Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why cant you understand that EVERYONE does not have to write or opinionate from personal situations or experience.
Marxism is about creating opportunities for people to be compensated for their own labor, rather then through a "labor contract" created under economic duress to the benefit of the owner of the means of production.
It is NOT about hand outs. That is a welfare state, which is a symptom of capitalism.
You are a funny guy. I think you chose the wrong profession.. you would do much better as a comedian.
There are several of you I want to rep again, but I have to spread the love a little bit first.
Since I now know from whence all the complaining and dire predictions are coming, I'll just bow out of this little discussion, as much as I've enjoyed it.
And Gwynedd1, as much as I appreciate your in-depth answers, they just go over my head. But thanks for trying to explain all this.
Not necessarily. We just need to do whatever it is that will work at this time in our history. Something different may work for you. Or --- you could just sit there and cry about what used to be.
Hi colleeng47,
I'm not really crying about what used to be.... personally, I don't really care how things used to be since change is the only constant. What I'm bringing up is how the future is going to be if we continue on our current course and offer my view on what macro changes may result in changing that course.
Anyhow, things are constantly in flux and changing. From what I can see, the great disparity and inequality in wealth is already being challenged. If America is becoming more prudent as a whole, as most indicators are showing, then the wealth inequality will drop as there is less support for the upper classes to prey on/off of the poor.
Ultimately, that would mean a higher level of unemployment, or a higher absorption of debt by the government (aka upper middle/wealthy). Even China, a command economy, has to incur additional government debt to appease employment for the poor/middle. The US, with a democracy, most definitely would have to incur more government debt at the expense of the upper middle classes.
I feel that sooner rather than later, the purchasing power disparity between nations are going to be addressed. And this will result in a weaker dollar and a stronger foreign currency. This would result in further deterioration of the wealth of the wealthy... and a leveling of the labor arbitrage that developing nations have so much enjoyed.
"Hmmm....I worked in a sub shop for 3 years, worked in a warehouse for 1, Ive also laid bricks, and done physical inventories. Guess thats what making assumptions gets for you"
Because youve clearly been to any place that has EVER successfully implemented Marxism.....Oh wait, you havent, because its never existed in the real world.
Pure marxism has never existed BECAUSE it doesn't work as an economic philosophy.
Come on...this is a TECHNICAL accounting question: As a Marxist, how do you calculate the cost of capital?
No, it isnt. Capital can be defined as many things. It can be both natural resources, or it can be end products.
Since natural "capital" is not owned and shouldnt be, I will assume you are referring to end products, and in the case of that, the cost of capital is determined by economic policy.
"Hmmm....I worked in a sub shop for 3 years, worked in a warehouse for 1, Ive also laid bricks, and done physical inventories. Guess thats what making assumptions gets for you"
I think someone is telling us a fib.
If I wasnt so concerned about identity protection, Id gladly post a resume I used to use when I first got out of college. Then again, I really dont have to prove anything to you.
No, it isnt. Capital can be defined as many things. It can be both natural resources, or it can be end products.
Since natural "capital" is not owned and shouldnt be, I will assume you are referring to end products, and in the case of that, the cost of capital is determined by economic policy.
Cost of Capital is a purely economic calculation--you've forgotten you upper division required finance class? ....ok let me as the cost of capital question differently: Do you know what beta is? How would you calculate that under a Marxist rule of economic government?
If I wasnt so concerned about identity protection, Id gladly post a resume I used to use when I first got out of college. Then again, I really dont have to prove anything to you.
...ah but in a sense you do...you've made some pretty wild claims....So, fork it over.
Pure marxism has never existed BECAUSE it doesn't work as an economic philosophy.
No, human nature wont allow it to work, although, it WOULD work if it were ever implemented to the T.
Unfortunatley, one constant we can always depend on is human greed, which succesfully ensures that the only "marxism" we will ever see is state run capitalism, which is used as puppet to enrich the ruling class at the expense of the other "comrades".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
