporation was able to control the production, the salary to be paid, they controlled the government, they controlled the press, they conspired against government, they gave coup d;tats, they controlled the military and the police, they used to do the killing of the opponents, they propagated the concept of anti-communism.People used to say that the president of those countries was seating in the American Embassy., and Washington never had a coup d;tat, because they do not have an American embassy Most peoples from the USA used that expression without knowing what they are talking about, similar to the expression liberal, or communists.One of that example is Haiti, in its 200 of existence they only have had one or two government who have been able to finish their election period, and then they say that Haiti is a poor country instead of being impoverished, they have gold, silver, and other minerals being exploited by the US and European corporations, and the one the president was forced to resign. That is history, it is not Fox news. Haiti was self-sufficient in rice production, and now they are importing riceThere was a corporation known as the Puerto Rican Sugar Company they control the whole production of all the Caribbean islands and Central America, most of the managers those corporations they were involved in the killing of workers union leaders, and the killing of members of several communist parties, they were the one who called the American troops to invade to protect their interests, and to save life against communism, and in some of those countries they did not have a communist party or the books written by communist were burned or removed from the bookstores. They wanted workers to read comic books, to read Marx and Engels was a capital punishmentThe concept is not applicable in certain countries because they have a diversity of productions and several of them are not tied to the influence of the US ruling class, they have their own independent ruling elite, that is a reason why the US wants to invade Venezuela. The concept is not applicable to the US as some peoples are propagating.The concept has nothing to do with lawlessness, they had their own law to protect the interest of the corporations and to repress the workers, the workers union and the political parties, they had their own banking system, and some of those country the national currency was at par value with the dollars. The USA controlled customs and taxation was imposed to pay for the invasions
robbo203 wrote:MBellemare wrote:Marx had the notion that value was finite and quantifiable and that price was also finite and quantifiable. Because price/value were finite and quantifiable, at the macro-level, they could equate, but equate only in a simple reproductive model where things are finite and quantifiable, thus balanced and stable. In an exansive-reproductive-model, something unquantifiable always reaches out, introducing a new variable into the system, which destabilizes the system, which destablizes aggregate value and aggregate price at the micro-level, constantly. In my estimation, this proves the multi-varied nature of value as something which is creative, unquantifiable and infinite, meaning that price can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased (in theory, may be not in actuality).If prices can be" infinitely increased" or even massively increased, Michel. what would be the point of the exercise if it meant the workers/consumers could no longer afford the commodities in question? Any capitalists who priced their goods too high would simply price themselves out of the market and out of business. The law of competition has historically entailed businesses undercutting each other pricewise and if perchance certain prices do go up for reasons of fashion or fad then necessarily certain other prices have to come down as the pattern of market demand shifts from the latter to the former. You cannot conjure market demand out of nowhere or pluck it off a magic money treeAlso while we are talking of prices, what about the price of labour power – our wages? Would you say that this too "can be unquantifiable, creative and infinitely increased"? I only wish that were true!
In that case, supermarkets do not have to worry about the merger of Amazon with whole foods which is planning to cut prices for 43%. There is a supermarket chain owned by Mexicans known as Northgate Gonzalez which has taken the food market of Albertson, Ralph and Food for less, because they are able to sell their products way below the price of those supermarkets, and their employees are not members of any workers union.They have purchased several of the shopping mall and premises owned by those supermarkets. They provided free transportation to their customers, payroll check cashing for free, they had restaurants, even more, Amazon cannot install one of their supermarket next to them because the store is going to be empty.There is a new company known as "Bodegas" which is going drive out of business many Small Bodegas and 7 Eleven from the US poor neighborhood, especially in New York, because its prices are going to be below the prices of the others Bodegas, their markup is 35% and 40%, and their markup is going to be around 10% and they can buy in large quantities. Only romantic peoples are going to buy expensive products on a grocery store. All Grocery stores in the Caribbean were wiped out completely by the big supermarkets such as Albertson, Ralph, bu the Supermarkets from Spain are taking over their market
@Steve-San FranciscoWho or what is shifting total sunlight around in a way that keeps trees alive?“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"(Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time)At least the little old lady did give an answer.If not the market then who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?
@ Alan Kerr,
Alan Kerr wrote:@Steve-San FranciscoWho or what is shifting total sunlight around in a way that keeps trees alive?“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"(Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time)At least the little old lady did give an answer.If not the market then who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?you asked "If not the market then who or what is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive?" the answer is: "Nothing is shifting total labour around in a way that keeps us alive. Look around and open your eyes. Economies fail and people die all the time in the real world."There's nothing much stoping humanity from dying off tommorow and there's nothing stopping a single town from going bust and becoming a ghost town, and there's nothing stopping the stock market from collapsing and becoming a ghost town. That's not the goal of any single entity and not a goal that's enforceable or achievable by direct intervention of any abstract entity. There is no single rational purpose or goal. It's just a bunch of individual trees and scrubs and plants and people each doing anything and everything they can as individual trees to grow and reproduce and survive. Luckily mostly trees and such seem to realize by experience they need other plants in their ecosystem and if insects die off for example then it can destroy the flowering life of a large area of land. But occasionally it does happen where an invasive species like a locust swarm will destroy all organic life in an area. This can happen with people and total labor too. There's nothing stopping robots from taking over most of labor activities and yes that could result in the end to human life. Robots will try to capitalize on resources just like people do and there's nothing to stop people from trying to eliminate robots or robots from trying to eliminate people or for robots to try to eliminate all trees. But it doesn't help the robot or the human to eliminate all trees most of the time so mostly trees are safe in most places most of the time. That's how government and economies work by analogy. Over time some trees develope communication and networked information systems like aspen trees for example have been proven to have a root and pheremone based communication system that communicates danger or predators. When something like a herd of dear or an invasive insect species attacks an entire integrated grove of aspen trees, the broken leaves and damage cuased to the tree releases chemicals that seel the tree damage and to protect the tree and the roots of the aspen will change the chemical composition of the nutrients the individual aspen trees seek to acquire or dispose of from the individual tree. And other Aspen Trees in the grove or nearby seem to have some way of detecting when their own leaves or branches are damaged and exhibiting phermone or chemical based effects of damage. these Aspen trees have finally been document to respond to other trees chemical signs of damage so if you attack the leaves of an aspen tree it will seel the wound and also fill the other leaves and branches and roots with protective chemicals that make the bark taste bitter to dear and elk and stuff. When dear and elk eat aspen bark, it tastes good at first before the tree notices the bark damage and rushes bitter tasting bark sealant to all the bark on the entire tree an the leaves get extra bitter tasting seelant too and then the dear and elk don't enjoy eating bark as much. so the tree communicates external threats internally by bio-chemical signalling and other trees can sense or evesdrop on the bio-chemistry signaling. It does't happen in all aspen groves for some reason, but in some aspen groves where the root systems are entwined, the damage to a single aspen tree can set of a danger signal and danger response in the entire grove. This happens because it helps the individual aspen trees survive and get more resources and the tree don't care whether those resources and added survival factore comes at the expense of other trees or the animals, etc. This competition between trees and animals and such doesn't happen in a simple marketplace like keynesian economics suggest or micro-economics suggest or marx economics suggest. it's wild competition with all manner of tricks and treets that determines which plants live an die in an ecosystem. To reduce an entire ecosystem to a marx analogy or a keynsian analogy means you've lost of lot of insight and understanding.
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.