: Irrelevent. That *bad* for the producer, and they are the ones who are important here.Consumer and producer are the same people, there is a net gain.as long as exchangable value is increasing (which as pointed out earlier, it does)
: No, but there always needs to be more- another way- more must come out of the system than goes in.
hence the continued unceilinged growth in exchangable value.
: Not all at once, but it can actually occur across a broad range of industries roughly at the same time,
As do the positive changes, at net gain to global wealth.
: No, eventually they must muscle in on each other, when their milk cow runs dry, when they hit the limits of their niche, etc.
And meanwhile other industrie and niches grow, more than the the ones that shrink.
: No, some is saved, some spent on Luxury, teh private incomes of the rich- they can only buy so much- some ( a lot) is left unspent, and cannot and willnot ever be spent.
Unspent capital (unless destroyed) is by definition being invested somewhere. Capital spent on luxuries simply becomes part of the consumption of goods - part of the exchanged value, it doesnt vanish or self destruct. We can disagree that one person should be able to do this if you with, but destroying capital takes quite an effort.
: No, because capital, under teh Law of No Profit No production, necessarilly cuts back production when abundance is reached, because it *cannot* realise a profit.
Hence it goes to where it can, the global production of wealth being consitently on the way up, capital has never faced this crisis in any universal sense.
: Indeed, but effectively we could all work for only half a year, a three day week, say. thats the luxury I'm talking about.
I have almost no doubt that its achievable by progressing our current modus operandi (I know you dont) due to ever increasing wealth production and by extrapolating this historic trend. If everyone just darned well agreed to pursue your goal I wouldnt be suprised to see it realised earlier, but I also believe such co operation simply wont happen.
: Which is *exactly* the problem, which can be overcome by the consumers controling the menu.
Except for the multitude of problems we had discussed previously over how people in communes might adress the issue.
: Perhaps, but it seems to be clumpy- some regions
I can well believe it, come to areas of Pensylvania too.
:A comrade told us about when he left school in teh 60's, went to the labour exchange, got a job, decide by lunch-time he didn't like it, went and got another. not possibble now.
Yes ive heard such stories. Might be related to the 'gap filling' postwar effect, ie growing into what hould have been done 20 years back anyway, kinda being sucked into a vacuum. Still hear about them in some industries nowadays though.
: No, machines cannot *add* exchange value, they can increase use value, but not necessarilly (assuming teh same item is produced, just quicker). If I can use machines to make 10 footballs an hour where humans used to make 5, I've halved my exchange value- unless I produce a*new* product that requires the machines, and requires lots of added value, I'm not creating exchange value.
Hence sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt - as I said.
: No, because the consumers are being laid off, having wages restricted, etc. This *cuts* overall demand
However they are not as unemployment %s over time show, it isnt increasing but simply 'wavy'
: Not excluding him, we're asking them to work for a higher rate than they otherwise would.
You have stated that disproportionately high wages can result in jobs being lost, hence by asking him to 'wait it out' he will risk being left high and dry by his 'friends' in the union.
: No, if the strike is successful, it means the workers have more money, and can bouy up the economy better, and if it fails, it might devastate that persons home town- or leave them in a workplace with no union protection nor rights.
If the wages go up it means the profit goes down (ceteris paribus) therefore there is less capital to invest and less new jobs etc rather offsetting any gain made by the extra buying power of the unionisd labor. Our willing excluded worker is shat upon by all and sundry, in recognition of this (albeit not as I have worded it!) many people risk violence to work.
: No, teh solution is for people to be able to decide their own change, and not have it thrust upon them, and it doesn't just hurt those who won't adapt, it hurts everyone, because, in the end, capital will fight to save its scrawny neck.
People are affecting change in their consumption too. The makers of a second rate car might gain some general support to 'keep their jobs' from a public who is buying the superior car. its back to the stasis model whichever way.
: Not a net loss? Then where does the static unemployment pool come from? There are less jobs available, less skilled paying jobs, and certainly less productive jobs.
There are, if you look at undemployment %s, more jobs available and a variety of employment studies show increases in skilled work (unsurprisingly) and salaries. There may well be a volume growth in the 'static unemployment pool' as part of this.
; After contraction, yes.
In excess of previous level.
: I never predicted collapse. Further, I refer you to the graph of rate of profit, which, whilst growing atm, is no where near what it was in the 1960's. Anyhow, we've had this thread before, lets end here and return anotehr time....
coooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
None.
