Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2014Capital21c.pdfThis appears to be the Janet & John version.Interestingly, he defines r as being net of tax, which, from our perspective of seeing tax as a part of surplus value makes things interesting.Check out figure 3.1, note the decline in Agricultural capital.Table 21.1, the global growth of the top fractiles is a killer, it's exactly the point which we always emphasise: their wealth grows faster than ours.•Marx: with g=0,β↑∞, r→0 : revolution, war•My conclusions are less apocalyptic : with g>0, at least we have a steady-state β
/gBut he notes that with any growth, the returns of capital grow disproportionately.(That's seems to be his conclusion, I think the formulas need translating, over to you Adam).http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014TechnicalAppendix.pdfpg. 40
Piketty wrote:Iwrite in the book on p.229 that Marx gavesome examples of companies’ accounts, which can let us imagine the capital intensity he had in mind. The more elaborated statistics that Marx analyzed can be found, for most of them, in Capital (1867),Volume 1, Chapter 25, named “ The General Law of Capital Accumulation”, or more exactly in the huge appendix 10 to Chapter 25. In particular, Marx used in this appendix the statistics from the Britishcorporate income tax 1846-1866. He intended to show that capital-intensive development is characterized by an explosion of the profits and potentially an increasing concentration of the capital. He wrote for instance that the industrial profits (as well as rent land ) rose by around 40%-50% between 1853 and 1864 whereas the population only rose by 12%. However, he did not try to estimatethe level and the evolution of the wage bill, of the production and of the national income, and as a consequence he did not tackle the question of the capital-labor split or the capital/income ratio. In particular, he did not try to link the fiscal statistics with the estimates of national capital and national income, which had multiplied in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the 18th century (Petty, King) and in the 19th century (Colquhoun), and which Giffen was about to systematize in the 1860s-1880s (his work is not quoted by Marx). He also gave some information about a possible increasing concentration of profits and wealth but rather anecdotally. In fact, the data that Marx used and that give the mostinformation and can let us have a better idea of what kind of capital -intensity he had in mind are in theChapter 9 of the Volume 1 of Capital called "The Rates of Surplus-Value". In particular , Marx gives a detailed example on the accounts of a mill, "given by the owner himself", specifying the whole set of technological and financial aspects, the fixed and variable assets, the number of spindles and workers, as well as the profits and wage bill, the quantity of cotton and coal used for the production, and of course the rent. Even if Marx did not exactly put it this way, it results from the accounts that the capital-intensity of this mill is extremely high with a K/Y ratio around 10, and a capital share about 50%, or even higher (which corresponds to a profits/wages ratio, or "rate of exploitation" according to Marx’s terminology, about 100%, or even more). On the basis of other examples of mills mentioned in this chapter or in other parts of the book, we can consider that it is the kind of order of magnitude Marx had in mind for the industrial capitalism of his time.BTW, The programme can still be watched here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b048ns2s/hardtalk-thomas-piketty-economist
On Idiocy, without having a dictionary to hand, I believe the word derives from the greek Idiotes: a private person (which is why Shaw used 'Private Person' as an insult). Just checked, and ἰδιώτηςmeant private person/layman, non-specialist, uneducated, etc. so not stupid as such…
The Robot industry responds:http://www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-News/Response-to-New-York-Times-article-As-Robotics-Advances-Worries-of-Killer-Robots-Rise-by-John-Markoff-and-Claire-Cain-Miller/content_id/4853That's a useful link, because it lead me to this page:
Quote:A total of 5,938 robots valued at $338 million were ordered by companies in North America in first quarter 2014, coming in just shy of the all-time record of 6,235 robots valued at $385 million in fourth quarter 2012. Units ordered grew one percent while order dollars fell one percent when compared to first quarter 2013 figures. When sales by North American robot suppliers to companies outside North America are included, the totals are 6,491 robots valued at $372 million.[…]The automotive industry is still the largest customer for robotics in North America, representing 58% of total orders, but non-automotive industries have continued their rapid growth. The top industries in terms of growth for first quarter 2014 were food and consumer goods (+91%), plastics and rubber (+55%), and life sciences (+36%). “Robotics for use in non-automotive industries is a hot topic right now,” said Alex Shikany, Director of Market Analysis for RIA. “In total, the overall number of robots ordered for use in non-automotive industries grew 18% over first quarter 2013,” he added. […] RIA estimates that some 228,000 robots are now at use in United States factories, placing the US second only to Japan in robot use. “Many observers believe that only about 10% of the US companies that could benefit from robots have installed any so far,” Burnstein said, “A very large segment of small and medium sized companies who may have the most to gain are just now beginning to seriously investigate robotics.”I don't think he spoke, but he did write about the Hyde Park Riots which founded it, so perhaps he popped along…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/upshot/danger-robots-working.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1
Quote:Robots have caused at least 33 workplace deaths and injuries in the United States in the last 30 years, according to data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. That may not sound like many, but the number may well understate the perils ahead.A very good set of comments. The book takes it's place alongside the Spirit Level in scientific analysis. the important thing is they will have to take him on (some have had a pop at the Spirit Level, the main effect of which has been chaff for people to use as distraction rebuttals).The important thing, with Marx, wasn't every last line and formula of Capital, but the fact that he was with and of the workers' movement too, IMNSHO.
Quote:Did Vin break party rules and regulations, as has been insinuated recently by YMS? A simple question requiring a simple answer.Something I emphatically have not done. Please withdraw that remark. I have only explained the practical and procedural underpinnings of the party's democracy. I have made no comment about the recent events, other than to note their procedural validity.
Steve,say a member were to spout racist views, and criticise the party for race treachery? That would be action detrimental and would be them signalling non-acceptance of the principles. Yes, it would depend very much on the manner in which such views were put across. The question of changing the principles is a constitional knightmare (as we've seen before), but in essence one could avocate changing them whilst still accepting the current ones.
SP: "signifying acceptance of the object and principles of the Party." If a member criticises the party in such a manner as would indicate that they do not accept the object and principles of the party, their membership would be rendered invalid. Likewise, if they criticise from the standpoint of another organisation, they should go and join it. This would depend on the facts on the ground. Obviously, criticism while still a member is more protected than when a non-member but we'd still be entitled to take it into account (as it was when I rejoined).
If a non-member who has been publicly criticising the party applies to join, then we have the right to put a question mark over that application. Also, the right to criticise the party, since you ask, is limited by rule 1, obviously (and, to a certain extent, by rule 6).
Vin Maratty wrote:It would be extremely undemocratic for an administrative committee to make up there own minds about what to do. But I don't think you meant to say that. It would be simply absurd to have party rules, conference decisions and party polls and then elect an EC to make up their own minds.Erm, no.I believe it was conference 1935 pass the following resolution:"The EC shall stand and turn thrice widdershins if a black cat walks across head office roof during an EC meeting held on a Tuesday or a Thursday in an even month, unless there is a dog in Edgeley Lane."The EC members would have to make their minds up:1) Whether a black cat had walked across the roof.2) Whether it was a qualifying day/month3) Whether there was a dog in Edgeley Lane.Before deciding whether to stand and turn thrice widdershins. They would also have to decide how fast to turn widdershins. They might decide whetehr or not to designate someone to watch the roof durign qualifying meetings in case there's a cat, or should they ignore it unless a cat makes its presence known?
Steve,well, discussing procedures, Ed made up his mind, and that is procedurally valid.To take a hypothetical (based in part on fact) there was a relatively famous libel case involving a woman in Hackney who moved from the Labour, to Respect, to the Tories in a short space of time. If she applied, I'd support the EC refusing her membership, based on her recent fickleness. I'd say the infamous "balance of probability" test applies.As I've said, though, part of democracy is that this process isn't finished. There are other points to be raised, at the appropriate place and time.
You're not getting through because your point is baseless and mistaken. Don't go blaming me for you being wrong. I don't see a conflict of interest, ED has nothing to gain nor lose: he simply has an opinion, and has acted upon it. You're entirely right, the rulebook guides an open process, that is ongoing.
