'Late capitalism'

Not the OP, but capitalism is very unlikely to "crumble under its own weight" in any meaningful sense. To the extent that "capitalism" will fail, it will be due to the social/political unrest that come from the political implications of the pursuit of new consumers via global immigration into the first world.

What will largely fail under its own weight are the generous (and generally functional while in a supermajority white/east Asian country) social safety nets that are disproportionately provided to impoverished minorities. The NHS is beginning to suffer some pretty serious both financial and logistical problems due to both the largely parasitic middle eastern/african migrant population, and their inability to grow their population of qualified/capable doctors at the rate necessary to deal with this much larger population of dependents.

Capitalism however is not only doing just fine as an entity removed from the health of any particular population, but it's actually profiting off of the social unrest it's creating via globalist immigration practices. The near endless lower IQ migrants being brought into the west are both not only significantly more consumer minded than the white population, but much of their consumption is directly subsidized by the generous social safety nets of the west (and that's not even getting started on this UBI nonsense). Buffalo wild wings and Nike shoes are doing just fine during the more or less entirely internally white political turmoil that's been occuring because not only are the vast majority of the browns not even aware on a serious level what has occurred, but they just generally are more interest in clothing and flashy shit from the mall than anything that would entail meaningful social change.

My only real problem with the phrase is that people that use it assume some sort of socialist system is going to swoop in and replace it.
As if theres no possibility of some new economic theory being developed in the next century or so.

Attached: foyfz5pr24621.jpg (1200x965, 143K)

That was me you responded to :3 I just forgot the face. I forgot what it’s like to be shit on by you

>That comparative advantage has diminishing returns is not as sound an indicator as is the mechanics of a scalar divergent money supply.
Prove either of those claims. I bet that you'll have to selectively define productive capital to only include that which is implemented in industries existing at only one particular moment in time.

>it’s immigration guys
That’s not even climate change crisis level yet

I vote we replace it all with democracy in the workplace and non accumulative currency

Attached: 2101C77D-ED75-42FA-9A3F-752445780F48.png (1147x645, 461K)

that’s the scary part actually is if the right wing comes up with some sort of fascism 2.0 or something, maybe i dunno mussolini wasn’t really a fascist,

doesn’t that defeat the purpose of currency, not that it’s a bad thing

>the scary part
that would be the best outcome

It's ironic you mention low IQ immigrants, since you have presented a low IQ analysis.

Attached: 1533297306974.jpg (341x422, 46K)

Otto, what in the hell is your idea?

There’s a shared economy and the there’s a voucher system. The don’t give a fuck what anyone calls them, or just want to move away from accumulative debt currency and medieval ruling structures, and world full of people who not stand for the old worlds way

while the self-interested nations of the world continue to burn carbon and invest their excess capital into the future, outcompeting and outclassing your social utopia in less than a decade

I think Mandel was on the right track but with the wrong methodology.
All math - or at least analysis - is based on finding invariance in the system that creates the relationship that creates the parts. So you have to have a conservation law of quantity, or matter, or time/rate, or energy or something.

All non-heterodox economic theories fail at finding a consistent conservation law. They believe the lie of supply and demand, which tricks you into thinking that there is a conservation of matter, when there is neither a conservation of supply, desire to have the supply, or the proxy of exchange.
Without that conservation law, economics is more of a shell game of explanations that keep changing the narrator or the intent of the story, or equivocation the reused parts to tell a story that is mostly a lie.

So any attempt to measure the economy using these indicators fails at telling you anything.

Modern theories explore other invariances and their subsequent conservation laws. So for example from the macro if you simply note that consumption IS the reward for production - wearing clothes is the reward for making them; living in a house is the reward for building one - then you see that everything else is just Bookkeeping.

So if he just would have noticed that the money space was a scalar divergent system - when you sell money for more money, there is more money and someone is getting something for nothing; when you sell production as if it were a product, there is more money and someone is getting something for nothing; when you never sell through rent, there is no value determined by market trade and someone is getting something for nothing - then you can easily see the Scam of Capitalism for what it is: a con where money steals from those who participate in trade.

It is that realization, and the fix of public banks that will be the downfall of Capitalism, not long waves of business cycles...

Yea, defeat debt currency. Absolutely.
Fuck living wage, fuck UBI.

It doesn't need to be "climate change crisis level" (whatever that means). All these safety nets need to fail is to be encumbered with providing services to people who are not capable or interest in reciprocating the conditions which brought about enough surplus wealth to provide for them. These "socialist" (though I would argue social safety net systems are not really socialist in a real sense) systems are not efficient enough to handle even 10-15% of the population abusing the system without being able to contribute to it.
While many people from the MMT line of thinking would argue that the bottleneck is not on "money" in any meaningful sense, the fact of the matter is that these immigrants create social conditions in which the productive people who need to be contributing large amounts to fund the system contract inwardly because of how they see their output being abused. If it were white immigrants who were capable and interested in assimilation, the excess monetary strain would be negligible enough that the bottleneck would not be on money. Instead we have a situation where the bottleneck is on the people's will to participate in the system and contribute to it. The reason the US doesn't have universal healthcare is because of it's long history with racial antagonism. The white working and middle class simply don't want to see their money go towards funding unlimited healthcare expenses for black Americans who fundamentally neither contribute to the systems the take from, nor are even capable of understanding that it's a thing that would be expected of them if they were white. I don't really blame white Republicans for seeing the idea of universal healthcare in America as a dumpster fire when every hospital emergency room in the whole country is full of nothing but blacks and immigrants (especially given the insane obesity rates for black and Latino/Hispanic Americans).

Agreed. So ms. Economist, do you know where I live? Yes or no? :3

Imagine development without debt.
Infrastructure spending, space exploration, all costless

Have to run
So that’s a no on his book?

>whatever that means
Meaning a shit ton more

why do you have a crush on butterfly smiley bro

Capitalism will probably last a thousand years or until humanity destroys itself, but it's a useful term to convey a certain idea. imo

Capitalism decays society. It's been doing it since the 18th century, but only recently has it become obviously noticeably. We have started to truly say goodby to the world we once knew and were told was the model.

Also, non accumulative currency is an insane pipe dream that will guarantee the collapse of social complexity to a point where your tranny ass is at the very least getting killed by your neighbors for food. The only people who propose such a concept are so ignorant of actual social and power dynamics outside of their utopian crack pipe fever dream that they genuinely should be left on an island together with non accumulative currency until they starve to death because they have no effective exchange medium to allow them to prepare for unprosperous harvest conditions (implying they'd even get that far).

see The comparative advantage thing would take me too long to explain. Suffice it to say that people now have a different story from the master slave, monarch subject, elitist regular guy myth. They realize that it takes US to make things not some mythical leader, and now they no longer are content for anything less than their share.
The lie of a market setting value is also coming apart.

Because she masturbated to me. :3 I think that’s what did it. And she saved my number that too

you have some very pretty dreams butterfly, but theres a lot of people who prefer the freedom that comes with private capital more than being a pawn in a command and control economy, and you probably need those people more than they need you

You know that basically nobody is running from Africa because it's too hot right? People immigrate for the social stability of living in a country run by white people and the ability to buy cheap consumer goods and buffalo wild wings at the mall. To the extent that countries do experience these issues with climate change, quite a lot of it will be a positive reduction in population. 80% of the world population lives in Asia and Africa, and nearly all the overpopulation occurs in these regions. They could probably use a reduction back to what their local economies can actually sustain.

I didn't read it. Being a mathematician, I saw his mistake in an article of his (I can't think of the name of right now), so never pursued his theories further...

I know I shouldn't judge, but you'd be surprised at how much you don't have to read once you can do the math...

Folks you are seeing here the flaw of a woman. That despite having masturbated to me, she has to pursue, or at least intends to pretend to pursue, others whilst ignoring me. :3

For whatever reason this is her prerogative: she thinks she is right in brushing me aside, now that she has performed sexual things with regard to me.

MARK MY WORDS BUTTERFLY WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS. YOU HAVE THE FIRST THREE NUMBERS OF MY DAMN CELL PHONE NUMBER NOW START SAYING SOME AFFIRMATIONS :3

>their share
what is this share they're entitled to? Is it for their labour? What claims can they really have to this share if there are millions of people elsewhere in the world who can do the same work for less

The problem is that it's getting harder for people to produce/offer anything "valuable" to others, and this will only be intensified as capitalism trends towards more and more automation

As a thought exercise it's interesting imagining how capitalism might transition to enough of something else to no longer be familiar. Radical experiments in secession and self-determination might find themselves as markets to be served, and perhaps there may be some set of investors who after fleeing the seasteaders decide go build a better modern Life. I see some of these impulses aligned around the "Internet 2" effort but I imagine a large part of any successor to capitalism is secrecy. What the system and it's admins don't know wont hurt them. Stealth and discretion are key, the very opposite of the "good fan," "good viewer," "good subscriber," and "locavore" molds systematically sought for each of us by everyone else. I'm hesitant to even say much hopeful on this highly compromised and imperfect platform, for fear of attracting unnecessary interest, but that is I think integral to your post-capitalism: rat lines, opacity, secret societies, only transacting on high trust networks and abandoning everything else. It takes time and energy to build and maintain these things and you do so while also paying to keep the blob alive. It's certainly not obvious what to do but things are so ruinous and decrepit that if you manage to learn even one thing half well you are nearly like a demi-god in these times of way too many people living gracelessly and only as an exercise of power by those above them. Anything you are to claim for yourself must resist all manners of capitalism: the aloof plutocrats, the cutthroat Chinese and the silly Arabs. This environment puts a premium on the secret society because it's only therein that one can even have a hope of pushing back in a coordinated way against others who, from their own secrecy hatched plots, are lately running ripshod and thumping the rubble. Ultimately these tactics are servant to as broad minded and as far seeing a set of goals as we can muster. To live as modern man is to live for the moment, in the present. To live as something different is to concern ourselves with things greater than ourselves and to seek our place in buttressing what is good and shedding what fails us.

Why do you think those are the only two choices?

Capitalism is not going to crumble under it's own weight no matter how much you wish it would. The government will just print more and more money to bail out the shitheads running big business/finance.

How many decades are communists going to keep saying this? Didnt Marx and Engles think they were living in late stage capitalism?

Attached: 1552365167578.jpg (492x388, 39K)

What will go first, capitalism or white people?

Because they are. Its either more libertarian or more authoritarian. Some might like authoritarianism and some the other, but to say there is something else is dumb

It is the most efficient economic engine we have yet implemented and it is driving human society and our ecology over a cliff.

Bravo. What a useless piece of shit.

Capitalism. There always must be white people. It happened in the past. And it happens now. The ancient Greeks and Romans are no more, but their former slaves now think of themselves as having ancient Romans or Greek ancestors. Now we will either see hispanics, or happas become the new white people. We can see it happening now with how people Like Elliot Rodger or George Zimmerman are considered white

>They realize that it takes US to make things not some mythical leader, and now they are no longer content for anything less than their share

Do you want to know how I know you've never actually done anything tangibly valuable in your life? Yeah, I understand the general point your making, but the idea that people are somehow now MORE interested in independence from centralized leadership is laughable. For god's sake, you can't even have an informal argument on an autistic brotherhood of basketweavers forum without people sperging out over "sourcing" argumentative positions. People want things faster and easier than ever with next to no willingness to actually work for them in any meaningful sense. Even this vague appeal towards social revolution you see among ill informed college students that have been pushed towards a surface level leftism by the education/media infrastructure is primarily out of an impulse to avoid the consequences of their actions (which can only occur with a significant degree of leadership to manage resources in a way that these consequences can be mitigated).

You don't get universal healthcare and free college while getting independence from political leadership and oppressive enforcement of their paradigm. Libertarians are autistic as fuck, but you AnComs are literally every limosine liberal stereotype that boomers have of you. Leftists aren't protesting capitalism because they have any actual will to form a system independent of it, they protest it because they want a system that allows them to both endlessly consume massive amounts of resources and never need to risk working to provide any for others to consume in turn. If you believe you're so capable of living without money and the comforts of this bourgeois capitalist meat grinder, go join an isolated farming commune and prey you never get a bad harvest year, and when you try to come back because you're starving to death and actually needed to work for your food, don't be surprised when the leadership class wants you to kiss their ring.

Let's try something. I can lift 100 lbs. You can lift 100 lbs. Together the sum of our work is 200lbs.
But if we work together, we can now do 200lb work? we are no longer restricted by our limit of 100 lbs. WE can be in two places at once and do that work now too. We can pool our knowledge and make things no individual could ever make.
That is a story that creates a collective narrator instead of the selfish narrator of the individual. That story of 200lb work cannot be told by any individual, and so would not exist.

So why, when the reward of that 200lb work is divided, does one get more than the other?

The market is a decentralized management system for interdependence through trade that eliminates scarcity by rewarding scarce products more, and encouraging their production until an equilibrium occurs. Value is a dummy variable.

So if the market values by the ratio of trade of the product, it is a paradox to then say the production, or labor of that product is also a product.
If you want a market to work, there has to be a balance between every node that is both a Buyer and a Seller, but if Sellers take from those that make up their collective narrator, then there are not enough Buyers for the Market to work.

So there are two reasons right there why Capialism is not a market economy.

Add to that my post about the chain letter of the scalar divergence of the money space, and you have all you need to start to see the scam of Capitalism.

The lie you live with is that of the elites who have corrupted your mind with stories of their greatness when you can clearly see they have done nothing but rob you...

So "white people" is just a social construct?

>when you sell money for more money
someone is getting something for taking on the risk that you won't be able to repay the money they sold you.
Note that they're selling you money, not stealing from you, meaning you voluntarily took the money because presumably you have more productive uses for it (expect to make more money from that money)

>when you sell production as if it were a product
you are recouping the costs of making that "production" in the first place. You paid money in the past in the hope that what you paid for will yield you profits in the future.

Rent-seeking is bullshit though. And land is a weird one, since there can be an infinite amount of new enterprises and means of production, but a finite amount of land, which can always be valuable and have its rent collected forever.

For the most part though capitalism is as fair as it gets for individuals free to pursue their self-interests, and cant be disposed of entirely, It just needs to be reigned in by the state (taxing and redistribution)

Until it comes time to decide who gets affirmative action benefits or gets accepted into the university system. Then they know exactly who the white people are. Leftists cannot argue with good faith. I've met two or three leftists in my entire life who can, and they basically are just racist nazbols at this point.

you dont seem to understand economics very. Id suggest you go get at least a bachelors degree in Economics before you start spouting off nonsense. As Paul Krugman would say, you need to have your mind cleansed.

Is this a joke? Of course it is. Its completely arbitrary. Its why white nationalists screech whenever you ask them to define what white is.

The concept, "white people," serves the business of American higher education, conditioning swarthy and insecure people to conjur and then finance with their own lives a whole new set of low overhead academic disciplines. That concept will be scuttled into the bargain bin the moment something more lucrative comes along, like Prostitution Studies or Robot Fluffing. But first and foremost, one must understand the mere uncritical utterance of "white people," or "white men," or "white women," outside of a dermatology conference blares as a klaxon to all who heard you, "I'm a drooling, servile ruin of a once promising human being, but now I'm so conditioned to filth and laziness, I haven't even the wherewithal to grasp the holes in my humanity. My only contribution to the species will have been a laundering device to transfer Publix money's to private University coffers, and having to fan the vainglorious prestige of cactus cunts with masters degrees is a bonus. Please fuck my face."

is 'black people' a social construct too?

Well the ad hominem isn't either convincing or hurtful since you missed my point.

Capitalism is NOT a market system. You cannot make market decisions with more than one variable. You can compare the product, or you can compare the labor, or you can compare the production, but you cannot compare more than one at a time and expect the market to make any decision at all. Since production and labor make products There is no invariance in that model.

I will not stoop to insults, but you obviously don't have the math. Look at my other posts and you will start to glimpse that there are other systems that work that are not capitalism or socialism.
You probably aren't stupid so I'll let you sleep on it.

I've never wanted to pummel steven pinker more than in this moment

lol/10

autism of the highest degree, white people is just Europeans. Like any racial classification it has blurry edges

Yes. American blacks are like one quarter european. Obama was like half european. But he is considered black because he has dark skin.

literally a social construct because blacks aren't people

Whats wrong with it. It seems like it will help people feel better

Wait, don't you work a retail job? I could have sworn you told me in another thread that you have your BA in business but work in retail.

Either way, while yes you could very well argue that people could collectively accomplish significantly more were they to pool their labor and collectively bargain (hence why unions were such an effective tactic for such a long time) you more or less need an entirely isolationist country for that kind of principle to work in the 21st century. It worked previously because getting to the countries wealthy enough to have consistent public resources (which is a result of the behavioral tendencies and assumptions of the average person of that nation, which are highly hereditary and unequally distributed globally) was generally such an expensive, dangerous and logistically difficult process that the kinds of literal peasants that migrate to the west today wouldn't have been able to manage it. It fundamentally comes down to immigration above all else because not only does immigration consistently drive down wages by reducing at all levels of society the ability for workers to make their labor scarce as a bargaining tool, but demographic changes tend to produce inwardly facing retreat from society and anti-social positions towards publicly shared resources.

Your whole concept of pooling labor and collectively bargaining falls to shit when nobody wants to pay their dues because they know they are going to pay for 85 IQ Aztec peasants to sit on their couch while their 17 kids run amok in public schools (which now need massive ESL programs and significant law enforcement presence in the schools to reduce violence).

Theres no need to argue about if we should have communism or not because its simply not ever going to happen, at least not for well over 500 years Id say.

I say this because its well documented that immigration curbs the desire to have social programs and immigration is not going to stop in the near future. So its simply stupid to talk seriously about socialism when we can easily see that the trend is going the opposite direction and we can see why.

Do you want to know how I know you've never actually done a college level actuarial course? Are you actually trying to tell me you think that we don't have multivariate actuarial models to account for the way different aspects of a particular model function? Multivariable stochastic models are used consistently throughout all levels of finance, and your concept that there needs to be some universal invariance is silly. While it does certainly make the models simpler to have such things, linear systems are used to approximate non-invariant models to a very high degree of accuracy on a consistent basis, and even getting to a junior level in an actuarial science degree would aid you quite a lot in not sounding so full of shit.

"White people" as a monolithic concept serves unsavory political purposes and it is as obvious out of context as "Iraqi" would be to Sunni and Shiite goat herders. It is meaningless except as a weaponized term intended to stir up trouble and divide people. "White" is nearly as useless a term as "Asia," that one must immediately clarify what they mean in the next sentence or so or otherwise lay bare a piss poor capacity to communicate. Of course, dumb people love it. But that doesn't mean that it's users can flee the great BTFOing they're due if they're going to keep on talking dumb.

Imagine defending a system that exploits you.
Literal cucks.

>someone is taking a risk
But if the public bank does it, there is no risk. whatever the investment buys still buys something and that money still goes on to buy something else. You are stuck in the make believe that money supply makes any difference. The total capital supply is over $900T yet the world only uses $4T. If the total supply mattered a hamburger would cost $15000. No one loses if individuals don't sell money for more money.
Besides, land is the same thing. The value increase because of Collective Production: we all want to move to the city. So why should the market reward private people for collective production? Same with money. Without everyone, money has no value. So why should private people be able to make more of it when it is everyone that makes it valuable?

The solution is to take everything that is collective production and use it to pay for collective consumption. That means no taxes.

As for the production, I am talking about STOCKS and BONDS. Selling the company as if it was a product, when it is not consumed means there needs to be more money, but that money does not represent the exchange of consumed goods.

Capitalism is a chain letter and a pyramid scheme, both of which print money out of nothing by filling the role that the Public should be filling, and the Public should be benefiting from.

If everyone in the company got the same share, we wouldn't organize production the way we do that pits workers against each other so that owners can steal from them. In that way the market would balance Buyers and Sellers. That is interdependence through trade. Capitalism is exploitation through ignorance.

>60% of jobs will disappear to automation in the next 20 years
>6th major extinction event underway
yep sure it's going swell

It is literally just Europeans, you live in a paranoid meme world

appeal to authority. If economist were right, then the system would work.

Try puzzling out what I say instead of trying to fit it into your story that also would work if it did, but it doesn't.

>it's all just a social construct bro, its like just a political tool man, these concepts don't 'really' exist (even though I validate them in normal conversations all the time)

Attached: 1551148465308.png (183x275, 4K)

>So why, when the reward of that 200lb work is divided, does one get more than the other?
Maybe because the other guy is the one who arranged a buyer for our 200lb crate, which is vastly more valuable than just lifting a 100lb crate, something any ape can be convinced to do if you decide not to participate.

You seem to be implying in this example that labour has its own intrinsic value, which it clearly does not. Value comes from you providing something to someone else that they want and will pay for.

> it is a paradox to then say the production, or labor of that product is also a product.
It's not a paradox. From the perspective of the producer, labour is a product they need to purchase, in the same way they might need to buy tires if they were building cars.
Companies might outbid each other competing to hire labourers that are undersupplied, Labourers undersell each other applying to jobs for which there is an oversupply of sellers of labour.

Not to mention the ability of technology (for instance products like tractors) to replace labour. Not all the labour, but 4/5 of those previous farmers arent needed anymore because buying one product (tractor) was cheaper than another (their labour)

Our problem today is an oversupply of unskilled labourers who need to sell their labour to live, but companies don't need to buy it because they have so many more options.
Which is why I think UBI is one of the better hopes you can ask for out of the capitalist system. You cant produce anything because you have no skills that are needed by the system, but you still get to live reasonably while you work on doing things that might produce value one day (creating art, continuously educating yourself, etc)

It serves unsavory political purposes? Like what, advocacy for the people who've historical homelands have in the last 30 years turned into a drainage pond for the impoverished from the rest of the world? White people is an entirely coherent concept and you're being disingenuous when you argue otherwise. Yes, all generalized racial categories are defined via negativa to a certain degree, as they are entirely superfluous in a situation where the entire regional population is of one racial category. If you think this means that Asian, or Black, or Latino, or God forbid Jewish, is a non-functional concept because it isn't an "objective" categorization and is fundamentally up to interpretation, you can take that up with them. Until you do, I will continue to view your nonsensical objection as being fundamentally in bad faith, and would suggest that if "white people" are really nothing but a social construction to you (as an imperfect approximation of an actual concrete phenomenon) that you move to a country run by non-whites and forever forfeit your citizenship status to the white country you assuredly are from.

According to what? Is there a cracker in a bell jar in a Parisian museum?

>these people are just a monolithic concept

Attached: 1536614239481.jpg (620x829, 71K)

An yet even Black–Scholes and all your Ito calculus finds only special cases that can't be repeated.

I am not saying that this is understandable. I am saying you build conservation into the system.

Mostly what I am saying is that if you replaced all of finance with Public Banks that simply printed money, just like banks do now with FRB, and removed all other forms of capital like stocks and bonds, that you would have a system without risk that could control inflation and that could finance anything.

It could even be decentralized simply by making the Public Banks attached to independent municipalities.

You are wrong in thinking your stochastic models predict anything. You are stuck in a shellgame of explanations.

And besides, a stochastic system to create a probability is invariant in that the probability add up to one. It is invariant in that the elements created by the system still have to add up to the system. Maybe instead of more appeals to authority you think about what I am saying.

Maybe look up non-ergodic systems while you are at it Ito boy!

Seems pretty monolothicc yeah.

>Besides, land is the same thing. The value increase because of Collective Production
I'm more inclined to agree with you on land than on money. It's not "everyone" that makes money valuable. Some people undeniably contribute more to society than others, and in communist countries where private people weren't allowed to make more of it than others, the economy suffered since people weren't incentivised to work harder.

>Selling the company as if it was a product, when it is not consumed
What do you mean not consumed? It is selling/transferring ownership of the company, which is zero sum. It entitles you to a portion of its dividends and earnings in the future.

It's far more fair to allow you to vote for the future of the company based on your financial stake in it (shareholders) rather than just cos you work there and have no stake. Why should box-movers at Amazon dictate how its resources get spent?
Not everyone at a company is equally valuable/irreplaceable, why should they get the same share? Your commie dreams are admirable, but not very well aligned with reality.

Your point about public banking is spot on though. It really does spit on the money of the common people in favour of the money lenders. The solution, unfortunately, is probably bitcoin, even though its name has been thoroughly smeared by goldman's big pump and dump

It's not going to unless and until the technological system collapses and self-propagating systems no longer have the MEANS to do so much damage.

Fierce competition for power among self-propagating systems is a fundamental fact of the world, and even non-living machines are subject to the same dynamics. There will be ruthless competition for power among competing self-propagating systems and so long as the technology keeps accelerating this competition will get fiercer and fiercer and the natural world will get more and more disrupted until the earth is a dead planet.

The only way out if for a collapse back to pre-industrial times. Sorry, but progress is a myth. So is the idea that you can rationally predict and control the development of society in the long-term.

I understand this is hard for you. It was hard for me too until I took the time to think it through.

It is a paradox if you take the narrator as everyone. When you equivocate the participants as products it is a paradox.

Turn it around. Why isn't the labor the ones who get the greatest share because the organizers are just their product that the labor buys? See how I made the managers the product there?
You changed the story when you changed the narrator. Just like you can't make the story of lifting 200lbs without the collective narrator of both, you can't make the story of production without everyone who participates.

Are you starting to see the scam?

Management is just a job. But the whole is greater that the sum of its parts because the whole story creates a different narrator which creates a different story which rewrites the reused parts.

>capitalism will collapse
nice meme

Read Kaczynski's books. You ain't gonna be able to just wait and hope. Sorry, but you were born in a time with an extraordinary historical burden.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution_3b.jpg (1000x1500, 1.51M)

>Advocacy
This modern's intentions, while puny and unambitious, are so blessed they are freed from reason, untethered beneath those yaskweening layers of good intentions and quip-prone ironies, sharing in a broad cultural moment where everyone else "gets it." They just know it to be true. Economics and an uncertain future are not enough to explain that cruel, mean world, no. They don't account for these sad dark people we've been asked to integrate in great numbers and without asking any questions as to how and why they're here, just on with the latest experiments of globalization, which finding it's vampiric fangs in the US and Europe the same as less fortunate places, finds increasing social and cultural leverage in dividing the native populations, "whiteness," being marketed more as the absence of globalization's big queer wand, from which follows the need for as many taco and kebab slingers and their extended families and, yeah why not, I guess we need more farm laborers too, sure, I also totally consent to industrially scaled human trafficking to support a price point for strawberries and chicken breasts. But wait, what if I don't want an avocado drenched in the blood of children and pregnant mother's? The answer to that whole genre of globalization-critical uppity-ness is to respond to and counter that "whiteness," be it people asking that all our trade not be tainted in gratuitous carnage or if we could have schools and hospitals that arent ruinously underfunded. Or if our masters could find it in their hearts to maybe let the slavers prey upon less of our economy.

read this Money, like land value is a collective production in that the story cannot be told by an individual. While an individual can grow food and consume it, they would never make the story of money without the story of others. Yet money is not like trading food. It is not consumed by who the market serves.

The sale of a company is the same thing. If the market gives value by the scarcity of products sold then you change the story of what a market is when you also put in there things that are not consumed. You don't eat a company. You don't wear a company. A company is a story with no ability to be told from the narrator of a consumer.
This is the confusion of the way we think.

I have to go now but think about this. Read all the posts in this thread and you will get a better Idea of what I am talking about. I

It's been a pleasure talking with you..

No way this is real

When I heard ill-meaning colleagues have called him "Stinker" since the 90s, I assumed it was due to keeping kimchi in the tiny breakroom of their academic offices. Maybe it's due to his scholarship?

>tfw the science shows they are more effective and long-lasting when taken as suppositories
>robot arms installed in workplace bathrooms will help you with that if you cannot install the Relaxotron in your home or cubicle
>based Steven showing us the way

Wait a minute do people do drugs like marijuana and alcohol because they’re depressed? I’m a drugcel but I thought they were for fun??

>ill-meaning colleagues have called him "Stinker" since the 90s,
why are academics so lame

You have no right to damage the body you do not own.

>I can lift 100 lbs. You can lift 100 lbs. Together the sum of our work is 200lbs.
>But if we work together, we can now do 200lb work? we are no longer restricted by our limit of 100 lbs. WE can be in two places at once and do that work now too. We can pool our knowledge and make things no individual could ever make. That is a story that creates a collective narrator instead of the selfish narrator of the individual. That story of 200lb work cannot be told by any individual, and so would not exist.
You're just describing the evolutionary mechanism of co-operation. It is not a sufficient criterion for value creation, there are so many variables going into play that explain the unequal reward of dividends. Reducing it down to a simple thought experiment is absolute retardation, you sound like one of those college marxist who go 'suppose person A has x number of bread loafs etc.....therefore capitalism is evil QED'.

>Mostly what I'm saying is that if you replaced all of finance with public banks that simply printed money...

Economists hate him! He's got this ONE WEIRD TRICK that can let your country erase debt, control inflation, and finance anything!

Sure guy. I'm sure that the removal of all private ownership of risk/investment would totally fix the problems of debt from an expanding population of increasingly useless and entitled bourgeois morons. You, the random guy on the internet have the answer, and it's definitely removal of the main mechanisms of management of risk and investment in future production. I'm sure that the issue is actually one involving the finance capital, and not one rooted in the deeper political and social problems the west is facing right now (including a total unwillingness to reproduce the social/political institutions that got us to the level of wealth where we can waste time entertaining these silly theories).

>You're wrong in thinking that stochastic models predict anything
You're right, they don't "predict" in any meaningful sense. They can give you an approximation of how certain factors effect your probability of strictly defined success.

>Probabilty models are invariant because they are constrained by the axiomatic definition of probabilty
Yes, and this is why probability is a mathematical discipline rather than an applied social science field like economics. If you're expecting Economics of any kind to be consistent to the same degree that mathematics (as a closed loop system which is not reliant on parameters of reality in order to be considered functional) is, then you're going to be waiting for quite a long time. Markets are not "invariant" in that they do not function in the same sort of rigorously defined way that mathematics does, but are rather applications of imperfect approximations within mathematics.

I ended up writing out a gigantic elaboration about how one could arbitrarily define some market value on a closed range in much the same way modern probability is done (which is exactly the way that actuaries use multivariate models to give people an assessment of how the likelihood of particular outcomes are effected by changes in aspects of it) but I knew you weren't actually engaging in good faith or interested in reading about it. The fact of the matter is, that we don't actually need invariance in causal factors to determine likelihood of outcomes, and in fact that's the entire point of using stochastic models, as a way to create an arbitrary invariant assessment of systems assuming to vary in ways we cannot directly know. These models will always be imperfect and subject to improvement, but unless you have some convincing reason why "make the banks public" is actually a solution to the problems of our failing meta-political infrastructure (the actual cause of the economic problems of the 21st century) then I'm going to continue disregarding what you're saying.

>anytime now.jpeg

Because organisers are scarce and labour isn't. Labour follows instructions, organiser's take a gamble with their money, that if certain instructions were followed, it would provide more value to everyone.

Organisers are the product that labour buys when labour is limited. Some experienced techies in SV shop around different companies, choosing which offer to take. Most people don't have this luxury.

>just like you can't make the story of lifting 200lbs without the collective narrator of both
I'm pointing out that your story is incomplete. Lifting 200lbs is not a valuable activity on its own. If they "collectively" found a person to pay for their lifting together, then they would collectively profit. Like partners in a small business.

I get the gist of what you're saying and more or less agree with you, but you need to work on your sentence structure. It may sound a bit hypocritical because I do also have the tendency to string together long sentences but at some point it needs to be comprehensible.

Okay, but you won't stop Modern Monetary Theory simply by not understanding it....

Even if you have no cause to hope that capitalism will fail, like if you are a billionaire for example, it is difficult to see how it will survive the hellworld we have inherited. This is what ideologues cannot answer to because they cannot imagine it--what Jameson is talking about par excellence. The effects of biosphere collapse, resource depletion, climate instability, etc., will be unspeakable and calamitous beyond reckoning. Everyone knows by now that there is a contingent of billionaire preppers. I don't resent them, or more accurately I know on a rational level I have no reason to resent them, but I don't understand what they're intentions are beyond bare subsistence after total collapse. Maybe they will emerge to rule petty fiefdoms in the circumscribed and desolate zones still suitable for small-scale agriculture. But that won't be capitalism

I did, my response was I think the problem here is that capitalists have a conception of the future built into the system, while you seem to be very comfortable inhabiting a psychedelic present.

Do you think nothing can be owned aside from consumer goods? What about a printing press? You cant eat a printing press. Nor own it apparently because it "belongs to public", most of whom played no part in its manufacture. Yea gl man

You have no actual organizational/management experience, and that is fairly clear. While calorie for calorie, labor is significantly larger in terms of energy expenditure, the capacity for effective leadership is rare, and when people who are not effective leaders are given significant power, even in basic retail capacities, people die.

Whether it be ecoli outbreaks because the Aztec peasants are shitting in the fields, or the massive food deserts found in many black neighborhoods, poor management of people and their labor has serious consequences and most people just aren't capable of doing the job properly. I don't say that as someone who considers himself a leader, I left my supervisory position to go into research within my field specifically because the organization and direction of subordinates was just not something I found myself being good at (or at least good enough to justify me doing it over someone else who is more inclined to succeed in that position). Even among the proportion of the population who is intelligent enough to make contributions not just with how many boxes they can move, but in figuring out better ways to move them, not everyone will be an effective director and this puts a high premium on the people who are actually good at it. Not every talented musician can be an effective conductor or producer, and generally speaking when people attempt to do these sorts of things without explicit leadership roles, things either very quickly logistically fall apart, or you end up with de facto delineation occurring which then results in the same sort of separation that caused there to be a valuable managerial class to begin with.

I'm not against MMT, I actually generally agree with it! You're just not understanding that acceptance of the idea that the bottleneck isn't money doesn't mean we can just jump headfirst into the total removal of all monetary representation of risk. In fact MMT relies heavily on a "mixed market" understanding of the management of value, and could not function without these largely "private" concepts like stocks and bonds, even if the banks were public. Public banks aren't a bad idea, it's the idea that a public bank means we can eliminate these finance capitalist mechanisms for hedging risks that's retarded.

What if all those problems are solved just a little bit at a time, imperceptibly so, by a tiny team of fairies emitted in every male human orgasm? Checkmate.

dude what

kek jumps in a hundred posts later just to say 'NO!!!!' to the second post of the thread.

Attached: 1533944519394.gif (259x259, 1.75M)

>rich people are what keep violence down
Insane incel ass

When capitalism is free people are enslaved.

War and famine drive them. Famines will only get worse I’m afraid.

Hah. I’ll bet

I'm not saying that "rich people are what keep violence down", but the accumulation of resources and preparation for less prosperous times certainly does, and the concept of non-accumulative currency fundamentally does not allow preparation for survival through times of bad harvest/climate/social unrest.

You don't actually know what you're talking about. Famine occurs in Africa because Africans are fundamentally unable to reciprocate the society they were given during colonial times which allowed an expansion of their population. War is the default state of the nigger.

>"cost of credit is inherently wrong"
But opportunity and risk do have an inherent cost, they're simply statistical expression of event happening. The issue is inefficiency of money market due to power law distribution. Credit gets too expensive and sucks the economy dry because stakeholders hold inherent oligopoly on money supply.

Lending market is permanently cornered, as opposed to commodity markets which easily react to demand.

Keynesianism is a band aid for this, but increasingly dysfunctional too as it ultimately can't fight power law of capital distribution (money gravity) - there'll be always oligopoly of lenders. The rent-seeking is strong self-reinforcing attractor.

Worse still, a system without credit (monetized risk derivatives) is even more inefficient as you no longer have economies of scale of specialized risk managers (every man on their own).

>oy of course its monolithic dummy!

Attached: 1547333295313.jpg (688x456, 43K)

I think the only way in which you could argue that we're in a late stage of capitalism, assuming we're applying Orthodox Marxist terminology, is to claim that production based on exchange value no longer exists because we use fiat rather than exchanging labor hours for labor hours by way of hard currency. But there's plenty of historical precedent for this, so it doesn't make much sense really.

But there is only so much it can exploit... or is there?

Attached: 123123.png (662x471, 103K)

Late Capitalism is just the Marxist equivalent of the End Times. Highlights how we never moved on from Cuckstianity.

Attached: 1556881812308.jpg (1280x853, 113K)

whether you're depressed or doing it for fun, we all do it to feel better

The neoclassical liberals call it corporatism

Underrated.

This. Every camp's got their eschatology, it's boring.

>capitalism sucks bro
>*buys TV on sale*
>it's just a matter of time until it collapses
>"I'll have the number five combo"
>the system is there to exploit the worker
>*enters supermarket*

Glad to know that instead of getting the flithy government out of my life that you guys probably want big brother to control the world to your utopia. Thank god I can still buy a gun and make sure some of you don't get the chance to implement anything.

You're the type of dumb-cunt that thinks the conductor of an orchestra "doesn't even do anything dude", aren't you?

Woah are you a daywalker?

>alcoholism sucks bro
>*downs bottle of vodka*

wow actually alcoholism must be really good

Why are americans unable to communicate beyond "muh guns" and "muh big government"

it is all we know stop bullying us

What happens when the capitalism supposedly crumbles? A period of mass slaughter followed by renewed authoritarian marketplace?

Triggered. No argument detected.

Damn you are austistic

Jesus. Is everyone in lit this stupid?

back to r/latestagecapitalism tripfag

>Marx says revolution is just around the corner
>Lenin says imperialism is the highest form of capitalism
>Stalin says capitalism is entering its 4th and final stage and global proletarian revolution is imminent
>we're now entering into the late stage of capitalism, collapse inbound

Attached: 1516313367668.jpg (1200x1200, 381K)