Jump to content

Recession


Recommended Posts

My claim was late night exuberance or exaggeration but nevertheless, the Boomers are in their high earning years now and many have stock portfolios. The boomers are about to start withdrawing pensions and they eye their savings with trepidation.

In that sense, boomers are driving most financial markets now.

I have to disagree. You talk to almost any investor relations officer and ask who owns his company's stock and just about everyone will say the bulk is owned by institutionals with less than 20% owned by retail investors.

What's more, retail investors are for the most part not day traders and don't sell off their portfolios every time the market shudders...and in that aspect they even impart some stability in the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, but aren't the 'institutionals' just another word for a group of people represented by mutual fund companies and hedge funds?
Exactly.

Morris, the institutionals are bloated now with the accumulated savings of all those boomers about to retire. That's what I meant by saying that boomers drive the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Morris, the institutionals are bloated now with the accumulated savings of all those boomers about to retire. That's what I meant by saying that boomers drive the market.

Agreed...the continuous flow of 401K, 403, and IRA funds from payrolls has to go somewhere. Defined benefit retirement plans are getting harder to find, and even those that have them know they could be altered by evil raiders and/or are underfunded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but aren't the 'institutionals' just another word for a group of people represented by mutual fund companies and hedge funds?

No not really. Institutionals are groups like the teachers pension fund, caisse de depot, OMERS and alike. They are huge players in the M&A world and they act fast. They control assets in the billions and while mutual funds buy shares for their account holders, they are diversified and rarely tend to own majority holdings

The top 10 Canadian institutionals have assets of almost 500 billion....not sure what the assets of Private Canadian retail investors are.....but I hazard to guess it's much less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Morris, the institutionals are bloated now with the accumulated savings of all those boomers about to retire. That's what I meant by saying that boomers drive the market.

No sorry....that's just not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not really. Institutionals are groups like the teachers pension fund, caisse de depot, OMERS and alike. They are huge players in the M&A world and they act fast. They control assets in the billions and while mutual funds buy shares for their account holders, they are diversified and rarely tend to own majority holdings
That's my point. (And BTW, the Caisse has a large exposure to the asset-backed commercial paper debacle.)

The Caisse and Teachers are two examples of what I mean. Across North America, there are many similar funds. They have large portfolios in preparation for the boomers' retirement. And like the boomers themselves, they are jittery.

Financial markets are prone to bubbles and panics. The boomers are an angst filled lot.

This is old:

The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec has the greatest exposure to the asset-backed securities market at more than $20-billion, according to Ontario government sources, which is more than half of the estimated $35-billion of non-bank-backed, asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) held in Canada and ravaged by a global liquidity crisis.
FP Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point. (And BTW, the Caisse has a large exposure to the asset-backed commercial paper debacle.)

The Caisse and Teachers are two examples of what I mean. Across North America, there are many similar funds. They have large portfolios in preparation for the boomers' retirement. And like the boomers themselves, they are jittery.

That being said, thenfund managers are not exposed to the jitters of of the boomers. They don't make decisons based on the nervousness of Jean Charlevoix in Montreal or Madge Brookings in Scarborough.

....if they did then we would really have concerns....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here are some excerpts from Volcker himself:

Volcker: We’ve seen the Federal Reserve take more extreme measures in some respects than any that have been taken in the past to deal with a financial crisis, which raises some real questions about not only for the Federal Reserve and its authorities, but for the structure of the financial system… The Federal Reserve is designed to lend to banks. And the banks were considered to be at the center of the financial system, and lend liquidity, provide cash in return for good assets, when a bank got in trouble. Now they found in this case, where some of the investment houses were in trouble, and prototypically Bear Stearns … it’s lightly regulated by the SEC or some other, but not for the same reasons. They haven’t got the concern over the stability of those things….We’re going to lend to them and protect them, shouldn’t they be regulated?

see the rest here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good link, msj. It finishes with a joke and a smart comment:

Volcker: Here we have this factor entering into this domestic crisis that inevitably is international … because foreign institutions have invested in these American securities, but the world, as a whole, has been dependent upon the dollar. And you know it hurts my feelings, if nothing else, that the Swiss franc is worth more than the dollar.

Rose: Does it hurt your feelings that the Euro’s worth more than the dollar?

Volcker: Well, no, the Euro was sort of born more than the dollar.

Rose: Has [the economy] bottomed out, or have we seen the worst?

Volcker: Look. The basic economy is not irretrievably damaged in any way, shape, or form. We had to go through an adjustment, which is tough. It’s happening much quicker. You’d rather have it happen gradually. But I’m optimistic that, okay, we’ve got to get the consumption down, we got to get spending in line with our capacity to produce. I think that’s going on. And that process is going to take a while. If we can stabilize the financial market, we ought to come out of this. Then we’ve got a lot of work to do about what we do with the regulatory system, the supervisory system, what the role of the Federal Reserve is, what the role of the Treasury and the government is, because this is a different financial market.

Volcker's not a young man anymore and I'm not one of these people who is diehard fan. Volcker was the right man at the right time but that was almost 30 years ago. That was then and this is now.

----

As to Bear Stearns, what is one to make of this?

Investors in the US were betting yesterday on a higher offer for Bear Stearns, as the bank's share price soared four times higher than Sunday's $2-a-share offer from JPMorgan Chase.

Shares in Bear stormed up 68.8 per cent to $8.12 on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday morning as investors predicted JPMorgan's $236m (£117m) takeover offer would meet resistance from Bear's shareholders. The stock retreated later on, but still closed nearly 23 per cent higher than the previous night's close at $5.91.

Link

There's even talk that deliberate rumours alone brought down Bear Stearns.

Volcker raises a good point: when should the Fed bail out and when should the government do it. And under what conditions?

That being said, thenfund managers are not exposed to the jitters of of the boomers. They don't make decisons based on the nervousness of Jean Charlevoix in Montreal or Madge Brookings in Scarborough.

....if they did then we would really have concerns....

Well, they kind of do. Most of the fund managers are boomers (eg. Henri-Paul Rousseau) but more pertinently, they are caught up in the same timeframe.

The future is a scary place because it is uncertain. It's easy to get the jitters and they tend to be contagious. For many people, retirement (and thoughts of retirement savings) bring them to face their inevitable mortality. That's my explanation of the market's volatility. If I had to, I'd predict more volatility for the next decade or so.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article on Lenin's Tomb today about the financial crisis.

Auguring Armageddon

[...]one consequence of basing a boom on low wage growth and poor productivity growth is that consumption had to be supported by debt. So, by 2000, households' outstanding debt as a proportion of personal disposable income reached 97%: an all-time high, and higher than the 80% during the second half of the 1980s (see Brenner's The Boom and the Bubble). By 2000, over 40% of new-home mortgages were financed with down payments of less than 10% of the value of the home, while it was estimated that a quarter of new mortgages were being issued to people who were broke. (Robert Brenner's The Economics of Global Turbulence).
Debts seem to be being paid - and if individuals or companies lack the funds to make the payments, they can always borrow more money to keep up the payments in the existing debt, on the assumption that future growth will sustain them. Amazingly, it did not. Manufacturing died on its arse, wages froze, job growth was slow, and eventually both individuals and corporations were defaulting on their debts. The underlying structural imbalances in the US economy brought this about. The crisis of profitability that struck all advanced capitalist countries in the 1970s was managed in the US by financial liberalisation, which gave the US ruling class wider opportunities for extraction across the world, but which also led to slower growth rates; busted labour unions, which reduced labour costs for employers, but also led to higher borrowing, with the savings and loans crisis prefiguring the current credit crunch; reduced taxes for corporations and profits, which meant both a transfer of the tax burden to the poorest, and also a reduction in welfare as a supporter of consumption. The financialisation policy put a premium on shareholder value, adding pressure to the drive for short-term profits rather than sustainable growth. It also exaggerated the value of executives who could deliver such profits, so executive pay soared, especially in the form of stock options in which executives were encouraged to share in the value created under their management. This partially accounts for the wave of corporate scandals - fictitious accounting, rigging information, concealing operating expenses.
Edited by lost&outofcontrol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's even talk that deliberate rumours alone brought down Bear Stearns.

But is this not this fair game for Wall Street and capitalism in general?

The future is a scary place because it is uncertain. It's easy to get the jitters and they tend to be contagious. For many people, retirement (and thoughts of retirement savings) bring them to face their inevitable mortality. That's my explanation of the market's volatility. If I had to, I'd predict more volatility for the next decade or so.

I will admit that my knowledge of the political-economy is very limited. But for you you qualify the current financial crisis in the US ('[...]the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War," Alan Greenspan) as nothing more than a bunch of baby boomers scared of death is absolutely ridiculous. This ignores the systematic attack and thorough destruction of the labour movement during the past three decades leading to massive borrowing* on everyone part (corporations and consumers). It also ignores the declining rate of profit of the past century. It goes without saying that the neoliberal's version of the economy clings to fantasies in thought instead of finding truth in actual reality simply because its version of reality is based on fantasies.

*The more we alienate our essence (as human beings living and working) in something which is seemingly unrelated to us (capital), the more we have to borrow from our own future. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.

Edited by lost&outofcontrol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is this not this fair game for Wall Street and capitalism in general?

I will admit that my knowledge of the political-economy is very limited. But for you you qualify the current financial crisis in the US ('[...]the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War," Alan Greenspan) as nothing more than a bunch of baby boomers scared of death is absolutely ridiculous. This ignores the systematic attack and thorough destruction of the labour movement during the past three decades leading to massive borrowing* on everyone part (corporations and consumers). It also ignores the declining rate of profit of the past century. It goes without saying that the neoliberal's version of the economy clings to fantasies in thought instead of finding truth in actual reality simply because its version of reality is based on fantasies.

*The more we alienate our essence (as human beings living and working) in something which is seemingly unrelated to us (capital), the more we have to borrow from our own future. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.

You quote 'lenin's tomb' expecting them to be experts on capitalism? lol!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Bear Stearns, what is one to make of this? Link

There's even talk that deliberate rumours alone brought down Bear Stearns.

Volcker raises a good point: when should the Fed bail out and when should the government do it. And under what conditions?

1) Sorry but that is just plain ridiculous.

Rumours alone do not bring down a bank with a $30 Billion backstop from the NY Fed and a 1% point cumulative cut from the Fed over two days.

BS has (had) some pretty bad loans that it was marking down to market and for which JPMC will write down further in this or the next quarter. That ain't no rumoured bad loans, either.

2) The reason for BS' share rise is likely due to bondholders. If you are a major bondholder it makes sense to pay north of $2 a share if it preserves the value of your bonds at, say, $0.80 on the $1.

So, if you pay $4 per share you will lose $2 per share upon JPMC buying them out at $2 but you will make up for it by collecting more on you bonds.

Perfectly rational and sound

Of course, the people buying BS at more than $2 who are not major bondholder are recklessly speculating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quote 'lenin's tomb' expecting them to be experts on capitalism? lol!!

To quote myself

I will admit that my knowledge of the political-economy is very limited.

I also quoted Alan Greenspan but I guess you stopped reading before that.

Your silence on everything I wrote speaks volume to your ability to comprehend even simple problems let alone complex ones such as we are facing now. Can you could point me to any specific issue you have with Lenin's post concerning the current financial crisis? Please don't tell me you agree with August that the crisis is caused by a bunch of boomers that are scared of death!?

Are you dismissing an entire point of view because you did not read it? Is it that you have not develop any analytical skills whatsoever? What part of "The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things." do you not understand. I'd be more than happy to explain it to you...

As you can clearly see, your unwillingness to engage in any kind of discussion save for a smart ass remark leaves me to imagine your point of view and the results is not pretty.

The more we produce the less we are worth, funny how that works out...

Edited by lost&outofcontrol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote myself

Your silence on everything I wrote speaks volume to your ability to comprehend even simple problems let alone complex ones such as we are facing now. Can you could point me to any specific issue you have with Lenin's post concerning the current financial crisis? Please don't tell me you agree with August that the crisis is caused by a bunch of boomers that are scared of death!?

Are you dismissing an entire point of view because you did not read it? Is it that you have not develop any analytical skills whatsoever? What part of "The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things." do you not understand. I'd be more than happy to explain it to you...

As you can clearly see, your unwillingness to engage in any kind of discussion save for a smart ass remark leaves me to imagine your point of view and the results is not pretty.

The more we produce the less we are worth, funny how that works out...

The more we produce the less we are worth? what a moronic statement.

If you want a serious conversation you will have to stop quoting passages from ear-marked pages of the socialist talking points book.

From your link:

This ignores the systematic attack and thorough destruction of the labour movement during the past three decades leading to massive borrowing

this assertion is idiotic on so many levels. irregardless it is plain to see it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with pro-union, pro-socialism anti-capitalism. I could see through that in a second - hence my smart ass remark. When childish things are posted, you will often get a childish response..

and this...

The more we alienate our essence (as human beings living and working) in something which is seemingly unrelated to us (capital), the more we have to borrow from our own future. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things.

Can you even tell me what this means? I don't think you can because I don't even think the original author can.

Look, the economy of the world and yes, even North America has grown at leaps and bounds at an unprecedent rate and for an unprecedented length of time. We are living in good times, this correction, notwithstanding.

If you want to cry that the sky is falling, it's not because of anything to do with economics, it has to do with left-wing politics and knee-jerk Anti-Americanism.

You will have to do better than your original post to get a better response than you have.

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more we produce the less we are worth? what a moronic statement.

Overproduction Even with safeguards in place to prevent oversupply, this only leads to a reduction of production and then what are we left with? The capability to produce more but due to a lack of markets for this oversupply we are forced into a recession under the Godly power of Markets, our own creation! Today, 2.6 billion - 40 percent of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day and we have to hold back production for lack of markets! Remind me who creates this Global Market again - Humanity of God?

From your link:

this assertion is idiotic on so many levels. irregardless it is plain to see it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with pro-union, pro-socialism anti-capitalism. I could see through that in a second - hence my smart ass remark. When childish things are posted, you will often get a childish response..

The attack on the labour movement gave the US ruling class wider opportunities across the world leading to unbridled expansion on the back of debt.

Can you even tell me what this means? I don't think you can because I don't even think the original author can.

It mean exactly what it says. In a (very) simplified way: the more we produced the more we alienate ourselves from labour (our creations), i.e. the more of trinket A we produce, the less labour goes into the commodity itself (mechanization, efficiency i.e., things that are should logically good for humanity in general). The less labour, the more surplus value and as a result the more profit. Less labour invariably means less wages (jobs) to go around and the poorer we are for it.

Look, the economy of the world and yes, even North America has grown at leaps and bounds at an unprecedent rate and for an unprecedented length of time. We are living in good times, this correction, notwithstanding.

The economy is (was) great but we are none the richer for it. Debt levels are spiraling out of control, real wages have remained stagnant since the WWII, and profit level have declined significantly. This thing you call the economy appears to only be a good thing for a select few. I guess you subscribe to the idea that the more billionaires we have the better we (as in everybody else) are better off. World markets are the deciding factor in the lives of billions of people. Should it not be the other way around?

You will have to do better than your original post to get a better response than you have.

Pot calling the kettle black... You dismissed an entire article with only one short smart ass response in your original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overproduction Even with safeguards in place to prevent oversupply, this only leads to a reduction of production and then what are we left with? The capability to produce more but due to a lack of markets for this oversupply we are forced into a recession under the Godly power of Markets, our own creation! Today, 2.6 billion - 40 percent of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day and we have to hold back production for lack of markets! Remind me who creates this Global Market again - Humanity of God?

The attack on the labour movement gave the US ruling class wider opportunities across the world leading to unbridled expansion on the back of debt.

It mean exactly what it says. In a (very) simplified way: the more we produced the more we alienate ourselves from labour (our creations), i.e. the more of trinket A we produce, the less labour goes into the commodity itself (mechanization, efficiency i.e., things that are should logically good for humanity in general). The less labour, the more surplus value and as a result the more profit. Less labour invariably means less wages (jobs) to go around and the poorer we are for it.

The economy is (was) great but we are none the richer for it. Debt levels are spiraling out of control, real wages have remained stagnant since the WWII, and profit level have declined significantly. This thing you call the economy appears to only be a good thing for a select few. I guess you subscribe to the idea that the more billionaires we have the better we (as in everybody else) are better off. World markets are the deciding factor in the lives of billions of people. Should it not be the other way around?

Pot calling the kettle black... You dismissed an entire article with only one short smart ass response in your original post.

Well I was right. The link for 'overproduction' is from a maxist section in wikipedia. Find me an economist who believes in this. It is the same thing as not enough demand. it leads to lower prices, so what? that is a good thing. Look at how Walmart has helped lower income people. They vote with their feet. If Walmart was bad people simply wouldn't shop there and China would still be all about rice fields.

Globalization has lifted a record number of people out of poverty. That's a fact.

Can you give me a source that says the 'profit level' has declined significantly? What does 'profit level' even mean? Do you consider GDP to be a fairly good measure of economic output? If so, look up the GDP of countries that have free market economies and compare them with those that don't.

You arguments are political in an economic discussion.

Who do you think the 'World Market' is? It's the same people who you claim are shut out of it. (whatever that means). If anyone is shut out of the world market it is because they are led by people who think like you do and that's exactly what keeps them poor.

The economy is great but we are none the richer for it? That is an oxymoron. Are you projecting? Are YOU poorer? Because Canadians certainly aren't. Check the facts and figures, REAL poverty has virtually disappeared in Canada and this isn't due to social programs, but the expansion of the economy.

What is wrong with having Billionaires? IF Canada had more of them we would be better off.

Guess who made the largest charitible organization on the planet? Yeah, that's right - Richest man number one and richest man number two.

please come up with something substantive.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It mean exactly what it says. In a (very) simplified way: the more we produced the more we alienate ourselves from labour (our creations), i.e. the more of trinket A we produce, the less labour goes into the commodity itself (mechanization, efficiency i.e., things that are should logically good for humanity in general). The less labour, the more surplus value and as a result the more profit. Less labour invariably means less wages (jobs) to go around and the poorer we are for it.

Ok, take the TV set. In the 1950's they were mostly hand built compared to today. They were mostly built in the USA. What % of the people were able to afford the TV's back then as compared to today? More or less?

Are the quality of the TV's from the 1950's better or are the TV's from today better?

Because if what you say is true then not only would the TV's from the 1950's be of a better quality than today's TV's but a higher % of the population would have to own them, than do people today.

So that example takes into account your labour assertion and also comparitive wealth between the two eras.

I will let you figure out the answer to this.

Edited by White Doors
Link to comment
Share on other sites

better or are the TV's from today better?

Because if what you say is true then not only would the TV's from the 1950's be of a better quality than today's TV's but a higher % of the population would have to own them, than do people today.

It's not the TVs that are lower quality....it's the TV programmes.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I was right. The link for 'overproduction' is from a maxist section in wikipedia. Find me an economist who believes in this.

I guess reading the dozen or so lines from the wikipedia link was too much... From the "marxist" (wikipedia, really?) link I provided:

It[oversupply] is central to the Marxian theory of crisis and to Keynesian economics.

I'm sure you will disregard any economist that does not fit in with your world view, whether bourgeois or marxist.

It is the same thing as not enough demand.

But there is demand! Demand and markets are not the same thing. Not being able to afford something does notmean that I don't want things.

Can you give me a source that says the 'profit level' has declined significantly? What does 'profit level' even mean?

Perhaps a link like the one I already provided and you conveniently ignored. If you want a theoretical explanation for this empirically observable fact then you will have to turn to dirty marxist theory.

You arguments are political in an economic discussion.

Who do you think the 'World Market' is? It's the same people who you claim are shut out of it. (whatever that means). If anyone is shut out of the world market it is because they are led by people who think like you do and that's exactly what keeps them poor.

I never said anything about people being "shut out" of world markets. I thing you are confused with the concept of alienation.

People are poor (2.6 billion people live on less than $2 a day) because they are too stupid to pull themselves out of their squalor? We are just smarter than your average African - it has nothing to do with structural exploitation?

What is wrong with having Billionaires? IF Canada had more of them we would be better off.

Guess who made the largest charitible organization on the planet? Yeah, that's right - Richest man number one and richest man number two.

How the hell do you think they made all that money? Milk an idea for all its worth all the while holding back innovation in the name of progress.

Ok, take the TV set. In the 1950's they were mostly hand built compared to today. They were mostly built in the USA. What % of the people were able to afford the TV's back then as compared to today? More or less?

Are the quality of the TV's from the 1950's better or are the TV's from today better?

Because if what you say is true then not only would the TV's from the 1950's be of a better quality than today's TV's but a higher % of the population would have to own them, than do people today.

So that example takes into account your labour assertion and also comparitive wealth between the two eras.

I will let you figure out the answer to this.

Wow, where to begin...

I don't think I ever said the more our goods are inferior the better the economy is. If you equate quality of life with having a bigger television (or better cars, better crap in general) than I must say I feel sorry for you. The more we alienate ourselves in the products we make, the more this oppressive power (the world markets) control us. It's not for a lack of demand that we have oversupply, I sure the billions of people living below the poverty line would love our worthless (no markets right) goods. A lack of markets does not indicate a lack of demand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you equate quality of life with having a bigger television (or better cars, better crap in general) than I must say I feel sorry for you.
That sounds nice until you/your spouse/child is seriously ill, in a hospital and your/his/her life depends on modern technology - or "better crap", as you describe it.

L&OC, the only true socialists/leftists in the world today are teaching in universities or posting on Internet sites. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the virage of Communist China, everyone else agrees that socialism is nonsense.

The Left isn't dead; it has just adopted new issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess reading the dozen or so lines from the wikipedia link was too much... From the "marxist" (wikipedia, really?)

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I said "

The link for 'overproduction'is from a maxist section in wikipedia
"

to whit:

"Part of a series on Marxism"
from your wikipedia link. get it now?

very good, let's move on shall we?

I'm sure you will disregard any economist that does not fit in with your world view, whether bourgeois or marxist.

Your link to prove 'over production' goes to the keynesian cross. note, it does not make mention of 'over production'. lol

No more will be produced than what people think they can make a profit from. Pretty simple really. When they think they can't make more money by producing more, they will produce less. Look at Polaroid for an example of this.

But there is demand! Demand and markets are not the same thing. Not being able to afford something does notmean that I don't want things.

Of course demand and markets are not the same thing. Demand is a part of what makes up the markets. What a silly assertion. I want to live forever, doesn't mean that the 'live for ever factory' is going to make it for me.

Wants is not demand. Wants and ability to pay is demand.

Everyone has wants. This is your argument? "People have wants damnit!" lol

Perhaps a link like the one I already provided and you conveniently ignored. If you want a theoretical explanation for this empirically observable fact then you will have to turn to dirty marxist theory.

What, now the left is worried about the profit levels of corporations? haha

Your link only includes the manufacturing industry and it only includes Germany, Japan and the USA. Of course manufacturing profits have gone down in those countries. Look at the cost of labour there. Most things are made in China now. We export ideas and let others manufacture them. Win/win I'd say.

Who is a richer company? Google or HP? Why? Google has ideas and software (nothing to manufacture) and HP manufactures computers. Which would you buy into? Have you seen any IBM computers for sale lately? What did IBM do? What does IBM and myself know that you don't? lol

I never said anything about people being "shut out" of world markets. I thing you are confused with the concept of alienation.

People are poor (2.6 billion people live on less than $2 a day) because they are too stupid to pull themselves out of their squalor? We are just smarter than your average African - it has nothing to do with structural exploitation?

Yes, there are poor people in the world. thanks for that. So because there are poor people in the world we should all go communist? Is that it? Do you drive a Lada? A Yugo?

I have never called anyone stupid with the eception of your posts. You don't need to decend to putting words in my mouth to take away from the fact that you are badly losing this debate.

How the hell do you think they made all that money? Milk an idea for all its worth all the while holding back innovation in the name of progress.

Oh, I see. You aere against copyright protection? can you explain to me how getting rid of copyright protection would increase innovation? Thanks!

Wow, where to begin...

I don't think I ever said the more our goods are inferior the better the economy is. If you equate quality of life with having a bigger television (or better cars, better crap in general) than I must say I feel sorry for you. The more we alienate ourselves in the products we make, the more this oppressive power (the world markets) control us. It's not for a lack of demand that we have oversupply, I sure the billions of people living below the poverty line would love our worthless (no markets right) goods. A lack of markets does not indicate a lack of demand...

The TV sets was merely an example. We could talk about MRI scans or CT scans and how they are better than x-rays.. oops. sorry. I didn't mean to make that big of a hole in you argument.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that there are a lack of markets for things in general? can you give me a real world example so I can destroy it? thanks

The fact that there are poor people on the planet does not an argument make. There are many less poor people on the planet today and it has more to do with globalization than it does with the Sponsor a child program.

:)

As you were leftist soldier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds nice until you/your spouse/child is seriously ill, in a hospital and your/his/her life depends on modern technology - or "better crap", as you describe it.

When Bill Gates buys a better private jet it is somehow a good thing for me? This is why I limited my examples to things (cars, televisions, consumer goods in general) that I can own. Of course technology advances are (can be) good things (including medical equipment and similar things) but they are always implemented within capitalism for the good of capital (lowering of variable capital) in general and not humanity (mechanization, efficiency, and the resulting loss jobs, i.e. variable capital). The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things (take the fanciful story of the farmer having to dump milk for lack of market).

Your link to prove 'over production' goes to the keynesian cross. note, it does not make mention of 'over production'. lol

No more will be produced than what people think they can make a profit from. Pretty simple really. When they think they can't make more money by producing more, they will produce less. Look at Polaroid for an example of this.

Of course demand and markets are not the same thing. Demand is a part of what makes up the markets. What a silly assertion. I want to live forever, doesn't mean that the 'live for ever factory' is going to make it for me.

Wants is not demand. Wants and ability to pay is demand.

Everyone has wants. This is your argument? "People have wants damnit!" lol

I mostly agree with you on this point. The keynesian cross is a desired total spending curve. No matter how much an economy can produce it is wholly dependent on the desired total spending of consumers, i.e. the demand side within markets. The farmer should not produce beyond what the market can bear because a certain amount of his production will go to waste. Screw people who can't pay for it... This point strikes at the heart of the problem. Production is organized on the basis of market demand and not human (real living people) demand. I guess it comes down to what is more important.

What, now the left is worried about the profit levels of corporations?

Profit level have been of marxist analysis of economics since 1883 (at the very least). The empirically observable fact of the declining rate of profit proves that Marx was right when he said (paraphrasing): Every capitalist works to reduce the wages bill, and turn over as much material as he can, investing in expensive machinery and increasing constant capital © to cut labour costs (variable capital(v)); this produces a general increase in the “organic composition of capital” ( c/v). However, since it is only the variable capital that produces profit, the result is a falling rate of profit.

If we eliminate manufacturing from the graph I provided, the profit level ends up being is much lower (from the graphs that I've seen anyway - hopefully someone has a better source than I do). We should probably limit our discussion on the service sector (dualism between mental and physical labour...) so that the discussion on the current financial crisis can continue.

I'm not trying to insult you white doors. I think that we both have a differing point of departure on the organization of labour as a whole. You appear to be starting out from Markets in general, abstracting people in the process. I (try to) start out my analysis from actual people (goods produced by people for people).

Edited by lost&outofcontrol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...