DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MBellemare wrote:@ Mr. DJP…,right back at you, "sorry, your wrong", you are holding onto a faulty and flawed analysis, which is clouding and confusing your thinking. You have to break with your fetishism of Marx, to see Marx, clearly.
That's not an answer to my questions. You are holding onto a faulty and flawed analysis, which is clouding and confusing your thinking. You have to break with your fetishism to see clearly.Adios!
MBellemare wrote:Such an idea as socially necessary labor-time, which equitably determines values, prices and wages.Again you haven't quite got the grasp of it.The value of a commodity is equal to the amount of socially necessary labour-time it takes to reproduce it.But the price is not determined by this, and by extension neither are wages which are the price of labour power.You haven't grasped the distinction between price and value in Marx's system.
MBellemare wrote:Labor-power must be constantly bought by capitalists at a lower price/value than it is in actually worth.Sorry this is wrong. The point of Capital was to show how the capitalists do by labour-power at value *and yet* can still make a profit.So far all you have demonstarted is that you haven't grasped Marx's theory properly.Here are some questions for you:1. What is the difference between "price" and "value"2. What determines the value of a commodity.3. What determines the price of a commodity.4. What determines the value of labour-power
Sympo wrote:Is it actually possible for every capitalist to only invest in industries where the vc is much larger than the cc?Industries with a higher labour element are not necessarily going to be more profitable than those with a lower one. See the above.
I'm a bit busy now, but it's all explained here. I'd gladly answer any more questions later..https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/what-transformation-problem/I guess the key bit is this:"All capitalists contribute to the total amount of surplus value according to how much labor they employ. So if coffee makers have more workers, they contribute more to the aggregate surplus value than car manufacturers. But capitalists withdraw their money profits from this total surplus value according to the average rate of profit- that is, in proportion to the total cost of their production. Regardless of how many workers they actually employ, they all receive the same rate of return on their investment, even if all of their investment goes into machines!Thus the price of a commodity is not the cost of inputs plus surplus value. It is the cost of inputs plus the average return on those investments. We call this price the “price of production”. The total prices of production equal the total amount of value. But individual commodities do not trade at their values. They trade at their prices of production. The price of production is still a function of value, but it is not necessarily directly equal to it."
Capitalists aren't 'from' any particular industry. What we are thinking about in this case is people investing money where ever they think they will get the most money back. They're not thinking about value or surplus value or constant capital etc, these are just terms that Marx used to explain how the whole thing operates, behind the backs of those operating it.An individual enterprise does not receive the value it produces. In effect all value that is produced in the economy goes into a pot, called the market, and this value is distributed amongst the individual capitals according to market competition.Profit rates are something that is eminently measurable, but there is some debate as how to measure the 'Marxian' rate of profit.But if one sector of industry continually had better returns to invested money, that is the only sector people would bother investing in.Makes sense?
Sympo wrote:How do we know that industries tend to have a similar rate of profit?I think you might have misunderstood.The claim isn't that at any single moment in time every industry is going to have the same rate of profit.But that over time profit rates will tend to converge due to the workings of the market.
Quote:Ideally the facebook should have been a link to youtubeWell no. The Facebook algorithm prefers videos that are uploaded on Facebook, you do get more exposure on Facebook by using a Facebook video. The point is to get as many views in total as possible, not to get as many views solely on YouTube..
Let's pull no punches, anti-vaxers are responsible for more harm than "big-pharma" Let's not contribute to the idiocy.https://www.vox.com/2017/5/8/15577316/minnesota-measles-outbreak-explained
I have the book, it looks quite interesting. Though it's talking about the early Christians, who definitely did exist and left things written down, not Jesus the person – if there ever was such a man.
