Capitalism [ the right for private ownership] has no responsibility for any of the current problems. They are caused by state corruption and deregulation. Nothing to do with small businesses I am afraid.
We need more of this debate in the United States. We desperately need it. If anything, Marxist critique might make capitalism in our country a bit better. We need the leftist critical theorists, they are the ones who have the balls to hold up a mirror to what we are doing.
We never left Keynes...what's he talking about. At what point have we adopted an Austrian school system....everything that's going on is Keynesian based logic. Why rule out something (Hayek) when it's not been tried.
The crisis, is that people perceive CORPORATISM as capitalism. Real capitalism is an amazing system. We haven't had real capitalism in a long, LONG time. Make no mistake, this dirty corporate world we live in is NOT capitalism. Not one bit. It no more represents capitalism than al qaeda represents Islam. We're spinning our wheels.
The message from occupy wallstreet is so convoluted but really this video is what it's all about. We need accountability and regulation as far as lobbying and influence on capital hill is concerned. Stop trying to push a liberal agenda and focus on real issues. The one percent vs 99% is moot, the bottom of the 99 percent makes about 300k a year. The problem is wallstreet speculation. Betting with 50 TRILLION DOLLARS is irresponsible and needs to be regulated.
CAPITALISM WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH, DUE IN PART TO ECONOMIES OF SCALE THEORY. THIS WOULD OCCUR EVEN IF YOU COMPLETELY REMOVED EVERY U.S. CORPORATION AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
*
A COMBINATION OF CAPITALISM (being able to have your own business, etc) AND SOCIALISM (universal healthcare, affordable higher education for all, etc) IS THE BEST OPTION
All systems are fucked. Systems that work for everybody are a fantasy that only works on papers. You will always have a group of people in power fucking everybody else over. Anyone who thinks that an ideal socialist system is possible is delusional. Anyone who says they believe in the market regulating itself is full of crap. It's in our nature to screw each other, always has been and always will be.
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. DRUG LORDS. UNEQUALITY. UNSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. LAWYERS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. MAGGOT SOCIALITES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
@Dualhammers but where do the people come from? The system is prior to the people. That is, every single person is born into a culture, a language, an ideology, an economic system. This milieu shapes the way they think. It has shaped the capitalists and the socialists etc. The best we can hope for is an incremental change, where the new people see the problems with the old people's ideas and so on. A system that promotes this kind of self-improvement will work much better than denial.
David Harvey is spot on. Capitalism is utter rot. We must all stop listening to the lies of advertisers & politicians. This bailout of companies and banks that are "too big to fail" is atrocious. Enough is enough.
I know its silly to say this, but Im glad to live in the UK and Europe at least, where our education system is better than America's and where you can have a Marxist theorist give a debate on Royal Society, wow!
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz You are a real testament to your superior education system. David Harvey is a professor at the City University of New York. That's New York, NY U.S.A. for the geographically challenged such as yourself.
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz obviously. the point is that it makes no sense for you to be inspired to pride over your "superior" education system by watching a talk given by a professor from the education system you claim is inferior to your own. and, not only is harvey currently a part of the american education system, he has been so since 1969. So, unless you think david harvey is an imbecile, the comments section on one of his talks isnt the most logical place to cirticize the american education system.
@mind3l3vation America has some excellent schools, but the system itself is inferior. To study at these excellent schools you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. This ofcourse discourages many people from going at all. This is opposed to countries throughout Europe, some of which offer free education to their citizens.
@johnmickle As I said before, Prof. Harvey teaches at the City University of New York (CUNY). That's a public institution where tuition is around $5000 per year. So what you're saying isn't accurate. Yes there are excellent private institutions where tuition is very expensive but there are also excellent public institutions where tuition is affordable.
@mind3l3vation Yes, there are community colleges that are a more economical alternative, I go to one and still had to get a loan to cover tuition. But it's not just private institutions that charge an unaffordable tuition. State universities are often tens of thousands per year. I'm just saying as a WHOLE the American education system is falling behind Europe, where in many countries it is free.
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz I know you already have heard a lot of this, but in the US they make a big deal about universities being able to choose whoever they want to give lectures.
Concerning your education system, I'm from America and we have better medical education and tech education than you can offer. How refreshing that someone besides an American is not the bigot!
I'm an American and there's nothing "silly" about what you wrote. But you also have to know this that you need more than just being "glad" that you are living in a continent where there are better education system because if that's all you do, your ruling class will make every effort they can get to turn it into something more like here. You need organization to fight such an effort like we need here. And we also need solidarity to fight the common enemies.
And another thing, there are Marxist theorists in the States as well. Marxism actually wins greater persuasion in social science department. One academic department where Marxism isn't considered seriously is Economics. And that's actually same with Europe and there are increasing demands for theoretical diversity for economic arguments in both Europe and the States. There are however more students studying Marxian economics in the States now than before.
If historical experience could teach us anything it would be that private property is inextricably linked with with civilization. There is no experience to the effect that socialism could provide a standard of living as high as that provided by capitalism. Open your eyes people. Stop believing the government! Centrally planned economies only lead to disasters. It is a fatal conceit to believe that redistribution of wealth with coercion leads us to prosperity.
@NicoPallotta How is America not a centrally-planned economy? Also, your idea about history is only 2-3 centuries old...when nobility began to be given outright ownership rights by monarchs. Has this fixation on private ownership of property yielded freedom? Millions are in terrible debt...a veritable prison...because they thought private ownership of property is essential to the American Dream. Most of the "wealth" in the US is faux wealth...it exists really only in financial markets.
the main problem is that everyone thinks they know everything about everything...just pay attention once in a while...try to take things in...not compare what you hear to what you "know"...
Reading the posts below is a reminder of how it is impossible to reason with dishonest capitalists, after all the whole system is based on dishonesty. Capitalism's predatory nature is leading humanity to the brink of the most horrible nightmare imaginable. The only solution to capitalist exploitation is revolution. But it requires for the working class to rise up. This requires that they abandon the ideology promoted by capitalists; religion, bourgeois democracy, nationalism and class supremacy.
@TheOzomahtli Capitalism is the right to own property, copyright and businesses. Capitalism is not responsible for anything else other than a right., Like the right to free speech. Socialism denies the right of private ownerships. Finland, Norway, Switzerland ALL have rights of private ownership, thus all are capitalist. They have state ran schools and health which is fine in capitalist countries.
@TheOzomahtli Interestingly enough, I disagree with a lot of the 'capitalist' tenets you mentioned. I do not support bourgeois democracy since I don't support ANY democracy. I loath nationalism, I am against fundamentalist religion, and I oppose any identitarian class-ism. Yet I view myself as a radical capitalist. The truth is, you're a punk kid who doesn't know what you're talking about. The world is screwed because your infantile opinions.
@TheOzomahtli Lol When Capitalism fails, the whole world is going to go to hell. We have been lied and Lied to so much that every thing has to rely on that. The end is near.
@blackhole73 Or, maybe when capitalism fails, the world will finally break free from this entire idea of capital and control and outmoded ideologies and corrupt systems and the rest...that domination of billions of people around the world by a privileged few is simply no longer a desirable paradigm. What is wealth? What is value? What is the worth of a person's life? Hopefully when this thing crumbles, we'll take a fresh look at those questions and come up with a completely new approach.
@TheOzomahtli i agree that capitalism and constitutional democracy has inherent problems what we need is a composite system part socialist/capitalist etc......
Which prompts; just admit you don't care about other people, because in terms of scientifically measureable reality Marx destroyed the classical economist which ie neoliberalism is still founded on. Read some Marx, you can disagree with the priority to have development over growth. But its just sad to see working class and middle class retards who mentions facsist sovjet to somehow demonstrate how Marx was wrong with his analysis. Read Marx, try to understand Marx, then you can open your mouth.
Why can't you people who supports the profit motive and function of capitalism, just simply say that you don't care about the collective well-being of others. Instead of just simply looking like some regular retards who simply don't understand history or economics? Why can't people be honest about their values? That you have to make an assumption/preference doesn't by any means that Marx was wrong when he demonstrated how Adam Smiths analysis of the system was not valid in terms of reality.
i can't see a reasonable solution other than revolution by the people. sustained success, however, i think, can only arise with the maintenance of the internet so that communication is maintained.
To give government so much power will never work. Socialism is statism, like feudal systems, monarchies, caste systems, nazism, fascism, it is about state power and poverty and enslavement for the masses. The first thing the EU did when they signed the Lisbon treaty was to give themselves a 34% pay rise, while the EU had record unemployment mainly due to high taxes and government policies. Non to do with capitalism.
@Jerrrr Oh my, you are the most stupid person I have ever met. Statism, state...ism. It means the state controlling wealth. Socialism, communism, feudal systems, monarchies, nazism are all statism. State control.
@warriorprince1010 Actually, we haven't met. I imagine leftists all look alike, so your confusion is forgiven. So that aside, statism as a blanket term doesn't mean much. Socialism and feudalism don't have much in common, and even if you say they share 'statism' in common, you have to accept that the term doesn't take the same form in either social system. The same is true for the other systems you listed too.
Also, unemployment has little to do with high tax or government policy. See Norway.
statism is really more a capitalist phenomena, before the industrial reoluution which facilitated the growth of capitalism, states where mere loosely determined and frequently shifting boundaries. i couldt concur feudalism n capitalism share statism
@warriorprince1010 Time to go back to school? Communism and state cannot coexist, as communism is actually a form of organized anarchism. Now that some empires in the past have called themselves "communist" doesn't make them more communist than the USA is. Monarchy with parliamentarism is used in many countries today and isn't really different from the USA. Nazism is essentially fascism, which is actually authoritarian corporativism and the USA is getting closer to that day by day :).
@freedomthrough Yes time for you to go back to school, good idea, the only one you have had. All those ideologies are statism, where the state controls the wealth. In the UK there is no monarchy rule, the power passed to parliament, this was the end of statism. Keep up. Statist ideals are where the state holds the money and runs the economic planning. All these countries are poor, except those that have found oil.
Just to demonstrate how you don't understand, if by state, any sensible understanding of it, a centralized government, then ie feudalism is one example of what that is not. If you take nazism, that is one particular form of facsism, and thats in most cases, corporative control of the state, and i suspect you try to throw socialism in with nazisism for some retarded purpose. State control has in most cases been a force for capitalism, so by your logic socialism=good.
@RipTheJackR "State control has in most cases been a force for capitalism"...No it has not. Capitalism is the right to private ownership and has no responsibility for any decisions the state make. Socialism has been responsible for most of the genocides in the last 100 years. Gaddaffi is an Islamic socialist. Capitalism..people owning small businesses, wealth for all that are educated and healthy and work. Socialism..state greed and excess, wealth for the state, poverty for the masses.
Read up on capitalism coz you've got a very simplified picture of it. Capitalism is not just private ownership. It is the system of labour and WAGES which is a fundamental part of it along with lending and investments.
And in case you haven't noticed, big corporations love to fund political campaigns for people to do their bidding and once the election's over, lobbyists are standing ready to bribe and convince as a full-time job.
@jonaswiskari1 You need to do some research. Capitalism is indeed private ownership, the rest is corruption and has nothing to do with the right to private ownership. 90% of capitalism are small businesses.
You obviously didn't read on the link I posted. If you wanna make a new and original interpretation of the word, please do, but even Adam Smith speaks of wage labour in his "wealth of the nations" as a commodity which hardly could be confused for socialist propaganda.
If you take out wage labour out of the idea, you're talking about peasants, merchants or craftsmen which neither is specific for the age of capitalism or of free trade.
90% of the existing companies may be small business. It sounds pretty reasonable. 90% of the capital is NOT concentrated in small business. Even a 15 year-old could use simple maths and see that it's not true. Just think of banks, insurance companies or any trans-national company. You could in no way say that small business has a greater concentration of capital than the banks and insurance companies that lend them the capital plus owns the majority of mortagages..
@jonaswiskari1 90% of businesses are indeed small. You greedy socialists just want to control the "capital" that someone else has made, stealing wealth. It is none of your business how much someone earns, quit the culture of envy. In capitalism people control the wealth they create, in socialism the state controls wealth the people create, theft. The governments job is the educate and regulate not to steal wealth for their own greed and control.
Socialists wants to take back the wealth that has been stolen from the working people. The reason that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the minority is because they already control the means of production.
Working for someone makes him/her richer and you get back a smaller piece of the value in salary. You have to do it for you can't produce food or houses or land on your own coz of private property. If you take a loan, you have to pay interest = same thing.
In other words, capitalism is the complete opposite of what you want it to be. It's the systemic everyday theft from people who work and produce something. The thieves are the capitalists who's only reason to why they get to keep the profit is because of their ownership.
The big problem is that they're digging their own grave coz the people who work is also the people buying their stuff. If there's no one to buy the products, the market cannot work = economic crisis.
@jonaswiskari1 The USA has an average wage of 45,000. This is 45 times higher than North Korea, 8 times higher than Cuba.
How exactly has the USA failed? Show me a state planned economy that has worked? Oh and Norway Switzerland, Finland and Sweden are ALL free market economies with LOWER corporate taxes than the USA.
You're not very consistent in your argument but ok, take the US for example. It's officially one of the richest countries in the world and still can't provide health care, education or secure homes for all it's population. It's the source of the current economic crisis.
Cuba is a third-world country and can provide free health care, education and secure homes for it's citizens. On top of that, they're the biggest exporters of medical equipment to other third world countries.
Compare Cuba to other capitalist third-world countries in it's region. Jamaica or Haiti is richer but can't provide any of this. Infant mortality rates, analphabetism and homelessness is lower in Cuba than in the US.
I live in Sweden and Sweden has during a large part of the 20th century had a very regulated market and alot of state-owned companies and was 6th richest country during the same time. We have had very high corporate taxes most of that time too.
On the other hand, countries being praised for their economic growth through deregulation until the crisis was among others Ireland and Iceland. It took one crisis and now they're bank-rupt. Obviously, deregulation wasn't very stabile in the end.
I've had it with you now. You're constantly dodging facts and subjects and you're being a prick in general. What the fuck do you believe in? You really seem to hate socialists and that's pretty much the only thing you're saying.
Correction on Haiti. They're poorer. Take middle and south america as comparison instead. The point doesn't change. On top of that, Cuba had the trade embargo from the US for most of the last 50 years.
@jonaswiskari1 Haiti were not made poorer they were poor when they started. They did not put money into education so you stand corrected not me. The USA has not traded with Cuba for years and they are still rich. Lots of countries trade with Cuba, it has not made them first world. Singapore is a first world country based 100% on education and free markets. No oil, no gas, no minerals. Just putting faith in people and not greedy governments.
I was correcting myself on Haiti's economic situation, not you.
What do you mean by USA has not traded with Cuba and they're still rich? Why would the US economy change in any major way from trading or not trading with a small island nation?
I'm not the cuban government, I don't take responsibility for whatever they did right or wrong but if you come to attack Cuba as a complete let down and a warning example of plan economy's failure I do differ.
I checked up Singapore on wikipedia. Both the swedish and english version says pretty much the same thing. If you have a swedish neo-liberal friend, he/she might be able to confirm the info.
Singapore's development is through a strong state ruling in alot of areas. In the Swedish page it say that industry was built through strong state control from basically being poor nation of fishers.
Today, strong state regulations on car and industry, it's also environmentally leading.
@jonaswiskari1 Glad you agree. Singapore is rich because of great education, free markets, low taxes and good infrastructure. The state regulation is the states job, quit pretending their is a country on earth without state regulation, the USA has much. Socialism is a state ran economy with NO right for private ownership of land, homes, copyrights or business. So anything other than that is not socialism. Case closed.
@pulsatingremedy Proudhon..died 1865...Kropotkin...died 1921....Bakunin...died 1876. You are certainly on the ball, thanks for answering my question with the names of 3 people who are not only dead but two of them died in the 19th century. What an idiot. Anarchy is supported by some republicans in the USA who want to pay not ax at all. So many capitalists are clearly anarchists.
Did you just call me an idiot for answering your question? You're ad hominem only make you look like a child.
Just Google some modern day anarchists who were influenced by those 3, you could also go to any anti-fascist rally and scream "any anarchists here?", just ask those who reply whether they are socialists.
Google the anarchist FAQ and read it. It contains information on the relationship between anarchism and capitalism. Hint: anarchists are anti-capitalists.
@pulsatingremedy I asked you to show me some socialist politicians TODAY who believe din no state. So you show me anarchists, listen to the question. Socialist politicians want a big state with greedy high paid state workers and low paid private sector families with high cost of living due to high taxes.
Proudhon was, in fact, a politician who called himself a socialist. He also wanted to get rid of the government and the state.
Are you actually trying to justify your ad hominem? It would be better if you would just apologize.
A socialist does not want any private sector or taxes. According to Marx, socialism replaces the capitalist mode of production. Socialism is NOT based on money, but on use-value.
@warriorprince1010, dude, the problem is what you define as "socialist". anarchism is pretty a sub-category of socialism. of course, if you're looking at the politicians you'll find idiots, that's obvious. as for dead anarchists, go listen to Noam Chomsky. he's very well alive, working at MIT and is one of the most brilliant men alive.
you do need to read up on anarchism and socialism, because you have a wrong idea of what it stands for.
@warriorprince1010 socialisim is all about the dismantaling of the state,but its also the realisation that in order to do that we must take control of the state and rebuild it to work in the interests of the working class, that includes public and private sector workers. in a capitalist state both public and private sector workers are exploited for the gain of a small elite, this small elite than try and pit worker against worker in an attempt to confuse both as to the true source of their pain
@chesghost "in a socialism state both public and private sector workers are exploited for the gain of a small elite, this small elite than try and pit worker against worker in an attempt to confuse both as to the true source of their pain"...thats better. Socialism is about state corruption, state greed and state slavery. If people have good enough education, healthcare and low taxes then they do not need the state after they leave school, they will work.
@jonaswiskari1 Which country? Try to read your posts before posting. Singapore is a free market economy, and industry is also free markets. So not sure which country you are talking about.
You're retarded. Read on the links. The english version is heavily ideologically filtered in comparison to the swedish but the ruling party was part of the socialist international but left when they were about to be kicked out because of lacking democratic practice. It's about as much of your free market dream as Sweden.
@jonaswiskari1 19 of the top 20 businesses in Sweden are owned by people not the state. There is no setting of prices by the state. Oh Ikea is not state owned. Sweden is a free market economy and a free market privately owned healthcare system, 75% of which is paid by taxation, people still have to pay some on top of that. Sweden is indeed a capitalist success, better than the USA, France or the UK.
You're out on thin fucking ice my friend. I am swedish and I'm very interested in both politics and history, especially the construction of the welfare state. The only things you got right there was about the companies.
Today, deregulation and privatization of state-owned businesses are common but in the last century, things were very different.
Swedish social-democrats and unions has regulated alot of markets and kept state monopolies in alot of different fields of economy.
@jonaswiskari1 19 of the top 20 companies in Sweden are privately owned, you are mistaken to say otherwise. As for the other things you have mentioned, I have no idea what they have got to do with the points I have said. Forrest in the UK are state run by trusts, so health and education on a whole. Restaurants and bars in Sweden are not state owned and sell alcohol. You are clearly mistaken and do not understand what free markets are.
It is merely an impertinence for a 'Marxist' to make this analysis without in any way referring to the biggest financial barriers that had to be removed before any of this financial swindle could take place. These barriers were nations and patriotism, the christian church and social morality, the family and a society based on the wider community of race, identity, history, heritage. ALL of which have been assailed by 'Cultural Marxism' and phony liberalism in the interests of global Capital.
No, do some research. Open your eyes and do not be fooled by slogans.
This has long been a plan, 'Cultural Marxism' was designed and developed purely to break down nations and open access to global power. Wherever you see 'liberalism' is is merely a feignt, it really means a method to get people to lower their guard to exploit them more. It is all about money and exploitation today, which is ruining our world, and dumbwit phoney Leftists are manipulated for this purpose alone.
Ah! The 'that's just conspiracy' school of diversion- dissenters to be ridiculed. Of course the banking crisis, Illegal mid-east wars, swine flu, Global warming scam et al are all just inventions- made up by crazed internet conspiricy theorists?
Well no bub, I make it my business to know find out who is manipulating minds and why.
That is why you have adverstising emblazoned across your cheap made in Asia clothing while talking your phony oneworld nonsense and I ...do not.
If you think Marxism is working for capitalism, then you are pretty disillusioned. Marxism has been the biggest anti-capitalism force since the expulsion of anarchists in the first international.
Nonsense- this is pseudo theory that dupes a few undergrads only. It is mere showcase- not reality.
Show me examples of where Marxism has ever had any effect against capitalism? (That did not involve wholescale slaughter, and wholescale economic failure.)The rampant immoral corporatism, consumerism/capitalism today could never have achieved success without social marxism. Which was designed purely to remove it's traditional barriers (nation, family, religion, morality)
@ireland2day Pulse you clearly don't have a great understanding of political theory or history. Liberalize means deregulation which means 'corpratization', while marxism is a leftist philosophy based in a long line of anarchist thought, two entirely different things. Also Marxism has rarely if ever truly been put to practice on a large scale so of course it couldn't affect change. USSR, Cuba, China, were all socialist, not communist or marxist. I could go on, but your too badly misinformed..
I am talking about the manipulation of placard Marxism by big capital to bludgeon everything that stands in the way of corporate globalisation- sowing false diversions and phoney cultural liberalism. Give students some Redflag nonsense to believe in and it will shut them up- the 60s and 70s saw this in practice- what of that social revolution has been achieved? nothing. Except more shopping malls and multiculture. It was all plotted and planned at the top.
contd- as for 'Marxism' never took place, you'd best be careful telling outher people they have no understanding when you come out with this sort of garbage. Marxism has failed on all economic levels in any method it has been applied. Its failure was already apparant by the 1st world war, and this thus started the Frankfurt school which was developed to infiltrate western society by other means- eg. subversion.
This marxism subversion has been effective as a tool for big capital. Open your eyes.
@ireland2day Marxism is best used as a tool to identify the problems with free-market capitalism. Also, you have to distinguish between different schools of marxism as there are quite a few.
What I refer to specifically is 'Cultural marxism', the subversion of traditional society by false claims of freedom & political correctness. This has been imposed and controlled by global capital since it's inception, & it continues,a concerted effort to break up nations by mass Immigration, break down the family, create feminism (women as independent consumers) dumb down education and turn all humanity into one mixed up, trash culture mass of global consumer morons.
That commodities are being produced for market exchange, that is the definition of a capitalist society.
In a communist/socialist country, money does not exist. There is no production for exchange-value in a communist/socialist country but there is production for use-value.
Do you consider yourself a follower of the Austrian cult of economics? Because you appear to trade reality for your models.
Ftfmglen: actually, I would propose countercyclical tax policy: Make the tax rates rise the more developed an economy becomes, up to 95% for modern western societies.
Marxism hasn't worked. Capitalism doesn't work. The right place may be limits on personal wealth accumulation and regulation of financial markets without surrender to central power. If the richest had caps say at USD 200 mio, that would do a great deal to solve many problems of society.
gforde, what got the states out of the Great Depression?
(Expected response: "World War II")
And who paid for the war?
The problem with FDR's New Deal programs was that they didn't spend enough soon enough. It wasn't until the US government was spending several times more a year on the war than they spent during the Great Depression that it was over.
...and btw, FDR's New Deal architect and Treasurer Morgenthau openly admitted to their Keynesian failure after 8 years:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat...I say after eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started....and an enormous debt to boot!"
The fully burdened Cost of Gov't in the US is projected in 2010 to take 72% of the average workers' pay. That's right, he now works into September to pay for the Cost of Govt. That's before Food, Shelter, Transportation, etc (See PEW Research COGD).
Oh, so I see, "Capitalism is Failing..Isn't it time for Keynes and Marx?" Really? At 72%? Capitalism is on life-support fighting the viruses of Keynes, Marxism and "world improver" pipe smokers like Harvey. Hows that crack in your pipe?
Oh. Those billionaires. They have it so haaaard! I weep every night for their accumulation of wealth; wail at the thought of the multiple houses they own in mulitple countries; cry in my beer ... errr ... Chardonnay at the thought of the chauffeur-driven cars from which they have to choose. It's so haaaard for them! It hurts sooo much to see them have to suffer!
I hope all of you consider contributing to the Billionaires Relief Fund. Google it.
@snochicka "This guy is a fuckin' commie pinko asshole."
That's all you have to say? Is that all you think needs to be said? Three adjectives and a noun. Call someone a name and assume everyone who reads the name holds the same associations for the words used that you hold, i.e. commies are not worth listening to.
You've said everything that needs to be said for the conservative viewpoint, which is, nothing. On your best day you couldn't last ten seconds debating David Harvey.
the missing piece in his explanation is that this capitalism is merely the fig leaf of white male supremacism. financial instruments are just another tool of domination of the colored world along with gunships and predator missiles.
of course now the only crises are that at last white men are losing control of their hosue of cards and dont haev the means to retake power.
better learn to speak chinese and worship allah white man!!! rofl
@necroprinceak Not at all, because that would turn Marxism into a huge conspiracy theory, which is the opposite of what it is. The triumph of Marxism is that is successfully explains the SYSTEMIC relations and phenomena that guide events, independent of the intentions or machinations of individuals. The Law of Value regulates capitalism, not some diabolical secret colloquy of bankers or manufacturers.
@shadowgeyser Bottom line is, you follow an economic theory that isd devoid of even a semblance of objective reality. That is, it lacks an acknowledgement of the surplus value extracted from labour. The focus on markets is a veil to help avoiding ever having to come to terms with the nature of PRODUCTION.
@ipwnorcs "Harvey is a geographer....not a sociologist."
Geography is one of the social sciences. Also, for the last several years, Harvey has taught in the Anthropology Dept at CUNY. If you don't consider economics something that can be studied from an anthropological viewpoint, no offense, but you're lost.
Further, there's a sub-field within geography called Economic Geography, within which some of the finest scholarship with respect to economics is done.
"I was referring to books that are not Keynesian in nature"
Read what I actually wrote: "accepts all the premises that underly NEOCLASSICAL economics." (ie. the mathematical utopia that's never going to happen, and will never happen). Keynesianism accepts most of these premises, but has important differences on some scores. Market fundies, like the Chicago school, accept all of them.
@shadowgeyser "fails to make a distinction between the different forms/schools"
Irrelevant. He's talking about underlying processes that are fundamental to CAPITALISM, not any one mode of it.
"numerous additions that have complictaed the system."
Irrelevant. As above.
"A simple intro to economics book debunks this."
Oh yes, one of the books that accepts all the premises that underly neoclassical economics and which have been so miserably inaequate in predicting and explaining crisis.
I just watched another speech by Harvey(watch?v=YYQb0fthNfI). The guy is a full-blown socialist who clearly hasn't read or understood any of the serious criticisms that have been offered against socialism. It was worse than expected.
I think the best way to grasp what the fundamental problems of socialism are is to listen to Salerno's lecture: The Debate On The Socialist Calculation Debate(watch?v=rZ2uncqukn4).
@Xasew "That's like saying biology is 'pro-life' because it studies living things."
Wrong. Economics - or what's commonly meant by it - isn't science. It's a highly ideological edifice masquerading as science, but it is basically a prop for capitalism. It incorporates a whole range of unscientific notions about human nature and the nature of production. In short, it's crap. It can't even coherently explain how crises come about. And all of its recommendations to "fix" crises invariably fail.
@Xasew "I would agree to some extent if I was talking about mainstream economics"
But you are, or at least, from within a particular school of it, for you accept the basic premise that crises are not internal, necessary features of capitalism. That being the case, there's nothing genuinely radical about your views. Any theory that doesn't acknowledge the core of capitalist production - the extraction of surplus value - is just another species within the overall genus of capitalist ideology.
Oh yes, another "revolution" in bourgeois economics, once again designed to have to acknowledge this place called "the real world". I have less than no confidence in the ability of mainstream economics, whether Keynesian, neoliberal, or any of its other avatars, to have anything like a scientific understanding of crises. It's very much a case of "been there, done that".
@Xasew "You think the marginalist revolution was a mistake?"
The whole of bourgeois economics is a "mistake". It's not that it's all bunk; it does have some limited validity, but it's nothing like a scientific conception of how economies actually function. It's pretty much all designed to conceal the necessarily exploitative nature of production, and to push the fiction that all people are equally empowered actors. And, like I said, it can't even coherently explain economic crises.
Our biggest failure is not realizing that our greatest global challenges are all products of the monetary profit system. End profit and we will find solutions and abundance. Why not issue EVERY PERSON equally with free monthly credits? Products can be valued by their energy input only (as scarcity will not be an issue) and the total supply of credits calculated on what is a globally sustainable rate of resource consumption? Very little human labor will be required and can be done voluntarily.
@axe863 Its obvious that you like to troll youtube looking for any opportunity to display your superior intellect so please enlighten me. How can we make capitalism as a system of scarce resource allocation work when the efficiencies it produces dislocates the very species it serves from access to its wealth? How can it work when the sum income workers receive from producing goods of value is less than the monetary value of the very goods they produce? Who"s gonna buy all our stuff. Jesus?
@johnTconover Lets cut this stupidity up into little pieces. You believe in an evolutionary system and yet you want a group of elite scientist to allocate on an objective basis... hello people do not have homogeneous preferences... in fact the very mechanism of differentiation (in varying forms) and the selective pressures of the market process cause said dynamics
@johnTconover How can it work .......the very goods they produce? This has persisted for centuries. "Sufficiently rational" individuals are risk averse to non-diversifiable(systematic) fluctuations because individuals prefer to smooth out their allocations(inter/intra). Now do you understand that why it is "normal" to obtain a premium if you tie yourself into an action that has systematic risk.
@johnTconover "How can it work ....produce?" Why do individuals choose/try to specialize in certain functions. It is because they are relatively more efficient in said function than in others. The individual outsources final good/services in which he is relatively inefficient. The default is all internal production. Why would said agent deviate if it was detrimental. This is so freaking simple. Seriously, what dont you grasp about high school level economics.
@axe863 Yeah, cornucopian math works swell on paper. Just like compound growth. Unfortunately for the vast majority of us here on planet earth, the resources we extract from our environment which we use to produce goods/services are finite but more importantly, the ENERGY that allows us to extract and consume these resources at exponential rates is finite.HOW WILL A DECLINING RATE OF NET ENERGY GAINS FIT INTO YOUR COMPLEX ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL MODEL?(whats economics got to do with energy he says)
@axe863 And whilst its my turn on the soapbox once again, I'll ask how the biosphere fits into your closed economic system of perfect equilibrium? You know what I'm talking about right, that other complex system that high school economics forgot? How does that fit into your model of production to infinity or is that to environazi of me to ask?
@johnTconover Um.. if you knew about complexity economics... it exists far form equilibrium. I just used arguments from normal economics because its much easier to understand.
Why are you assuming practically zero innovation in our ever diversifying portfolio of energy strategies? This is an extremely ridiculous assumption.
@axe863 But anyhoo... Please don't ever delete your youtube account... I want to check back in with you five and ten years from now to see how the math of profit/exponential growth is working out in the real world ok?... Seriously...
@johnTconover The Technocracy stance is a hybrid generalization of Malthusian/Marxist ideas. A generalization of Malthusian idea in the same way as he neglected the cross effects of capital investment and innovation increasing labor productivity. A generalization of Marxian idea in that there is an objective measure of value that is tied into the production process and not derived from the subjective valuation of agents.
@axe863 Thats where we differ, I believe in the objective energy theory of value (excluding subjective valuation). Or more accurately, the net energy theory of value. I also believe that net energy is the driving force of social, economic and even biological evolution but anyway, we could argue for years and I don't know enough of dem big fancy words hahaha. You seem to be far more intelligent than I and I am sure you will leave your mark on the world... Take it easy buddy ;-)
Reading "The New Imperialism" and I wish reasonable people like Harvey where in power.
wojovox 3 days ago
Capitalism [ the right for private ownership] has no responsibility for any of the current problems. They are caused by state corruption and deregulation. Nothing to do with small businesses I am afraid.
warriorprince1010 2 weeks ago
We need more of this debate in the United States. We desperately need it. If anything, Marxist critique might make capitalism in our country a bit better. We need the leftist critical theorists, they are the ones who have the balls to hold up a mirror to what we are doing.
linsk78 2 weeks ago
We never left Keynes...what's he talking about. At what point have we adopted an Austrian school system....everything that's going on is Keynesian based logic. Why rule out something (Hayek) when it's not been tried.
Avidcomp 1 month ago
What a speaker David Harvey is, natural and interesting, inspiring - brilliant stuff
askthepublic 2 months ago 4
The crisis, is that people perceive CORPORATISM as capitalism. Real capitalism is an amazing system. We haven't had real capitalism in a long, LONG time. Make no mistake, this dirty corporate world we live in is NOT capitalism. Not one bit. It no more represents capitalism than al qaeda represents Islam. We're spinning our wheels.
xilix 2 months ago
28:47
Occupy Wallstreet!
The message from occupy wallstreet is so convoluted but really this video is what it's all about. We need accountability and regulation as far as lobbying and influence on capital hill is concerned. Stop trying to push a liberal agenda and focus on real issues. The one percent vs 99% is moot, the bottom of the 99 percent makes about 300k a year. The problem is wallstreet speculation. Betting with 50 TRILLION DOLLARS is irresponsible and needs to be regulated.
fudswads 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wwwwwwwwwtttttttttttqqqqqqqqq
*
CAPITALISM WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH, DUE IN PART TO ECONOMIES OF SCALE THEORY. THIS WOULD OCCUR EVEN IF YOU COMPLETELY REMOVED EVERY U.S. CORPORATION AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
*
A COMBINATION OF CAPITALISM (being able to have your own business, etc) AND SOCIALISM (universal healthcare, affordable higher education for all, etc) IS THE BEST OPTION
*
THE TEA PARTY AND RON PAUL ARE NOT THE SOLUTION
*
Someideasandstuff 3 months ago
All systems are fucked. Systems that work for everybody are a fantasy that only works on papers. You will always have a group of people in power fucking everybody else over. Anyone who thinks that an ideal socialist system is possible is delusional. Anyone who says they believe in the market regulating itself is full of crap. It's in our nature to screw each other, always has been and always will be.
gringochucha 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. DRUG LORDS. UNEQUALITY. UNSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. LAWYERS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. MAGGOT SOCIALITES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 3 months ago
Comment removed
jeeohdee 3 months ago
I think the point here isn't about capitalism as a system - it is about people. People can make any system work or fail.
Dualhammers 4 months ago
@Dualhammers but where do the people come from? The system is prior to the people. That is, every single person is born into a culture, a language, an ideology, an economic system. This milieu shapes the way they think. It has shaped the capitalists and the socialists etc. The best we can hope for is an incremental change, where the new people see the problems with the old people's ideas and so on. A system that promotes this kind of self-improvement will work much better than denial.
gifool 3 months ago
@gifool I think we're actually agreeing and you don't realize it.
Dualhammers 3 months ago
David Harvey is spot on. Capitalism is utter rot. We must all stop listening to the lies of advertisers & politicians. This bailout of companies and banks that are "too big to fail" is atrocious. Enough is enough.
Laoch111 6 months ago 7
Brilliant economists like him won't be finding any jobs in the gov. anytime soon.
Problem starts here, we stop listening to the wisemen of the country, pretending not hearing their warnings.
Instead, well funded minority, boodoo, neo-liberal, libertarian economists, have taken over the gov. policy.
allgoo19 6 months ago 4
I know its silly to say this, but Im glad to live in the UK and Europe at least, where our education system is better than America's and where you can have a Marxist theorist give a debate on Royal Society, wow!
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 7 months ago 22
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz You are a real testament to your superior education system. David Harvey is a professor at the City University of New York. That's New York, NY U.S.A. for the geographically challenged such as yourself.
mind3l3vation 6 months ago
@mind3l3vation but he's british
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 6 months ago
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz obviously. the point is that it makes no sense for you to be inspired to pride over your "superior" education system by watching a talk given by a professor from the education system you claim is inferior to your own. and, not only is harvey currently a part of the american education system, he has been so since 1969. So, unless you think david harvey is an imbecile, the comments section on one of his talks isnt the most logical place to cirticize the american education system.
mind3l3vation 6 months ago
@mind3l3vation America has some excellent schools, but the system itself is inferior. To study at these excellent schools you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. This ofcourse discourages many people from going at all. This is opposed to countries throughout Europe, some of which offer free education to their citizens.
johnmickle 6 months ago 4
@johnmickle As I said before, Prof. Harvey teaches at the City University of New York (CUNY). That's a public institution where tuition is around $5000 per year. So what you're saying isn't accurate. Yes there are excellent private institutions where tuition is very expensive but there are also excellent public institutions where tuition is affordable.
mind3l3vation 6 months ago
@mind3l3vation Yes, there are community colleges that are a more economical alternative, I go to one and still had to get a loan to cover tuition. But it's not just private institutions that charge an unaffordable tuition. State universities are often tens of thousands per year. I'm just saying as a WHOLE the American education system is falling behind Europe, where in many countries it is free.
johnmickle 6 months ago 5
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz I know you already have heard a lot of this, but in the US they make a big deal about universities being able to choose whoever they want to give lectures.
TheRacistsMustDie 4 months ago
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz
Concerning your education system, I'm from America and we have better medical education and tech education than you can offer. How refreshing that someone besides an American is not the bigot!
fudswads 3 months ago
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz
I'm an American and there's nothing "silly" about what you wrote. But you also have to know this that you need more than just being "glad" that you are living in a continent where there are better education system because if that's all you do, your ruling class will make every effort they can get to turn it into something more like here. You need organization to fight such an effort like we need here. And we also need solidarity to fight the common enemies.
unorthodoxtrotsky 1 month ago
@zzzzJAGJEETzzzz
And another thing, there are Marxist theorists in the States as well. Marxism actually wins greater persuasion in social science department. One academic department where Marxism isn't considered seriously is Economics. And that's actually same with Europe and there are increasing demands for theoretical diversity for economic arguments in both Europe and the States. There are however more students studying Marxian economics in the States now than before.
unorthodoxtrotsky 1 month ago
Comment removed
shiftnsix 2 weeks ago
If historical experience could teach us anything it would be that private property is inextricably linked with with civilization. There is no experience to the effect that socialism could provide a standard of living as high as that provided by capitalism. Open your eyes people. Stop believing the government! Centrally planned economies only lead to disasters. It is a fatal conceit to believe that redistribution of wealth with coercion leads us to prosperity.
CAPITALISM is FREEDOM!
NicoPallotta 7 months ago
@NicoPallotta How is America not a centrally-planned economy? Also, your idea about history is only 2-3 centuries old...when nobility began to be given outright ownership rights by monarchs. Has this fixation on private ownership of property yielded freedom? Millions are in terrible debt...a veritable prison...because they thought private ownership of property is essential to the American Dream. Most of the "wealth" in the US is faux wealth...it exists really only in financial markets.
tvswnet 7 months ago
This is so ignorant it is embarrassing.
qwertypoiu4321 8 months ago
marxism is very, very far away from anarchy.
Razorgabo 8 months ago
the main problem is that everyone thinks they know everything about everything...just pay attention once in a while...try to take things in...not compare what you hear to what you "know"...
synbin24 9 months ago
Reading the posts below is a reminder of how it is impossible to reason with dishonest capitalists, after all the whole system is based on dishonesty. Capitalism's predatory nature is leading humanity to the brink of the most horrible nightmare imaginable. The only solution to capitalist exploitation is revolution. But it requires for the working class to rise up. This requires that they abandon the ideology promoted by capitalists; religion, bourgeois democracy, nationalism and class supremacy.
TheOzomahtli 10 months ago 36
@TheOzomahtli Capitalism is the right to own property, copyright and businesses. Capitalism is not responsible for anything else other than a right., Like the right to free speech. Socialism denies the right of private ownerships. Finland, Norway, Switzerland ALL have rights of private ownership, thus all are capitalist. They have state ran schools and health which is fine in capitalist countries.
warriorprince1010 8 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Did you even finish high school? If you did I would ask them for your money back as you did not learn how to think only to parrot.
TheOzomahtli 8 months ago
@TheOzomahtli Interestingly enough, I disagree with a lot of the 'capitalist' tenets you mentioned. I do not support bourgeois democracy since I don't support ANY democracy. I loath nationalism, I am against fundamentalist religion, and I oppose any identitarian class-ism. Yet I view myself as a radical capitalist. The truth is, you're a punk kid who doesn't know what you're talking about. The world is screwed because your infantile opinions.
truevoice08 8 months ago
@TheOzomahtli Lol When Capitalism fails, the whole world is going to go to hell. We have been lied and Lied to so much that every thing has to rely on that. The end is near.
blackhole73 7 months ago
@blackhole73 Or, maybe when capitalism fails, the world will finally break free from this entire idea of capital and control and outmoded ideologies and corrupt systems and the rest...that domination of billions of people around the world by a privileged few is simply no longer a desirable paradigm. What is wealth? What is value? What is the worth of a person's life? Hopefully when this thing crumbles, we'll take a fresh look at those questions and come up with a completely new approach.
tvswnet 7 months ago
@TheOzomahtli i agree that capitalism and constitutional democracy has inherent problems what we need is a composite system part socialist/capitalist etc......
TheDevindevine 3 months ago
@TheOzomahtli I think the working class likes a high standard of living too much to rise up against capitalism.
supahsekzy 4 weeks ago
Harvey is not a sociologist, he's a geographer.
cucarachon 10 months ago
There is massive unemployment in Palestine. This guy tells lie after lie after lie. Typical socialist.
warriorprince1010 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Israel has its boot on the Palestinian economy's throat.
BobSoperJr 10 months ago
Which prompts; just admit you don't care about other people, because in terms of scientifically measureable reality Marx destroyed the classical economist which ie neoliberalism is still founded on. Read some Marx, you can disagree with the priority to have development over growth. But its just sad to see working class and middle class retards who mentions facsist sovjet to somehow demonstrate how Marx was wrong with his analysis. Read Marx, try to understand Marx, then you can open your mouth.
RipTheJackR 10 months ago
Why can't you people who supports the profit motive and function of capitalism, just simply say that you don't care about the collective well-being of others. Instead of just simply looking like some regular retards who simply don't understand history or economics? Why can't people be honest about their values? That you have to make an assumption/preference doesn't by any means that Marx was wrong when he demonstrated how Adam Smiths analysis of the system was not valid in terms of reality.
RipTheJackR 10 months ago
i can't see a reasonable solution other than revolution by the people. sustained success, however, i think, can only arise with the maintenance of the internet so that communication is maintained.
hockeybum90n5 10 months ago
To give government so much power will never work. Socialism is statism, like feudal systems, monarchies, caste systems, nazism, fascism, it is about state power and poverty and enslavement for the masses. The first thing the EU did when they signed the Lisbon treaty was to give themselves a 34% pay rise, while the EU had record unemployment mainly due to high taxes and government policies. Non to do with capitalism.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
Comment removed
Jerrrr 11 months ago
@Jerrrr Oh my, you are the most stupid person I have ever met. Statism, state...ism. It means the state controlling wealth. Socialism, communism, feudal systems, monarchies, nazism are all statism. State control.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Actually, we haven't met. I imagine leftists all look alike, so your confusion is forgiven. So that aside, statism as a blanket term doesn't mean much. Socialism and feudalism don't have much in common, and even if you say they share 'statism' in common, you have to accept that the term doesn't take the same form in either social system. The same is true for the other systems you listed too.
Also, unemployment has little to do with high tax or government policy. See Norway.
Jerrrr 11 months ago
@Jerrrr
statism is really more a capitalist phenomena, before the industrial reoluution which facilitated the growth of capitalism, states where mere loosely determined and frequently shifting boundaries. i couldt concur feudalism n capitalism share statism
scarymary2k8 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010 Time to go back to school? Communism and state cannot coexist, as communism is actually a form of organized anarchism. Now that some empires in the past have called themselves "communist" doesn't make them more communist than the USA is. Monarchy with parliamentarism is used in many countries today and isn't really different from the USA. Nazism is essentially fascism, which is actually authoritarian corporativism and the USA is getting closer to that day by day :).
freedomthrough 11 months ago
@freedomthrough Yes time for you to go back to school, good idea, the only one you have had. All those ideologies are statism, where the state controls the wealth. In the UK there is no monarchy rule, the power passed to parliament, this was the end of statism. Keep up. Statist ideals are where the state holds the money and runs the economic planning. All these countries are poor, except those that have found oil.
warriorprince1010 11 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Just to demonstrate how you don't understand, if by state, any sensible understanding of it, a centralized government, then ie feudalism is one example of what that is not. If you take nazism, that is one particular form of facsism, and thats in most cases, corporative control of the state, and i suspect you try to throw socialism in with nazisism for some retarded purpose. State control has in most cases been a force for capitalism, so by your logic socialism=good.
RipTheJackR 10 months ago
@RipTheJackR "State control has in most cases been a force for capitalism"...No it has not. Capitalism is the right to private ownership and has no responsibility for any decisions the state make. Socialism has been responsible for most of the genocides in the last 100 years. Gaddaffi is an Islamic socialist. Capitalism..people owning small businesses, wealth for all that are educated and healthy and work. Socialism..state greed and excess, wealth for the state, poverty for the masses.
warriorprince1010 10 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Read up on capitalism coz you've got a very simplified picture of it. Capitalism is not just private ownership. It is the system of labour and WAGES which is a fundamental part of it along with lending and investments.
And in case you haven't noticed, big corporations love to fund political campaigns for people to do their bidding and once the election's over, lobbyists are standing ready to bribe and convince as a full-time job.
en.wi k i p e d i a.org/wiki/Capitalism
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 You need to do some research. Capitalism is indeed private ownership, the rest is corruption and has nothing to do with the right to private ownership. 90% of capitalism are small businesses.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You obviously didn't read on the link I posted. If you wanna make a new and original interpretation of the word, please do, but even Adam Smith speaks of wage labour in his "wealth of the nations" as a commodity which hardly could be confused for socialist propaganda.
If you take out wage labour out of the idea, you're talking about peasants, merchants or craftsmen which neither is specific for the age of capitalism or of free trade.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
90% of the existing companies may be small business. It sounds pretty reasonable. 90% of the capital is NOT concentrated in small business. Even a 15 year-old could use simple maths and see that it's not true. Just think of banks, insurance companies or any trans-national company. You could in no way say that small business has a greater concentration of capital than the banks and insurance companies that lend them the capital plus owns the majority of mortagages..
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 90% of businesses are indeed small. You greedy socialists just want to control the "capital" that someone else has made, stealing wealth. It is none of your business how much someone earns, quit the culture of envy. In capitalism people control the wealth they create, in socialism the state controls wealth the people create, theft. The governments job is the educate and regulate not to steal wealth for their own greed and control.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Socialists wants to take back the wealth that has been stolen from the working people. The reason that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the minority is because they already control the means of production.
Working for someone makes him/her richer and you get back a smaller piece of the value in salary. You have to do it for you can't produce food or houses or land on your own coz of private property. If you take a loan, you have to pay interest = same thing.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
In other words, capitalism is the complete opposite of what you want it to be. It's the systemic everyday theft from people who work and produce something. The thieves are the capitalists who's only reason to why they get to keep the profit is because of their ownership.
The big problem is that they're digging their own grave coz the people who work is also the people buying their stuff. If there's no one to buy the products, the market cannot work = economic crisis.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 The USA has an average wage of 45,000. This is 45 times higher than North Korea, 8 times higher than Cuba.
How exactly has the USA failed? Show me a state planned economy that has worked? Oh and Norway Switzerland, Finland and Sweden are ALL free market economies with LOWER corporate taxes than the USA.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You're not very consistent in your argument but ok, take the US for example. It's officially one of the richest countries in the world and still can't provide health care, education or secure homes for all it's population. It's the source of the current economic crisis.
Cuba is a third-world country and can provide free health care, education and secure homes for it's citizens. On top of that, they're the biggest exporters of medical equipment to other third world countries.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Compare Cuba to other capitalist third-world countries in it's region. Jamaica or Haiti is richer but can't provide any of this. Infant mortality rates, analphabetism and homelessness is lower in Cuba than in the US.
I live in Sweden and Sweden has during a large part of the 20th century had a very regulated market and alot of state-owned companies and was 6th richest country during the same time. We have had very high corporate taxes most of that time too.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
On the other hand, countries being praised for their economic growth through deregulation until the crisis was among others Ireland and Iceland. It took one crisis and now they're bank-rupt. Obviously, deregulation wasn't very stabile in the end.
I've had it with you now. You're constantly dodging facts and subjects and you're being a prick in general. What the fuck do you believe in? You really seem to hate socialists and that's pretty much the only thing you're saying.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Correction on Haiti. They're poorer. Take middle and south america as comparison instead. The point doesn't change. On top of that, Cuba had the trade embargo from the US for most of the last 50 years.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 Haiti were not made poorer they were poor when they started. They did not put money into education so you stand corrected not me. The USA has not traded with Cuba for years and they are still rich. Lots of countries trade with Cuba, it has not made them first world. Singapore is a first world country based 100% on education and free markets. No oil, no gas, no minerals. Just putting faith in people and not greedy governments.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
I was correcting myself on Haiti's economic situation, not you.
What do you mean by USA has not traded with Cuba and they're still rich? Why would the US economy change in any major way from trading or not trading with a small island nation?
I'm not the cuban government, I don't take responsibility for whatever they did right or wrong but if you come to attack Cuba as a complete let down and a warning example of plan economy's failure I do differ.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
I checked up Singapore on wikipedia. Both the swedish and english version says pretty much the same thing. If you have a swedish neo-liberal friend, he/she might be able to confirm the info.
Singapore's development is through a strong state ruling in alot of areas. In the Swedish page it say that industry was built through strong state control from basically being poor nation of fishers.
Today, strong state regulations on car and industry, it's also environmentally leading.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
Comment removed
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 Glad you agree. Singapore is rich because of great education, free markets, low taxes and good infrastructure. The state regulation is the states job, quit pretending their is a country on earth without state regulation, the USA has much. Socialism is a state ran economy with NO right for private ownership of land, homes, copyrights or business. So anything other than that is not socialism. Case closed.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Hahaha, you're so fucking stupid I can hardly find words for it!
But it's all good, it's up to anyone reading the comments to decide whoever they think is right.
Case closed.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 I am clearly the one who won the debate.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
"Socialism is a state ran economy"
So you would disagree with the Marxist and anarchist movement, that socialism is also stateless?
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@pulsatingremedy Name one politician that calls themselves a socialist that wants to get rid of all government? Thank you.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
The entire anarchist movement?
Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.
Search on google: "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist"
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@pulsatingremedy Proudhon..died 1865...Kropotkin...died 1921....Bakunin...died 1876. You are certainly on the ball, thanks for answering my question with the names of 3 people who are not only dead but two of them died in the 19th century. What an idiot. Anarchy is supported by some republicans in the USA who want to pay not ax at all. So many capitalists are clearly anarchists.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Did you just call me an idiot for answering your question? You're ad hominem only make you look like a child.
Just Google some modern day anarchists who were influenced by those 3, you could also go to any anti-fascist rally and scream "any anarchists here?", just ask those who reply whether they are socialists.
Google the anarchist FAQ and read it. It contains information on the relationship between anarchism and capitalism. Hint: anarchists are anti-capitalists.
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@pulsatingremedy I asked you to show me some socialist politicians TODAY who believe din no state. So you show me anarchists, listen to the question. Socialist politicians want a big state with greedy high paid state workers and low paid private sector families with high cost of living due to high taxes.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Your question was:
"Name one...government?"
Proudhon was, in fact, a politician who called himself a socialist. He also wanted to get rid of the government and the state.
Are you actually trying to justify your ad hominem? It would be better if you would just apologize.
A socialist does not want any private sector or taxes. According to Marx, socialism replaces the capitalist mode of production. Socialism is NOT based on money, but on use-value.
You should read some Marx.
pulsatingremedy 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010, dude, the problem is what you define as "socialist". anarchism is pretty a sub-category of socialism. of course, if you're looking at the politicians you'll find idiots, that's obvious. as for dead anarchists, go listen to Noam Chomsky. he's very well alive, working at MIT and is one of the most brilliant men alive.
you do need to read up on anarchism and socialism, because you have a wrong idea of what it stands for.
AshesWasHerName 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010 socialisim is all about the dismantaling of the state,but its also the realisation that in order to do that we must take control of the state and rebuild it to work in the interests of the working class, that includes public and private sector workers. in a capitalist state both public and private sector workers are exploited for the gain of a small elite, this small elite than try and pit worker against worker in an attempt to confuse both as to the true source of their pain
chesghost 8 months ago
@chesghost "in a socialism state both public and private sector workers are exploited for the gain of a small elite, this small elite than try and pit worker against worker in an attempt to confuse both as to the true source of their pain"...thats better. Socialism is about state corruption, state greed and state slavery. If people have good enough education, healthcare and low taxes then they do not need the state after they leave school, they will work.
warriorprince1010 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@warriorprince1010
A couple of mispellings and missing letters in that post but I'm sure you're smart enough to fill the blanks.
w i k i p e d i a.org/wiki/Singapore
sv.w i k i p e d i a.org/wiki/Singapore
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
Hahahahahaha! The ruling party was when starting out a socialist party with a strong view on welfare! 26% of it's GDP consists of industry...
Come on, man, why don't you check up your subjects before claiming these things? It didn't take me long to do it for you.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 Which country? Try to read your posts before posting. Singapore is a free market economy, and industry is also free markets. So not sure which country you are talking about.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You're retarded. Read on the links. The english version is heavily ideologically filtered in comparison to the swedish but the ruling party was part of the socialist international but left when they were about to be kicked out because of lacking democratic practice. It's about as much of your free market dream as Sweden.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 19 of the top 20 businesses in Sweden are owned by people not the state. There is no setting of prices by the state. Oh Ikea is not state owned. Sweden is a free market economy and a free market privately owned healthcare system, 75% of which is paid by taxation, people still have to pay some on top of that. Sweden is indeed a capitalist success, better than the USA, France or the UK.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
You're out on thin fucking ice my friend. I am swedish and I'm very interested in both politics and history, especially the construction of the welfare state. The only things you got right there was about the companies.
Today, deregulation and privatization of state-owned businesses are common but in the last century, things were very different.
Swedish social-democrats and unions has regulated alot of markets and kept state monopolies in alot of different fields of economy.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@warriorprince1010
We have universal health care free of charge except for an administrative fee of 100-200 SEK.
In the last decade, private health care co-exists with the universal.
The state regulated energy prices until the last few years and most of the energy net is owned by communal companies.
Alcohol can only be sold at the state-owned Systembolaget.
Railroads and previously train traffic's state owned.
Svea skog, state-owned, owns the majority of forests.
You're severely misinformed.
jonaswiskari1 9 months ago
@jonaswiskari1 19 of the top 20 companies in Sweden are privately owned, you are mistaken to say otherwise. As for the other things you have mentioned, I have no idea what they have got to do with the points I have said. Forrest in the UK are state run by trusts, so health and education on a whole. Restaurants and bars in Sweden are not state owned and sell alcohol. You are clearly mistaken and do not understand what free markets are.
warriorprince1010 9 months ago
Note: The I in PIGS normally stands for Italy.
Conenion 11 months ago
@Conenion It's true. That's is why they use more frequently the acronym PIIGS, to include Ireland.
konradvalladaresv 11 months ago
Comment removed
Qotsage420 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is merely an impertinence for a 'Marxist' to make this analysis without in any way referring to the biggest financial barriers that had to be removed before any of this financial swindle could take place. These barriers were nations and patriotism, the christian church and social morality, the family and a society based on the wider community of race, identity, history, heritage. ALL of which have been assailed by 'Cultural Marxism' and phony liberalism in the interests of global Capital.
ireland2day 1 year ago
@ireland2day
Marxism works in the interest of capitalism? Stop smoking whatever you are smoking.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
No, do some research. Open your eyes and do not be fooled by slogans.
This has long been a plan, 'Cultural Marxism' was designed and developed purely to break down nations and open access to global power. Wherever you see 'liberalism' is is merely a feignt, it really means a method to get people to lower their guard to exploit them more. It is all about money and exploitation today, which is ruining our world, and dumbwit phoney Leftists are manipulated for this purpose alone.
ireland2day 1 year ago
@ireland2day
Did you do research on the actual Frankfurt school? Or did you just watch conspiracy videos?
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Ah! The 'that's just conspiracy' school of diversion- dissenters to be ridiculed. Of course the banking crisis, Illegal mid-east wars, swine flu, Global warming scam et al are all just inventions- made up by crazed internet conspiricy theorists?
Well no bub, I make it my business to know find out who is manipulating minds and why.
That is why you have adverstising emblazoned across your cheap made in Asia clothing while talking your phony oneworld nonsense and I ...do not.
ireland2day 1 year ago
@ireland2day
If you think Marxism is working for capitalism, then you are pretty disillusioned. Marxism has been the biggest anti-capitalism force since the expulsion of anarchists in the first international.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy
Nonsense- this is pseudo theory that dupes a few undergrads only. It is mere showcase- not reality.
Show me examples of where Marxism has ever had any effect against capitalism? (That did not involve wholescale slaughter, and wholescale economic failure.)The rampant immoral corporatism, consumerism/capitalism today could never have achieved success without social marxism. Which was designed purely to remove it's traditional barriers (nation, family, religion, morality)
ireland2day 1 year ago
@ireland2day Pulse you clearly don't have a great understanding of political theory or history. Liberalize means deregulation which means 'corpratization', while marxism is a leftist philosophy based in a long line of anarchist thought, two entirely different things. Also Marxism has rarely if ever truly been put to practice on a large scale so of course it couldn't affect change. USSR, Cuba, China, were all socialist, not communist or marxist. I could go on, but your too badly misinformed..
Qotsage420 1 year ago
@Qotsage420
I am talking about the manipulation of placard Marxism by big capital to bludgeon everything that stands in the way of corporate globalisation- sowing false diversions and phoney cultural liberalism. Give students some Redflag nonsense to believe in and it will shut them up- the 60s and 70s saw this in practice- what of that social revolution has been achieved? nothing. Except more shopping malls and multiculture. It was all plotted and planned at the top.
ireland2day 1 year ago
contd- as for 'Marxism' never took place, you'd best be careful telling outher people they have no understanding when you come out with this sort of garbage. Marxism has failed on all economic levels in any method it has been applied. Its failure was already apparant by the 1st world war, and this thus started the Frankfurt school which was developed to infiltrate western society by other means- eg. subversion.
This marxism subversion has been effective as a tool for big capital. Open your eyes.
ireland2day 1 year ago
@ireland2day Marxism is best used as a tool to identify the problems with free-market capitalism. Also, you have to distinguish between different schools of marxism as there are quite a few.
freedomthrough 11 months ago
@freedomthrough
What I refer to specifically is 'Cultural marxism', the subversion of traditional society by false claims of freedom & political correctness. This has been imposed and controlled by global capital since it's inception, & it continues,a concerted effort to break up nations by mass Immigration, break down the family, create feminism (women as independent consumers) dumb down education and turn all humanity into one mixed up, trash culture mass of global consumer morons.
ireland2day 11 months ago
@Qotsage420 You forgot to put socialist in quotes lol.
Tougemaster06 8 months ago
What "capitalism"? The monetary system is a state-sponsored monopoly.
Central planning is marxism, Einstein. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername What? Sounds like you have no idea what either Marxism or Capitalism are.
Crackxyx 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername
The mode of production is capitalist. End of story. Central planning in a capitalist society is not socialism/communism/Marxism.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
@pulsatingremedy What the hell is "capitalist" about a state monopoly on money
and credit? State control of money and credit is specifically a Marxist idea. They
want to control all aspects of society - and money is one of the most important.
If the "mode of production" were "capitalist," then there would be a free market
in money. It isn't. It's centrally planned. It follows the Marxist dogma. This is
NOT a "capitalist society".
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername
That commodities are being produced for market exchange, that is the definition of a capitalist society.
In a communist/socialist country, money does not exist. There is no production for exchange-value in a communist/socialist country but there is production for use-value.
Do you consider yourself a follower of the Austrian cult of economics? Because you appear to trade reality for your models.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
David Harvey & Jacque Fresco need to get together. They are both modern day visionaries.
Check out : "The Venus Project" and join "The Zeitgeist Movement" which is the activist arm of TVP.
SeekTruthTV 1 year ago
Ftfmglen: actually, I would propose countercyclical tax policy: Make the tax rates rise the more developed an economy becomes, up to 95% for modern western societies.
aarskever 1 year ago
Marxism hasn't worked. Capitalism doesn't work. The right place may be limits on personal wealth accumulation and regulation of financial markets without surrender to central power. If the richest had caps say at USD 200 mio, that would do a great deal to solve many problems of society.
Ftfmglen 1 year ago
gforde, what got the states out of the Great Depression?
(Expected response: "World War II")
And who paid for the war?
The problem with FDR's New Deal programs was that they didn't spend enough soon enough. It wasn't until the US government was spending several times more a year on the war than they spent during the Great Depression that it was over.
FraterAleydis 1 year ago
...and btw, FDR's New Deal architect and Treasurer Morgenthau openly admitted to their Keynesian failure after 8 years:
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat...I say after eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started....and an enormous debt to boot!"
gforde6 1 year ago
The fully burdened Cost of Gov't in the US is projected in 2010 to take 72% of the average workers' pay. That's right, he now works into September to pay for the Cost of Govt. That's before Food, Shelter, Transportation, etc (See PEW Research COGD).
Oh, so I see, "Capitalism is Failing..Isn't it time for Keynes and Marx?" Really? At 72%? Capitalism is on life-support fighting the viruses of Keynes, Marxism and "world improver" pipe smokers like Harvey. Hows that crack in your pipe?
gforde6 1 year ago
@gforde6 "Capitalism is on life-support ... "
Oh. Those billionaires. They have it so haaaard! I weep every night for their accumulation of wealth; wail at the thought of the multiple houses they own in mulitple countries; cry in my beer ... errr ... Chardonnay at the thought of the chauffeur-driven cars from which they have to choose. It's so haaaard for them! It hurts sooo much to see them have to suffer!
I hope all of you consider contributing to the Billionaires Relief Fund. Google it.
bapyou 1 year ago
Why mention Glen Beck as the leading voice against regulation, that's like arguing against your opponents weakest argument.
Then he says no one could explain the crisis when we even have evidence of ppl predicting it.
These socialists are just like religious ppl; even when the evidence hits them on the head they run away, denying anything, ever hit them on the head.
Did he just get the names wrong or does this man not understand the difference between the theories of Keynes and Hayek?
mrgently 1 year ago
This guy is a fuckin' commie pinko asshole.
snochicka 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snochicka "This guy is a fuckin' commie pinko asshole."
That's all you have to say? Is that all you think needs to be said? Three adjectives and a noun. Call someone a name and assume everyone who reads the name holds the same associations for the words used that you hold, i.e. commies are not worth listening to.
You've said everything that needs to be said for the conservative viewpoint, which is, nothing. On your best day you couldn't last ten seconds debating David Harvey.
bapyou 1 year ago
@snochicka
Yeh but at least he knows what he's talking about, unlike you now go back to your Fox news idiots. This is big boy talk here.
turlough06 1 year ago
27:31 - "The solution to the United States is to have somebody bomb the United States ... ?"
Hell, in many places it already looks like Beirut; no bombing necessary. Seen Detroit recently?
bapyou 1 year ago
the missing piece in his explanation is that this capitalism is merely the fig leaf of white male supremacism. financial instruments are just another tool of domination of the colored world along with gunships and predator missiles.
of course now the only crises are that at last white men are losing control of their hosue of cards and dont haev the means to retake power.
better learn to speak chinese and worship allah white man!!! rofl
necroprinceak 1 year ago
@necroprinceak Not at all, because that would turn Marxism into a huge conspiracy theory, which is the opposite of what it is. The triumph of Marxism is that is successfully explains the SYSTEMIC relations and phenomena that guide events, independent of the intentions or machinations of individuals. The Law of Value regulates capitalism, not some diabolical secret colloquy of bankers or manufacturers.
AntiLazarus 1 year ago
@AntiLazarus stfu JEW u know nothing
necroprinceak 1 year ago
@necroprinceak Jews usually know a lot. Get your racist terms right, prick.
numnunums 1 year ago
@numnunums kike stfu! rofl
necroprinceak 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser Bottom line is, you follow an economic theory that isd devoid of even a semblance of objective reality. That is, it lacks an acknowledgement of the surplus value extracted from labour. The focus on markets is a veil to help avoiding ever having to come to terms with the nature of PRODUCTION.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
Harvey is a geographer....not a sociologist.
ipwnorcs 1 year ago
@ipwnorcs And yet he is a very good sociologist!
AntiLazarus 1 year ago
@ipwnorcs "Harvey is a geographer....not a sociologist."
Geography is one of the social sciences. Also, for the last several years, Harvey has taught in the Anthropology Dept at CUNY. If you don't consider economics something that can be studied from an anthropological viewpoint, no offense, but you're lost.
Further, there's a sub-field within geography called Economic Geography, within which some of the finest scholarship with respect to economics is done.
bapyou 1 year ago 2
"I was referring to books that are not Keynesian in nature"
Read what I actually wrote: "accepts all the premises that underly NEOCLASSICAL economics." (ie. the mathematical utopia that's never going to happen, and will never happen). Keynesianism accepts most of these premises, but has important differences on some scores. Market fundies, like the Chicago school, accept all of them.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser "fails to make a distinction between the different forms/schools"
Irrelevant. He's talking about underlying processes that are fundamental to CAPITALISM, not any one mode of it.
"numerous additions that have complictaed the system."
Irrelevant. As above.
"A simple intro to economics book debunks this."
Oh yes, one of the books that accepts all the premises that underly neoclassical economics and which have been so miserably inaequate in predicting and explaining crisis.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@shadowgeyser
I just watched another speech by Harvey(watch?v=YYQb0fthNfI). The guy is a full-blown socialist who clearly hasn't read or understood any of the serious criticisms that have been offered against socialism. It was worse than expected.
I think the best way to grasp what the fundamental problems of socialism are is to listen to Salerno's lecture: The Debate On The Socialist Calculation Debate(watch?v=rZ2uncqukn4).
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew "This guy is a full blown socialist"
No shit. By the way, how's all that "plausible" pro-captialist theory doing for you?
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@cayetanoluis
Economics is the science of human action, it isn't "pro" anything. That's like saying biology is "pro-life" because it studies living things.
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew "That's like saying biology is 'pro-life' because it studies living things."
Wrong. Economics - or what's commonly meant by it - isn't science. It's a highly ideological edifice masquerading as science, but it is basically a prop for capitalism. It incorporates a whole range of unscientific notions about human nature and the nature of production. In short, it's crap. It can't even coherently explain how crises come about. And all of its recommendations to "fix" crises invariably fail.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@cayetanoluis
I would agree to some extent if I was talking about mainstream economics, which I am not.
/watch?v=5aLYVsCbamk
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew "I would agree to some extent if I was talking about mainstream economics"
But you are, or at least, from within a particular school of it, for you accept the basic premise that crises are not internal, necessary features of capitalism. That being the case, there's nothing genuinely radical about your views. Any theory that doesn't acknowledge the core of capitalist production - the extraction of surplus value - is just another species within the overall genus of capitalist ideology.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@cayetanoluis
I disagree with your definition of "mainstream", but that's not relevant.
The extraction of surplus value? Did you miss the marginalist revolution? That theory was refuted a very long time ago.
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew "did you miss the marginalist revolution?"
Oh yes, another "revolution" in bourgeois economics, once again designed to have to acknowledge this place called "the real world". I have less than no confidence in the ability of mainstream economics, whether Keynesian, neoliberal, or any of its other avatars, to have anything like a scientific understanding of crises. It's very much a case of "been there, done that".
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
@cayetanoluis
So let me get this straight... You think the marginalist revolution was a mistake? Do you even know what it was about?
Xasew 1 year ago
@Xasew "You think the marginalist revolution was a mistake?"
The whole of bourgeois economics is a "mistake". It's not that it's all bunk; it does have some limited validity, but it's nothing like a scientific conception of how economies actually function. It's pretty much all designed to conceal the necessarily exploitative nature of production, and to push the fiction that all people are equally empowered actors. And, like I said, it can't even coherently explain economic crises.
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
My mistake, I meant "to avoid having to acknowledge this place called 'the real world'"
cayetanoluis 1 year ago
A few misrepresentations, tons of non sequiturs and I think not a single correct economic law. Would be funny if this didn't have over 21k views.
Xasew 1 year ago 2
Anyone interested in moving beyond the capitalist system please look into The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project
FloydManFloyd 1 year ago
Our biggest failure is not realizing that our greatest global challenges are all products of the monetary profit system. End profit and we will find solutions and abundance. Why not issue EVERY PERSON equally with free monthly credits? Products can be valued by their energy input only (as scarcity will not be an issue) and the total supply of credits calculated on what is a globally sustainable rate of resource consumption? Very little human labor will be required and can be done voluntarily.
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover Technocracy ... because believing in unicorns is so 5 minutes ago
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Its obvious that you like to troll youtube looking for any opportunity to display your superior intellect so please enlighten me. How can we make capitalism as a system of scarce resource allocation work when the efficiencies it produces dislocates the very species it serves from access to its wealth? How can it work when the sum income workers receive from producing goods of value is less than the monetary value of the very goods they produce? Who"s gonna buy all our stuff. Jesus?
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover Lets cut this stupidity up into little pieces. You believe in an evolutionary system and yet you want a group of elite scientist to allocate on an objective basis... hello people do not have homogeneous preferences... in fact the very mechanism of differentiation (in varying forms) and the selective pressures of the market process cause said dynamics
axe863 1 year ago
@johnTconover How can it work .......the very goods they produce? This has persisted for centuries. "Sufficiently rational" individuals are risk averse to non-diversifiable(systematic) fluctuations because individuals prefer to smooth out their allocations(inter/intra). Now do you understand that why it is "normal" to obtain a premium if you tie yourself into an action that has systematic risk.
axe863 1 year ago
@johnTconover "How can it work ....produce?" Why do individuals choose/try to specialize in certain functions. It is because they are relatively more efficient in said function than in others. The individual outsources final good/services in which he is relatively inefficient. The default is all internal production. Why would said agent deviate if it was detrimental. This is so freaking simple. Seriously, what dont you grasp about high school level economics.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Yeah, cornucopian math works swell on paper. Just like compound growth. Unfortunately for the vast majority of us here on planet earth, the resources we extract from our environment which we use to produce goods/services are finite but more importantly, the ENERGY that allows us to extract and consume these resources at exponential rates is finite.HOW WILL A DECLINING RATE OF NET ENERGY GAINS FIT INTO YOUR COMPLEX ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL MODEL?(whats economics got to do with energy he says)
johnTconover 1 year ago
@axe863 And whilst its my turn on the soapbox once again, I'll ask how the biosphere fits into your closed economic system of perfect equilibrium? You know what I'm talking about right, that other complex system that high school economics forgot? How does that fit into your model of production to infinity or is that to environazi of me to ask?
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover Um.. if you knew about complexity economics... it exists far form equilibrium. I just used arguments from normal economics because its much easier to understand.
Why are you assuming practically zero innovation in our ever diversifying portfolio of energy strategies? This is an extremely ridiculous assumption.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 But anyhoo... Please don't ever delete your youtube account... I want to check back in with you five and ten years from now to see how the math of profit/exponential growth is working out in the real world ok?... Seriously...
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover Ill only delete it if your magical unicorn ..threatens my person ;)
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 lol
johnTconover 1 year ago
@axe863 Here's my energy from the vacumm (of outer space)...
I'm the hippy dude at 4:28 with the white bone sticking out of his head if ya know what I mean ;-)...
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover watch?v=d8Nys3M7fx4
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover The Technocracy stance is a hybrid generalization of Malthusian/Marxist ideas. A generalization of Malthusian idea in the same way as he neglected the cross effects of capital investment and innovation increasing labor productivity. A generalization of Marxian idea in that there is an objective measure of value that is tied into the production process and not derived from the subjective valuation of agents.
Both individuals were incorrect.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 Thats where we differ, I believe in the objective energy theory of value (excluding subjective valuation). Or more accurately, the net energy theory of value. I also believe that net energy is the driving force of social, economic and even biological evolution but anyway, we could argue for years and I don't know enough of dem big fancy words hahaha. You seem to be far more intelligent than I and I am sure you will leave your mark on the world... Take it easy buddy ;-)
johnTconover 1 year ago
@johnTconover "Take it easy"...you obviously don't know me...Im borderline rabid lol
axe863 1 year ago