Recomandare pentru economistul Florin Cîtu - Warren Mosler (logică elementară)
Recomandare pentru economistul Lucian Isar - Scott Sumner (e varză)

Libertarianul Bogdan Glăvan este bugetofag. Libertarianul John Galt (comentacul) este bugetofag. Libertarianul Cristian Păun este bugetar.
Think tank-ul care alimentează tonetarii grobieni, de dreapta, cu raționamente din prepuțul gândirii neanderthaliene, e alcătuit din asistați social.
Ai 2 vaci sterpe și un tractor ruginit? Numele tău e John Galt, țiitorul planetei. "Survenția" la hectar și asistența socială de care te bucuri atât timp cât faci umbră pământului degeaba nu sunt decât distorsiuni ale... nuvelei.

vineri, 1 februarie 2013

This is why!!!

Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler in their work ‘Capital as Power’ bring us directly to the essential point: the fundamental fact of our socio-economic system is power. Capital isn’t a “factor of production”; it’s simply power, nothing more. That capital is power and power is capital is a highly fruitful simplification which must be accepted if we are to understand the nature of our system.

A brief look around shows us that the capital / power identity is self evidently true. In the United States, we know that the bottom 80% of the population owns just 7% of financial wealth and it’s about the same everywhere else. It’s certainly even more unequal than this given the massive hoards held in secret “offshore” accounts. Just 500 corporations control 40% of global sales and every major industry is under oligopolistic control. David Rothkopf, well connected former managing director of Kissinger Associates, observes in his book ‘Superclass – The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making’, that “A global elite has emerged over the past several decades that has vastly more power than any other group on the planet” and estimates that this elite numbers just 6,000 individuals. Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston performed a comprehensive network analysis of direct and indirect corporate control and found that control is concentrated within a “tightly knit” core of financial institutions which they brand a “super-entity”. According to them, just 737 global holders control an incredible 80% of the value of all transnational corporations.

The unprofitability of worker consumption is a fundamental and greatly under-appreciated reality of the capitalist system. Simple logic tells us that workers will not be employed to produce for their own good. They won’t because it can’t ever be profitable. That many call the system “consumer capitalism” is in fact darkly humorous in an Orwellian way. The profitability problem was recognized over 100 years ago by Rosa Luxemburg and it’s a key reason for worldwide poverty and insecurity. Workers will not yield profits to owners through the activity of producing for their own consumption; to garner profit, workers must produce for the consumption of some “outsider” who will provide the profit increment to the owners.

The extreme concentration of today’s capitalism demands more than ever that we consider the system from a consolidated global class view, and when we assume that perspective, the only “outsiders” we can find are the owners themselves and the government. There’s simply no one else that could possibly supply the increment over the wage which is the profit. This absolutely absurd circularity was clearly demonstrated by economist Michal Kalecki through his well known profit equation for a purely “private” economy:

Profit = Capitalist consumption + Investment

Power is the ability to monetarily spend (command); profit is the monetary amount spent (commanded). Profit itself should be seen as a meaningless circularity when we consider the capitalist class as a whole and this makes sense when we realize it’s only about power. Nitzan and Bichler are right – the only meaning of profit and capital is in its competitive differential level between individual capitalists and that’s where they put their focus. But for the class as a whole, profit and capital valuation have no meaning at all. It makes no difference whether their ownership of Earth is valued at $100 trillion or $10 trillion or $1 trillion when there’s no one outside of Earth to whom they could possibly sell the planet. God help us if there were! It’s not about profit; it’s about power.

Those sitting at the pinnacle determine how and to what level the productive resources of humanity are used. The basic flow isn’t “economic”, it’s political and it goes something like this:

Command to produce is issued by owners ==> Command is executed by workers
We should see capitalism as a top down hierarchical process whereby workers are ordered into production to produce for the interests of the owners – either for their consumption or investment. Investment in worker consumption goods is not stand alone profitable so the investment will normally be in things that don’t directly benefit the worker.
It’s a simple power struggle between the owners and workers and supply and demand curves have almost nothing to do with it. If there are more resources brought online for the workers, then the real wage is higher and so is total output and employment. Luxury consumption and investment, and therefore profit (remember the equation), are completely unaffected. As Kalecki clearly showed, high wages (or low wages) have no effect on profit – the conditions of the worker are immaterial to the ownership class as a whole from a profit point of view since wages are always both an income and expense and net to zero. That the ownership class constantly seeks to reduce wages and impose austerity is a clear demonstration of the power nature of the relationship. The reason is power and not profit. A fully secure and prosperous population is not remotely conducive to a hierarchical system of power.

Of course many will explain the drive for reduced living standards as due to the neutral forces of international competition and the dynamics of the globalized market economy. But that should be seen as absurdly unconvincing. The drive existed well before international competition was as high and agreements could easily be reached to turn the viscous cycle into a virtuous one. Arguments of competitiveness, flexibility, “sound finance”, and the like are frivolous diversions. The system is power, nothing more. sursa

4 comentarii:

originar spunea...

Capitalismul explicat simplu, ne-imbacsit de propaganda dreptei. Practic, ce ziceau marxistii cu 100 ani in urma, o recunosc acum si alde discipolii lui Kissinger.
De la asta trebuie plecat cand se discuta economie.

Free Drive Ro spunea...

chestia asta e evidenta (cu puterea si capitalul).
in schimb asta din video, mai mai sa-l cred, pana a inceput sa dea citate din Winston Churchill, si atunci l-am si oprit :/
gandhi, am inteles, martin luther king, mai treaca mearga, da' Churchill? sa fim seriosi...

AristotelCostel spunea...

@Free Drive Ro

Unul dintre primele link-uri de pe blog face trimitere la articolul "The trouble with MMT" (Sub... The Secret of Oz).
N-a trecut nicio luna de cand i-am scris pe blog (Mike Norman) ca a gherlit-o in privinta emobiliarelor (2007-2008) in fata lui Petru Schiff.

Shit is everywhere, insa ceea ce se intampla acum e un sclavagism penibil... citarea lui Ciărcil fiind ultimul lucru de care m-as impiedica.

Eu personal am avut dificultăți mai mari cu cel din... Ghandi. :)


Ezact, toți limbricii economici cad în capcana antitezei izguierda-derecha, timp în care stăpânii se scarpină pe chelie... "doing god's work".

AristotelCostel spunea...

@Free Drive Ro

Să mai reglăm o situație. Ar fi păcat să rămână ca-n tren.

12 Dec 2012, you:

Eu il citesc pe Horea si in general are dreptate...adica postarile lui au bun simt si common sense.
nu pot sa-mi dau seama ce s-a intamplat cu blogul asta insa (aristotel costel), era interesant, insa de la un anumit punct incoace a devenit obsedat de Baselu...

12 Dec 2012, me:
Coincidenta a facut ca a intervenit scarba nationala impotriva betivului nesimtit pe fondul pupinbasismului de larga raspandire din mediul on-line, care l-a cucerit si pe horea.

1 Feb 2013, Horea Mihălțan:
De unde crezi ca vin? De la PDL! Care s-a facut intr-adevar praf si pulbere. Dar, asta in Romania nu iseamna nimic, pentru ca, conform dragului Stolo, munca de reconstruire a inceput deja.

Întâmplarea face că sunt sincer și... am întotdeauna dreptate. Eu la PDLSDNLDDorice n-am fost... ca să n-am de unde veni.

Lista mea de bloguri

Analiză fundamenta...tă