/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I would call bullshit, because the new mode of production will just as inevitably shape culture, politics, and social issues in a way that we can neither predict nor control.

Even if it were inevitable, it may likely be possible to accelerate or decelerate the transition, and though there is no telling what exact events may occur during the process that can cause lasting effects, we can make a few educated guesses - nuclear war, climate change, abuse of biogenetics or cybernetics, et cetera. Assuming such problems are specific to capitalism, it would be in our best interest to transition as quickly as possible.

>What if I told you that capitalism being superceded by another mode of production is inevitable,
Modernist brain worms that have been proven wrong going on 3 centuries now.

>>464557
>If I call it the same thing, it hasn't changed
What were you saying about pomo?

>>464559
If it still fits the definition of "capital", then it still possesses all of the qualities that are inherent to capital as so defined. M still becomes C which is composed of various parts L and Mp and undergoes P to produce C' which is then alienated in exchange for M'. What fundamental element capital do you think has changed?

>>464561
That doesn't prove the falling rate of profit. Even if the rate of profit goes to zero, so what, they'll still be profit, they'll just have to stop using interest rates is all.

>>464562
What the actual fuck are you even talking about? A minute ago you were making some kind of linguistic argument about how the reality of capital has supposedly changed while retaining the same old definition, and now you're onto the falling rate of profit. Also, critiquing the modernist program is definitively what pomo is.

>>464566
>If you understood St. Marx you'd realize you're wrong.
Marx said that the seeds of capitalism's destruction were inherent to it yet capitalism has amassed more power then ever.
Like I said modernism is a mind disease.

>>464565
WTF are you talking about, In said the falling rate of profit has never been proven and and that the modernist concept of capitalism being superseded because of muh dialectics is bogus. Capitalism has only consistently gotten stronger since Marx's time, disproving the doomsday clock of the falling rate of profit.

>>464575
>Marx said that the seeds of capitalism's destruction were inherent to it yet capitalism has amassed more power then ever
Which exactly what he said would happen. He called the one big global capitalism that we have now.
>Like I said modernism is a mind disease.
Lol, pomo.

Fuck this capcha.

>>464540
While I agree with you, the debate is if only the current crop of billionaires will share in communism after they eliminate the rest of us, or if it will be the world at large to free themselves from the yoke of capitalism. Communism is coming, but for whom?

>>464562
The rate of profit on investment will likely never actually reach zero because capitalism will collapse before that happens. Just look at all the instability and fictitious capital today. Everywhere a bubble of financial speculation, just waiting to implode as soon as people realize the emperor has no clothes. Capitalists retreat to finance capital when the rate of profit on industrial capital (the productive process that actually defines capitalism) is too low to bother investing in it. Industrial capital will be abandoned utterly and usher in a new mode of a production well before the rate of profit finally reaches absolute zero.

>>464583
This is such a colossal cope and reads like a goddamn comic book. The bad guy will kick everyone's ass but since he's bad he'll keel over because of his own hubris.
How is the rate of profit even being measured? You'll never get a straight forward answer from a Marxist. I dug up this chart and it shows profits…plateauing. And another world war would bring it right back up.
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/
>>464583
Capitalism has survived many many financial crises.

>>464590
>And another world war would bring it right back up.
lol, just like the last one did? There was a recovery but profitability has never again reaches the levels they were at pre-Depression.

>>464563
Even if you're not familiar with marxist thinking, don't you think capitalism is in decline at this very moment? Conditions for westerners are objectively going down hill in all aspects, from life expectancy to home ownership.

Plus economic systems historically get superseded by new ones when new technology is discovered. The very nature of work changes, thus societal change follow with it.

But yeah it's socialism or extinction and I'm okay with that.

>>464590
Americans are illiterate lol

>>464600
This was actually on point for the first bit:
>economic systems historically get superseded by new ones when new technology is discovered.

Correct. The modes of production is determined in the final analysis by the level of the development of technology and the means of production, i.e. the ability of people to control and transform nature.

The emergent MOP has a technological base in communication and surveillance. As society began to develop more economic surplus to the point of excess, as with under monopoly capitalism, an *increasing proportion of the surplus itself is devoted not toward innovating the means of production in the simple sense, but rather innovating systems of control and commodification,* i.e., to maintaining stratification.

Correspondently, while typically 'neoliberalism' has been associated with the rolling back of social programs and deregulation, the reality has been different. Social programs of control and increasing regulation ultimately in favor of oligarchal/elite capital is levied against common people. Say what you will, this produces a starkly different society that what we've seen in the 1860, 1920s or post WW2 period.

Hence, this last point was sort of gay

>yeah it's socialism or extinction and I'm okay with that.

The choice isn't been between socialism or literal extinction. It's not even between capitalism or socialism.

It's between two systems which are similar in their technological base yet radically different their perceived teleological end - something which is indeed political and cultural. This is the ultimate conclusion of historical materialism today.

>>464603
>Correct. The modes of production is determined in the final analysis by the level of the development of technology and the means of production, i.e. the ability of people to control and transform nature.
That premise is complete bullshit. The old saying "necessity is the mother of invention" is true. Even when new technology is discovered, it does not get implemented until there is an established economic need for it. Steam power, for example, was discovered in the first century CE in Ptolemaic Egypt. It works the other way as well–technology gets lost when it is not economically necessary. Concrete was lost throughout the feudal era in Europe. Technological discovery doesn't matter. What matters is adoption.

>>464540
>What if I told you that capitalism being superceded by another mode of production is inevitable
then I say you're stuck in the 19th century

linear arrow of history doesn't correspond to historical reality
there are obviously regressions to previous modes of production

ancient rome was closer to capitalism than feudalism that followed it
I guess it didn't play out because of the objective state of technology and accumulated scientific knowledge that capitalist mode of production requires - it took a couple more thousand years

historical progress looks more like a circle than an arrow - it keeps going on in circle until objective conditions finally allow it to break out

>>464670
>there are obviously regressions to previous modes of production
Lol, no there aren't.
>ancient rome was closer to capitalism than feudalism that followed it
Both were just slave-based agrarian production. "Feudalism" is not a mode of production no matter what Marx said.
>I guess it didn't play out because of the objective state of technology and accumulated scientific knowledge that capitalist mode of production requires - it took a couple more thousand years
All capitalism took to get started was a few ships full of pox-ridden sailors that accidentally depopulated a couple continents and sparked the biggest bonanza in the history of the planet. Technological accumulation had fuck-all to do with it.
>historical progress looks more like a circle than an arrow - it keeps going on in circle until objective conditions finally allow it to break out
Kek, should we tell him how the industrial cycle works?

>>464673
>Both were just slave-based agrarian production. "Feudalism" is not a mode of production no matter what Marx said.
Trade and monetary relations were far more widespread in the roman world. Rome was closer to the american slave based capitalism than feudalism. Except technology just wasn't there and so it crumbled.

>Technological accumulation had fuck-all to do with it.
lol, yea machine based production has nothing to do with the accumulation of the techniques of production
real retard moment

>should we tell him how the industrial cycle works?
who's "we"?
how's industrial cycle relevant to societies without industry retard?

>>464674
>Trade and monetary relations were far more widespread in the roman world.
"Trade?" No. It was more like looting. That is especially true if you are talking about the Republic.
>Rome was closer to the american slave based capitalism than feudalism.
No, it wasn't. Rome (both classical and medieval) had basic commodity production, but that was never the engine that drove the economy. In all stages of its history prior to Mehmet II taking Constantinople, the Roman economy was based on armed men stealing the produce of peasant farmers. Slavery made large-scale mining possible, but it took peasant production to make large-scale slavery possible. Even slaves have to eat.
>Except technology just wasn't there and so it crumbled.
Top lel! Get that notion straight out of your own ass, did you? Disregarding the fact that the Roman Empire lasted until the Fourteenth Century with the exact same technologies, the Western Empire collapsed, because the officials of the diocese found that they could make a lot more profit by leaving the cities and utilizing the massive influx of tribesmen coming over the Danube and the Elbe as peasant farmers in the countryside. That and the mounting costs of maintaining a centralized military that was capable of patroling the frontier and meeting invading armies caused the deurbanization that emptied Rome and other western cities before their Gothic conquerors even arrived.
>how's industrial cycle relevant to societies without industry retard?
Societies without industry? The slave trade was an industry. Salt mining was an industry. Isn't that the basis of your whole historically illiterate argument about how Classical Rome was similar to trans-Atlantic slave-based capitalism?

>>464601
>>464600
So what's the rate of profit now, and how much has it fallen?

>>464755
It looks to be at about 13% and falling.

>>464759
It's been trending slightly upwards the last several years and plateaued for several years before that with most projections showing a bull market in the near future.

ITT: Marx booklets

>>464540
>What if I told you that capitalism being superceded
>>>>>>>>>>>>superceded
lloll

>>464760
>It's been trending slightly upwards the last several years and plateaued for several years before
Yeah, it's not a straight line, and that sharp dip in 2008 pushed the rate below the equilibrium.
>most projections showing a bull market in the near future.
The stock market is not a measure of the rate of profit. At best it is a barometer for trends in speculation. It might get a bit of a boost from all of the defense contracts that are getting handed out as Europe replaces its aging equipment.

>>464766
A bull market doesn't just refer to the stock marker dumb dumb. Unemployment is the lowest it's ever been in 50 years all while interest rates were being jacked up faster than they had ever been before. If you think there's going to be some kind of recession soon I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

>>464784
>A bull market doesn't just refer to the stock marker dumb dumb.
but it does you idiot lol

>Unemployment is the lowest it's ever been in 50 years all while interest rates were being jacked up faster than they had ever been before.
you're talking as if hikes are over lol

I can tell you one thing - nobody expects a crash, except broken clocks

anyway, for hikes to take effect on the real global economy it would need some years
we'll see

>>464785
>anyway, for hikes to take effect on the real global economy it would need some years
Cope doomer

>>464540
true (if we don't go extinct)

>>464784
>A bull market doesn't just refer to the stock marker dumb dumb.
LOL, you dumbass.
>Unemployment is the lowest it's ever been in 50 years
In the United States as the unemployment rate snaps back from the COVID crash. The U.S. is not the world.
>all while interest rates were being jacked up faster than they had ever been before
In a stated attempt to discourage too much hiring (again, because COVID crash) that might drive up the value of labor-power.
>If you think there's going to be some kind of recession soon I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Soon? The bottom fell out of the speculative market last year. If you think this is a boom, then you better hang onto that bridge. You're going to need something to sleep under when you go in on this "boom."
>>464785
>I can tell you one thing - nobody expects a crash, except broken clocks
And Autistrian School kekonomists. They ALWAYS expect a crash.
>>464787
Once again, "cope" gets used by a faggot right after said faggot gets pwned and has no retort.

>>464792
>In the United States as the unemployment rate snaps back from the COVID crash. The U.S. is not the world.
Yeah, it's just the largest economy by a country mile is all.
>COVID crash
Dafaq are you talking about.
>Soon? The bottom fell out of the speculative market last year.
Are you daft, the speculative market has been rallying for weeks now, Bitcoin has nearly doubled since it's all time lows and the stock market is slowly climbing as well.
>If you think this is a boom,
Yes because unemployment is fantastically low, the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates because inflation is already tamed. The bond market has already priced in a bull market, the low unemployment strengthens the hand of labor and we're in a growing strike wave. This all means much more consumer spending. You're just a dead end doomer modernist booty mad that your dogmatic models don't reflect reality even a little.
You're like a child that keeps hoping against hope that Superman will come and save him.

>unemployment is low
Not buying it. "Unemployment" may be low (show me the figures), but joblessness is gigantic. Unemployment only counts people actively looking for jobs or filing unemployment benefits, and massive numbers have given up over the past couple years.

>>464812
>Yeah, it's just the largest economy by a country mile is all.
It isn't its own economy at all. It's just a particular arbitrarily defined region of the economy.
>Dafaq are you talking about.
You can't be serious.
>Yes because unemployment is fantastically low
Yeah, it's amazing how low the unemployment rate goes when everyone has already burned all of their benefits, and you only measure the people on unemployment who are reporting that they are looking for work. Even better for statistics is how many people have gotten shoved into the gig economy to cover their bills, since the new jobs that are popping up are shittier than the old ones and don't pay enough to live on.
>the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates because inflation is already tamed.
Lel, as if raising interest rates actually slows the rate of inflation.
>The bond market has already priced in a bull market
Yay, speculation time.
>This all means much more consumer spending.
Nice theory, but reality looks different.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/retail-sales
https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/retail-sales
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/retail-sales-annual
>booty mad that your dogmatic models don't reflect reality even a little.
Lol, I'm rubber; you're glue.

>>464830
>It isn't its own economy at all.
The US isn't it own economy? Damn, this is like saying Mount Everest isn't it's own mount kek. Modernist will just ignore everything and anything to make things fit in their narrative.
>You can't be serious.
There was no "COVID Crash", dafaq are you talking about. Businesses were never more profitable than during the pandemic.
>Yeah, it's amazing how low the unemployment rate goes when everyone has already burned all of their benefits, and you only measure the people on unemployment who are reporting that they are looking for work.
Lol, this is a wore out old Republican talking point. You're some dumbass MAGApede.
Yes, there's all kinds of legitimate criticisms of how unemployment is measured. The point is unemployment NOW is much much better than it was in the past however you measure it.
>Lel, as if raising interest rates actually slows the rate of inflation.
You obviously don't know what inflation is, it's not simply when prices go up.
>Nice theory, but reality looks different.
Lol, the stats you cite are for one fucking Month over Month period, and retails sales declined 1 fucking percent.
The GDP for 2022 already beat out estimates, and as stated before, unemployment is super low.
COVID was a black swan event, it killed and more importantly, forced into retirement millions of boomers. They are not returning to the workforce, this strengthens the hand of labor, and when labor does well, the economy does well because workers spend.
>Le smugface.jpg
You're stuck in 2010's, be gone child.

>>464836
>There was no "COVID Crash", dafaq are you talking about. Businesses were never more profitable than during the pandemic.
The question is: which ones? Half of all small businesses closed down forever in only the first year of the pandemic.

>>464836
>The US isn't it own economy?
No, and only fools still pretend that it is thirty years after NAFTA. American industry dosn't produce the commodities that Americans use. Every supply chain is international. Nothing about "American" companies is particularly American. Its workforce is constantly flowing in and out of the country. The debts that the state holds are increasingly international. Hell, even the dollar is international. To say that the Untied States or any other country save perhaps North Korea is its own country is doing nothing more than playing arbitrarily with statistics.
>Businesses were never more profitable than during the pandemic.
That always happens during that brief period where a business fires most of its workforce. Also, >>464837
>Yes, there's all kinds of legitimate criticisms of how unemployment is measured.
Like the fact that it only measures people who report that they are looking for work to a state? That's not a "concern" it's glaring proof that the statistic is utter bullshit.
>The point is unemployment NOW is much much better than it was in the past however you measure it.
Your "unemployment" is nothing more than a statistical game. You know what would be a better way of calculating unemployment? You take every twelve months of waged labor at a living wage rate that gets reported on tax returns and divide the total figure by how many adults there are in the population. Oh, what a story that would tell.
>You obviously don't know what inflation is
Actually, this should be a riot to hear. Enlighten me.
>The GDP for 2022
Lol, GDP isn't consumer spending. It isn't really anything. It calculates fucking rent as productivity.
>COVID was a black swan event, it killed and more importantly, forced into retirement millions of boomers.
You idiot, nobody's retiring. Even the Boomers don't get that luxury. Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart!
>They are not returning to the workforce
What fantasy land are you living in? Do you just not have grandparents?
>Le smugface.jpg
>You're stuck in 2010's
Says the little kid who doesn't recognize a classic Pee-Wee comeback.

>>464843 (me)
>To say that the Untied States or any other country save perhaps North Korea is its own country
"Economy" not "country." That's what happens when I drunkpost.

>>464843
>No, and only fools still pretend that it is thirty years after NAFTA. American industry dosn't produce the commodities that Americans use. Every supply chain is international.
You are one delusional tankie. NAFTA is just the US subsuming Mexico's economy. It's not an example of their economy's blending kek. Just because Americans don't make all the cheap doesn't mean their still not the most power economy. All, and I mean all, the commodities that make real money are made in the good old USA.
The idea that the US is is crippled by a dependency of outsourced manufacturing
IS A FUCKING COPE
The US could pull up stakes on Mexico TOMORROW if they needed to.
Right now as I speak TMSC, the Taiwanese chip manufacturer, is building a 3 mile long campus in Arizona because of the threat of China. If the US can insource that, then they can insource fucking auto parts and plastic dodads.
>That always happens during that brief period where a business fires most of its workforce.
Niqqa you were fucking wrong about any "COVID Crash". You think your slick by steering the conversation to hair splitting, but the point was that there was no "COVID Crash" like you said.
>Like the fact that it only measures people who report that they are looking for work to a state? That's not a "concern" it's glaring proof that the statistic is utter bullshit.
Again with this doomer shit. You wanna throw out the unemployment figures because it flys into the face of your bullshit.
The fact of the matter is is that the labor market is way better for workers than it was before COVID. FULL STOP. You can cry all you want about this or that way it's calculated but that's the long and short of it.
>Actually, this should be a riot to hear. Enlighten me.
Inflation isn't just when prices go up, it's when prices go up BECAUSE there's too much money in the economy.
If there's shortages or if demand goes through the roof, that's not necessarily inflation.
>You idiot, nobody's retiring. Even the Boomers don't get that luxury.
You are dumb as fuck, oddles of boomers are retiring. The oldest boomers are in their goddamn 80's now. Just because you see some elderly people working in Wal-Mart doesn't mean every senior does or even can work at that age ya fucking pseud.
>Lol, GDP isn't consumer spending
But I didn't say consumer spending, I said GDP.
>What fantasy land are you living in? Do you just not have grandparents?
I fucking read the economic stats that come out instead of reading Lenin and thinking I know everything.
>Says the little kid who doesn't recognize a classic Pee-Wee comeback.
Oh, I get it. Okay that's cute.

>>464845
>NAFTA is just the US subsuming Mexico's economy.
>It's not an example of their economy's blending kek.
How is it even possible to be this fucking blind to shit staring you right in the face? The U.S. economy "subsumes" the Mexican economy, but that doesn't mean blending the two… That is exactly what that means. Good god.
>All, and I mean all, the commodities that make real money are made in the good old USA.
Lol no.
>The idea that the US is is crippled by a dependency of outsourced manufacturing
IS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION
>The US could pull up stakes on Mexico TOMORROW if they needed to.
LOL, no they couldn't, not without driving up the cost of all the things that are hecho en Mexico right now.
>Right now as I speak TMSC, the Taiwanese chip manufacturer, is building a 3 mile long campus in Arizona because of the threat of China.
Such independent economy. So national. Wow.
>If the US can insource that, then they can insource fucking auto parts and plastic dodads.
No they can't, because it's not economically viable to build all the cars there instead of in Indonesia.
>Niqqa you were fucking wrong about any "COVID Crash".
LOL, no. Why do you think there were mass firings? That is always the sign of a crash.
> You wanna throw out the unemployment figures because
…they're complete bullshit that don't count most of the people who actually are unemployed.
>Inflation isn't just when prices go up, it's when prices go up BECAUSE there's too much money in the economy.
Holy fuck, you really did just fall off the turnip truck here. You're talking basic bitch pre-classical economics shit. Machine go bbbbbrrrrrr, right? I knew this would be a riot. Fiat currency is just tokens. The purpose of fiat is to function as currency, which is not the same thing as money. Now the extraordinary utility of fiat is that it can be circulated in just the right amount to facilitate transactions within the system, which is exactly what gets done. If there were "too much" of it in the system, all that would happen to it is that it would stop being current and just sit uselessly in hoards. Nobody is converting excess dollars into capital, because there's no need for it. A few might speculate with it but only against other currencies; by design fiat currency sucks as a speculative asset (guess why crypto has completely failed as currency).
>You are dumb as fuck, oddles of boomers are retiring. The oldest boomers are in their goddamn 80's now. Just because you see some elderly people working in Wal-Mart doesn't mean every senior does or even can work at that age ya fucking pseud.
LOL, being too broken to work anymore and having to live in abject poverty off of SSA is not "retirement." It's just a slow death.
>But I didn't say consumer spending, I said GDP.
And we were talking about consumer spending. Get your shit straight.
>I fucking read the economic stats
Believe the stats! It doesn't matter how they are calculated or what population they actually sample. The stats are science!

Boy doesn't that declaration just explain your own personal brand of stupid. What a sucker.

>>464848
>How is it even possible to be this fucking blind to shit staring you right in the face? The U.S. economy "subsumes" the Mexican economy, but that doesn't mean blending the two… That is exactly what that means.
No it doesn't, it means takes over. Most of the wealth from NAFTA is sucked into the US, which is why Mexico still remains very poor even 30 years on and Canada still remains an also ran among first world nations.
>>All, and I mean all, the commodities that make real money are made in the good old USA.
>Lol no.
Lol yes, which is why companies like Apple and Amazon are the most valuable in the world and companies like GM have greater revenue than the GDP of 80% of entire nations.
>>The US could pull up stakes on Mexico TOMORROW if they needed to.
>LOL, no they couldn't, not without driving up the cost of all the things that are hecho en Mexico right now.
I never said it wouldn't be painful, but it is very doable. You're unwittingly conceding to my point.
>Such independent economy. So national. Wow.
Yes my hysteric fren. Taiwanese chip manufacturing is paralleled even by first world nations. Basically no one but them can produce the chips they make. The TMSC plant in Arizona proves that the US can replicate the manufacturing capability of anyone if they need to.
>No they can't, because it's not economically viable to build all the cars there instead of in Indonesia.
Lol, cars were 100% built in the US until the 1970's, and even then it was a slow road to outsourcing.
>If there were "too much" of it in the system, all that would happen to it is that it would stop being current and just sit uselessly in hoards. Nobody is converting excess dollars into capital
Wow you could not be more wrong. As soon as the Fed started raising rates the housing bubbles and crypto bubbles stopped inflating, and the Case-Shiller index for Nov just came out showing a 2.5% decline in housing prices, the 5 straight month of declines. A year ago we had investors paying over asking price, and now prices are going down. But okay dumbass, this has nothing to do with mortgages exploding because we went from 3 percent interest to over 6 in less than a year.
>LOL, being too broken to work anymore and having to live in abject poverty off of SSA is not "retirement." It's just a slow death.
You doomers always do this, just say bullshit and pawn it off as self evident.
If you said every boomer had to work, no you're saying they're just retiring in abject poverty. Which is it?
Poverty among elderly is pervasive, but to say boomers as a demographic can't retire is utter nonsense.
The stock market is doing really well and housing prices exploded by 40% in the last couple of years.
Many, many boomers are sitting on large caches of equity. And those boomers are leaving the workforce.
They were leaving the work force BEFORE COVID.
People are having less babies, immigration is contracting to a trickle, and life expectancy has stopped rising. All these trends trend to a SHRINKING labor pool.
You pull the dumbest narrowest shit to prove your point all while proles are dying or leaving the workplace by the millions kek.
>Believe the stats! It doesn't matter how they are calculated or what population they actually sample. The stats are science!
Another dumb tankie/doomer rhetorical trick. If you can find any criticism of government stats you demand all the findings be thrown away, all while hysterically demanding that your model based entirely on philosophical conjecture be embraced uncritically.
You are the epitome of pseud.
I'll be the first to admit that many economic stats collected by the gov are flawed but
1.) That can be corrected for to a degree
2.) That doesn't make their generalizations wrong.
Those stats are the best data we have, and instead of earnestly engaging with it, and maybe producing substantive rebuttals that could actually move our understanding forward, you throw a tantrum about their shortcomings like a child.
You're no different than fundamentalist Christians waiting for doomsday. You go ahead and stay in your weird irrelevant political parking lot ranting about the falling rate of profit like chicken little, I'll be too busy having sex and actually talking to other economists lol.

>>464867
*Taiwanese chip manufacturing is unparalleled even by first world nations.

>>464867
>No it doesn't, it means takes over.
You chucklefuck Autistrians have more in common with Lenin than you think. Both of you are wrong. An economy subsumed is an economy integrated. An economy is an enormous web of interconnected capitals, and the production of every commodity is quantitatively dependent upon the supply of its component commodities as well as upon the existence of the production of commodities further down the chain. Once that web becomes international there ceases to be an effective delineation along national lines. All of the forces that effect production in one location also effect production in all other component locations–every type of related porduction. Fruit salad canned in Mexico costs more when there is a poor peach harvest in South Carolina. Both kinds of producion are in the same system, the same economy.
> Most of the wealth from NAFTA is sucked into the US, which is why Mexico still remains very poor even 30 years on and Canada still remains an also ran among first world nations.
Wait a minute, are you an Autistrian or a Leninist? I honestly can't tell the difference right now. To say that the United States is "rich" and Mexico is "poor" is, again, based on a statistical game that draws an unreal and wholely arbitrary line through one and the same economy. It's using means and medians to tell a fictional tale.
>Lol yes, which is why companies like Apple and Amazon are the most valuable in the world and companies like GM have greater revenue than the GDP of 80% of entire nations.
Lol, no. Nothing about any of those companies is distinctly "American." They don't manufacture the products that they sell in America. The don't sell most of their products in America. Most of their workforces are not American. What's American about them? Where their headquarters buildings are located? Capital has no country.
>Yes my hysteric fren. Taiwanese chip manufacturing is paralleled even by first world nations. Basically no one but them can produce the chips they make. The TMSC plant in Arizona proves that the US can replicate the manufacturing capability of anyone if they need to.
Hey, a company in Taiwan has a patent on making microchips! …out of silicon mined in Mainland China and destined to be built into motherboards made in California.
>Lol, cars were 100% built in the US until the 1970's
Fifty years ago in the lead-up to the Energy Crisis when American-made steel still dominated the market and when there was little competition with the Big Three.
>As soon as the Fed started raising rates the housing bubbles and crypto bubbles stopped inflating, and the Case-Shiller index for Nov just came out showing a 2.5% decline in housing prices, the 5 straight month of declines. A year ago we had investors paying over asking price, and now prices are going down.
This has exactly fuck-all to do with "too much money" being in the system.
>A year ago we had investors paying over asking price, and now prices are going down.
Yeah, that's how speculation works.
>If you said every boomer had to work, no you're saying they're just retiring in abject poverty. Which is it?
You are couching being forced out of the workforce by medical issues as the same thing as retiring. That's not retirement; it's unemployment.
>The stock market is doing really well
Who gives a shit after they got cleaned out in 2008?
>housing prices exploded by 40% in the last couple of years
Yeah! The rich ones could be landlords, and the poor ones could get a reverse mortgage and hope that they don't live too long.
>All these trends trend to a SHRINKING labor pool.
What that shows is that booms are bringing progressively less demand for new labor-power, at least in one location.
>based entirely on philosophical conjecture be embraced uncritically.
And reflected in what we are actually seeing in reality.
>You are the epitome of pseud.
If I'm a "pseud" then what does that make you? An avowed know-nothing? A complete ignoramus who accepts flagrantly false figures supplied by an unreliable source with a clear conflict of interest as evidence?
>I'll be the first to admit that many economic stats collected by the gov are flawed but
>1.) That can be corrected for to a degree
>2.) That doesn't make their generalizations wrong.
Fuck no, that is not how statistical evidence works. You don't "correct" figures derived from a wildly unrepresentative sample, nor do you draw generalized conclusions about causes and effects from statistics. Take a statistics class if you want to worship at their alter.
>Those stats are the best data we have
Which should tell you something.
>and instead of earnestly engaging with it, and maybe producing substantive rebuttals that could actually move our understanding forward, you throw a tantrum about their shortcomings like a…
…statistitian. You don't "ernestly engage" unscientific statistics. You throw them out.
>I'll be too busy having sex and actually talking to other economists lol.
You'll be failing at life and whining about how it's all the government's fault.

>>464874
This whole post is just you torturing semantics to win an internet fight. Saying shit like "you can't say Mexico is poor" shows how unserious and absolutely spooked you are by your modernist narratives.
You'd demand a proof that the sky is blue if you thought it'd help you win.
No one cares about if certain terms meet your convoluted abstractions, there's a real material world going on outside.
The falling rate of profit is unproven and comes from Marx's spooked moralism. That's "the seeds of destruction" are innate to capitalism.
It's just not the case and nearly two centuries on capitalism is stronger than ever.
The fact of the matter is is that the US is the biggest and baddest on the block and will use that power to circumvent any challenges before they are even born.
You dumbass tankies keep telling the tale of the US sowing the seeds of it's own destruction by outsourcing to China when in reality those countries are getting played like a PlayStation and entrenching US hegemony. The US for instance could not have destroyed the labor unions like it did without the help of the millions if Chinese scabs willing to work for peanuts.
The good guy doesn't get the girl, Luke doesn't save Leia and capitalism's is not going to collapse on it's own.

>>464874
>You don't "correct" figures derived from a wildly unrepresentative sample,
They're not wildly unrepresentative, that's just your cope.

>>464874
>And reflected in what we are actually seeing in reality.
The falling rate of profit, tell me, when is it supposed to go to zero? You'll never give an answer even though as a mathematical model it should be simple.

>Fuck no, that is not how statistical evidence works. You don't "correct" figures derived from a wildly unrepresentative sample, nor do you draw generalized conclusions about causes and effects from statistics.
You can absolutely correct for biases in datasets and statistics. That's what normalizing data is.
And you're crazy I'd you think it's "blatantly false". What do you think, all the people in the payroll data they collect are secretly jobless and on the street?
You are clearly a reactionary if your thesis requires such conspiratorial thinking.
>Take a statistics class if you want to worship at their alter.
Take your own advice buddy.

>>464878
>The falling rate of profit, tell me, when is it supposed to go to zero?
Not that anon, just chiming in.
Marxist theory predicts the falling rate of profit to bottom out in the mid fifties this century.
Also included the paper where this graph is from.

>>464881
If it bottoms out then it's not falling.

>>464881
>Marxist theory predicts the falling rate of profit to bottom out in the mid fifties this century
An extrapolation of a strong empirical trend line seems to indicate something like that, but stating such a precise forecasting is the result of "Marxist theory predicting" is a bit much. A lot of things could happen before it hits rock bottom, including the end of capitalism itself or the end of civilization.

>>464890
>>464881
In fact I would argue that the "Marxist prediction" is that it will never actually hit zero, because Marx outlines clearly how industrial capitalists migrate to finance capital when profitability is in crisis in Capital Vol 3.

>>464890
>A lot of things could happen before it hits rock bottom, including the end of capitalism itself or the end of civilization.
This is what Mark Fisher called "capitalist realism", where people have been enthralled by capitalist ideology to such an extend that they can imagine the end of capitalism, so they imagine the end of civilization instead.

It's certain that capitalism will end, because are you really going to argue for eternal systems ? And civilization will likely go on, we've changed modes of production before, it wasn't the end of the world either. I know that it's still possible that capitalism will bequeath humanity with a nuclear cataclysm on the way out, but even that can be survived by parts of civilization that will rebuild it self.

>>464891
>In fact I would argue that the "Marxist prediction" is that it will never actually hit zero
Yeah only for a theoretical capitalism that functions perfectly.
Actually existing capitalism has a lower threshold for the profit rate, below that it'll fail to reproduce it self.

>Marx outlines clearly how industrial capitalists migrate to finance capital when profitability is in crisis
That is true, but it's been shown that this is only a temporary measure to shore up profits, because it causes demographic population decline. Capitalism has nearly exhausted it's labor supply and that means the political economy of labor will reassert it self over the political economy of capital.

Finance capitalism isn't an economic perpetuum mobile either.

>>464876
>This whole post is just you torturing semantics
This isn't semantics, you absolute retard. It has nothing to do with the definition of words and everything to do with the fact that your entire argument is built upon sand.
>No one cares about if certain terms meet your convoluted abstractions, there's a real material world going on outside.
Yes, and it doesn't contain individual state economies. There is absolutely nothing real about them; they're all just arbitrarily delineated statistics.
>It's just not the case and nearly two centuries on capitalism is stronger than ever.
"Stronger?" Meaning what? That the volume of total capital is accumulating? Duh. You think that's "strength?"
>The fact of the matter is is that the US is the biggest and baddest on the block
The U.S. is just a state, nothing else.
>You dumbass tankies
LOL, says the guy who is essentially parroting Lenin's concept of "imperialism."
>The good guy doesn't get the girl, Luke doesn't save Leia and capitalism's is not going to collapse on it's own.
Luke never saved Leia. Obi-Wan Kenobi led them on the Death Star, and Leia herself shot their way out.

And yes, capitalism cannot help but collapse on its own, as anyone with sense can plainly see.
>>464877
Look at this uygha, so mad that he can't contain his rage to one post. Yes, when you don't count the unemployed people who are not filing for benefits for one reason or another and you call the people who were forced out of work and into abject poverty by age and the medical conditions that come with it "retired" and not "unemployed" the sampling is indeed wildly inaccurate.
>>464880
>You can absolutely correct for biases in datasets and statistics.
The purpose of the poll is not to determine whether or not to throw out an alternate hypothesis. It's just data collection, the purpose of which is to say "this is what percentage of the total population is unemployed." If you think that you can correct the figure by adding in those unemployed individuals who were not calculated, then you could theoretically correct it, but where do you get those numbers from? Without those numbers, this bogus "rate" of unemployment should be thrown out completely. It doesn't tell the reader anything.
>And you're crazy I'd you think it's "blatantly false".
You are fool if you think otherwise. The failing in its methodology is plain and stark.
>What do you think, all the people in the payroll data they collect are secretly jobless and on the street?
Pay attention, dipshit. They didn't count the employed people. They counted the unemployed people, but only some of them–only the ones who applied for government benefits or who, for some reason or another, reported to a government agency that they were actively looking for work. Now, do you see the problem there?

>>464922
>Pay attention, dipshit. They didn't count the employed people. They counted the unemployed people, but only some of them–only the ones who applied for government benefits or who, for some reason or another, reported to a government agency that they were actively looking for work. Now, do you see the problem there?
The U6 Unemployment numbers also count workers that have stopped looking for work. It is also at a 50 year low. Now what faggot.

>>464922
Half this post is just you plugging your ears are refusing to engage with any facts.

>>464936
>The U6 Unemployment numbers also count workers that have stopped looking for work.
Workers who reportedthat they stopped looking for work. Who does that?
>>464937
None of your shit is facts. It's just bad statistics.

>>464966
>Workers who reportedthat they stopped looking for work. Who does that?
It's called a survey. And millions of workers participate every month.
>None of your shit is facts. It's just bad statistics.
You're critique of the stats goes no further than "da guberment can't be trusted"
The government is not a monolith. You think teachers have anything to do with coups in Latin America.
You can't reconcile these facts so your retreat to conspiracy theories. You're little different than Q anon reactionaries.

>>464922
>Yes, when you don't count the unemployed people who are not filing for benefits for one reason or another and you call the people who were forced out of work and into abject poverty by age and the medical conditions that come with it "retired" and not "unemployed" the sampling is indeed wildly inaccurate.
Why would you include people that can't work or are retired into the potential labor pool. You're just talking out of your ass at this point.
U6 accounts for discouraged workers, and once again you're proven wrong because unemployment dipped lower once again this month.
COVID, much like the black plague before it which ushered in capitalism, is creating a new material paradigm.
I don't know what will ultimately happen but even if capitalism survives this it will not be the same neoliberalism.
The death and retirement of 100s of millions of workers has changed every thing. And we haven't even seen the full breadth of China's COVID death and retirement toll.

>>464972
>much like the black plague before it which ushered in capitalism
The black death pandemic ended before the end of the 14th century, capitalism took a few hundred more years after that to arise.

>>464973
It destroyed feudal economic relations none the less, paving the way for capitalism.
The golden era of the labor movement came right after WWII for the same reasons, mass deaths of proles. Neoliberalism's refusal to enact a comprehensive welfare state to stop the pandemic is having the same effect.

>>464974
>The golden era of the labor movement came right after WWII for the same reasons
In which country? This certainly wasn't true in the United States, the golden era of organized labor was before WWII. After the war a massive crackdown on leftist union organizers ensued, the Taft-Hartley act was passed, and the remaining union organizers made a Faustian bargain with the Democrats that destroyed their own ability to organize.

>>464975
You uyghhers fight over the most retarded and mundane shit