one of the biggest things they teach in bourgeois economics is that "actually 100% employment is BAD! because it means people can't quit their jobs if they want to and the supply of labor in the labor market will be too low!" I see it dropped casually like it's just a matter-of-fact by people, especially "influencers" who aren't even bourgeois or economists because it's repeated so often. I hate this myth so fucking much for so many reasons, but it's obviously functioning as an ideological justification for the reserve army of labor whether the people repeating it realize that or not (they usually don't even know what the reserve army of labor is). People quit their jobs because their wages are too low, instead of getting organized, because getting organized is harder than quitting and begging another porky for a job. Then when they're begging porky for another job, which can take literally months, they are getting application after application rejected for no good reason, and finally they get desperate and accept a job that is as bad or even worse than their previous job. Most people desire stable employment and a living wage and only quit their job because their wage is shit. So saying or implying that having an unemployment rate of 5-10% is "good" because "people can quit their jobs due to high mobility in the labor market!" functions to justify this state of affairs.
Porky has always opposed 100% unemployment. Pic and vid related.
Have some devil's advocacy: What if 100% employment is bad not because people want to change jobs, but because people need to change jobs. A stablehand may enjoy stable (hah) employment caring for horses, but once the car factory opens and people stop using horses for day-to-day transportation it's necessary that the number of stablehands falls and, consequently, that the number of something else (say, car mechanics) increases. (barring unusual assumptions like "we'll keep these people around all day doing nothing of social necessity, when we need more labor we'll just import it.")
If you centrally plan this you get the resentment that you're forcibly reassigning the stablehand, who wants to keep his regular job. If you do it with market forces, you get the immiseration of unemployment. If you go the socdem route, you cushion the blow with welfare but you're still ultimately delivering the stablehands an ultimatum that their days of horse-care are over. This is very bad for the stablehand, but good for society as a whole. Social Desirability Bias means economists are likely to put it in warm language (people want better jobs!) rather than say something nasty like "economic progress requires compelling labor to move from old industries to new ones, since unlike capital it can't just be dragged there by the profit motive"
>>2563801>What if 100% employment is bad not because people want to change jobs, but because people need to change jobs. A stablehand may enjoy stable (hah) employment caring for horses, but once the car factory opens and people stop using horses for day-to-day transportation it's necessary that the number of stablehands falls and, consequently, that the number of something else (say, car mechanics) increases.Society should maintain a general fund for unemployment in moments like this in order to quickly plan and execute the re-allocation, re-training, and re-employment of those who need to change jobs. The unemployment fund would not reward them for their labor, but rather compensate them for the damage of the sudden job loss, and subside them until they are given new employment. This can flexibly accommodate sudden change as well as accommodate the need for long term central planning of the economy, and changes labor composition of that economy.
Under capitalism, where some percentage of unemployment is considered necessary, still treats those people unfortunate enough to fall into that category, as having failed some social test, rather than being a byproduct of a system that produces unemployment, which strikes me as one of the more insidious aspects of capitalism.
>If you centrally plan this you get the resentment that you're forcibly reassigning the stablehand, who wants to keep his regular job. If you do it with market forces, you get the immiseration of unemployment. If you go the socdem route, you cushion the blow with welfare but you're still ultimately delivering the stablehands an ultimatum that their days of horse-care are over. This is very bad for the stablehand, but good for society as a whole. Social Desirability Bias means economists are likely to put it in warm language (people want better jobs!) rather than say something nasty like "economic progress requires compelling labor to move from old industries to new ones, since unlike capital it can't just be dragged there by the profit motive"Hmm. I think people should be educated in the first place to not have so much attachment and investment to jobs that can disappear because of technological progress. People are instead raised on the idealism that their jobs will exist forever, and then they are recklessly thrown into unemployment when it suddenly doesn't. The cushioning of the blow should come much earlier, when people are still children, through education regarding the nature of employment and the impact technology or other changes can suddenly have on it.
>full employment bad
<full UBI good
can someone explain this ideological motive?
>>2563997what's interesting about UBI, which isn't commented on enough, is that it enriches the capitalists, while subsidizing the consumption of the workers by guaranteeing them subsistence. This lets the capitalist class, as a whole, get away with individually paying workers less, since the UBI will subsidize their existence, but meanwhile the capitalists also receive UBI, since it is "Universal" after all. Capitalists will invest their UBI into speculative assets and expanding production and buying properties, for profit, rent, and interest, while workers will spend all their UBI on commodities. The UBI of the worker will enrich the capitalist, and the UBI of the capitalist will also enrich the capitalist. It basically turns society into a giant company store.
The Soviet Union had issues with 100% employment issues when they tried to open up new sectors of the economy later in the 20th century because they already had everyone planned out and would need to start making cuts to employment elsewhere to start something new. Notably, computer development suffered badly from underemployment because of this. So on some level it probably would be good to have reserve of the population working at either relaxed, suboptimal pace, unemployment, or jobs that are only semi-necessary and easily put off or otherwise suffer staff cuts so you can shuffle people around.
>>2564020There were problems with divisions of labor in the USSR as well, for example truck drivers would have another worker come with them to load and unload the truck because "my job is to drive the truck" so you essentially doubled the amount of labor for a job.
In Yugoslavia there were problems with getting a job because industries would be so tightly controlled by the coops that you would have to have a family member to get you into a position of employment. They simply would not hire you otherwise.
>>2564012I don't think the idea that UBI enriches capitalists because they recieve UBI is a good analysis. UBI would not be significant enough so that it would become single handedly a way for capitalists to fund investment. However, it would quite litteraly funnel even more funding from the state into enterprises as you argued. I believe this would mean that the state has to either raise funding or cut spending to finance UBI and overall purchasing power/living standards of the proletariat would therefore not rise.
>>2564043>It’s not possible to pull off 100% employment you dolt. Have you considered that getting a job is influenced significantly by where you live?Astaghfirullah, La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah, Marx said abolish the distinction between town and country. we shall empty the cities like pol pot and empty the commons like cromwell and fill the suburbs so that everyone lives in a medium density suburb and therefore nobody has to move anywhere for employment because everything is the same.
source: i saw it in a dream
>>2564078So youre admitting you’re a moron with no useful ideas?
>>2563997UBI is fine. Like any other Keynesian measure it will aid in proletarianizing the petty-bourgeoisie and eventually sharpen the contradictions between workers and capitalists.
The unemployment stuff misunderstands where the problem comes from. Low employment is more of an issue of finance capital, money hoards and merchant capital. Industrial capital actually prefers a high employment rate because then they can put more people to work doing stuff and keep their factories running and productive. The trouble is that the nature of the system forces overproduction. So factories end up pushing out product which is destroyed and wasted. It is speculation on wasted labor-power which leads to over-employment in one area and under-employment in another. But the inability to quickly reallocate labor-power from wasted work to useful work ultimately boils down to overheads of merchant capital: shipping, storage, logistics, communications, commuting to and from work, etc… So unemployment really results from overheads of commercial profit. No roads, no trains, no jobs.
Not that 100% employment would necessarily be fun. Forced labor at shit wages is bad.
>>2564082someone's cranky
i hope you ate breakfast and got enough sleep youngster
>>2564090>UBI is fine. Like any other Keynesian measure it will aid in proletarianizing the petty-bourgeoisiebut are proletarians really proletarians still if they receive UBI? Doesn't UBI potentially constitute "reserves" (savings) above their subsistence-wages … which the proletariat is not supposed to have, since they are reserveless, propertyless, surplus-value-producing subsistence-wage workers? Wouldn't UBI make proles and petty bourgeoisie into
labor aristocrats instead of proletarians?
>>2564090>Not that 100% employment would necessarily be fun. Forced labor at shit wages is bad.but the benefit of 100% employment is that if you try to organize a union or go on strike they can't just fire you and replace you with scabs. The reserve army of labor functions partly to bring in scabs when people try to organize.
>>2564090UBI is a milton friedman invention tho. It was called "negative income tax" in its first instance.
>>2564394this isn't true in any sense of the term. Friedman
popularized the notion of negative income tax, but it was actually invented in the UK by Juliet Rhys-Williams while working on the Beveridge Report (e.g. the report that precipitated the creation of Britain's postwar welfare state)
meanwhile the notion of UBI is much older. See
https://archive.org/details/schemeforstatebo00miln/ from 1918, C.H. Douglas' social credit proposed something between UBI and a Citizens' Dividend (itself going back to 1797's
Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine) for example.
The NIT/UBI distinction matters politically even if economically it's a bit of a card trick: with NIT, the state only gives you money if you earn below a certain amount, otherwise it only takes money. with UBI, the state gives you money no matter what. the nominal costs of UBI are therefore much higher and imply higher taxes. with NIT, a millionaire just pays tax. with UBI, a millionaire gets a big cheque and an even bigger tax bill… it's not difficult to see why Friedman liked NIT and didn't care much for UBI. Indeed, it's not difficult to see why
most economists like an NIT but not a UBI.
even then the idea doesn't become bad just because Milton Friedman supported it with reservations. Milton Friedman would also oppose cutting off everyone's right arm, paving the streets with dead dogs, or doubling the national budget and using the new expenditure to build solid gold statues of Milton Friedman, that doesn't make those
good policies. It takes a certain madness to go "Milton Friedman liked this idea because a complicated mess of means-tested programs filled with gaps, waste, and perverse incentives ran contrary to his philosophy of limited government intervention, therefore socialists, of a different philosophy, must approve a complicated mess of means-tested programs and maximal government intervention in people's private lives…"
>>2564166>I would have preferred to live in a dystopia similar to the universe of Project Mooni am not familiar with this
>>2563801Dude, you announce you changing jobs two weeks in advance. Solution's really simple
>>2564849>I suffer when I work therefore I am proletarianThe biggest tell is "service workers" apologia; even as unproductive labor breaks the back of American economy, you still gospel about your "post-industrial society" nonsense. FLASH NEWS, post-industrial society NEVER existed, Westoid retards had only managed to leech off the rest of the world by usurping certain high value job sectors (+ service for them), and when the rest of the world caught up (including in service because internet lets you hire Indians instead of Americans), were forced into an unsolveable crisis
It's not fucking fee-fees, it's a scientific definition. USA has two trillions in budget deficits precisely because producer-to-consumer ratio is horrible and unsustainable - and Marx separates productive and unproductive labor, beucase it's FUCKING IMPORTANT
To call bad things happening a crisis is an ultimate vulgarization of Scientific Socialist Thought. That is not what crisis means except but to radlibs. I see lots of imperialists and comprador american-lovers who say, "americans live under crisis." Because their moribund global imperialist system isnt perfect because their healthcare isn't free. Crisis is not when healthcare is expensive. Crisis is not when pandemic. Capitalist economic crises are crises of overproduction. Capitalism is but protracted crisis of varying degree. Capitalist crises are crises of overproduction. Crisis in the era of imperialism is when so much food flows into imperialist bellies that they all become obese. Acute capitalist crisis is, according to Scientific Socialist Thought, when commodity takes longer to be stomached by amerikan than to produce. This culminates into an immperialist mentality where imperialism is to be protracted witb UBI and defended where the livelihood of imperialists is above all
>>2564926>Crisis is not when healthcare is expensive. Crisis is not when pandemic. Capitalist economic crises are crises of overproduction. Capitalist crisis destroys level of life, it's not JUST crisis of overproduction. In case of USA, crisis manifests as US goods and services as not being market competitive, i.e. American population was deemed excessive by the Hand of the Free Market
>>2564877>greentext nobody saidtwo can play at that game:
>angry screed that blames service workers because porky outsourced the commodity production jobs>these fricking nurses wiping old people's asses in nursing homes are LEECHES because they aren't doing the real commodity production of assembling child killing missiles in a factory >>2564947When your economy is nurses, nurses, and barely anything else than nurses, you do not have a functional economy. You have to choose - either you employ people properly in the productive sector, or you see boomers concetrate wealth in their hands, while nurses wipe their asses, because new generations don't actually produce anything of worth, therefore being unable to move up the social ladder in life
>>2564129This is why the Nazis brought out the clubs and guns when it came to labor strikes.
>>2564106>>2564120>>2564394>>2564926I mean I'm okay with UBI but TBH I would prefer the government just raise taxes on the working class and subsidize institutional landlords directly.
>>2564877You misunderstand the relationship between merchant capital and finance capital. The problem is that the periphery has too much merchant capital, not the imperial core. The periphery has far too much overhead in commercial profit because it doesn't have enough infrastructure such as roads and trains. Consequently, the imperial core is the one handing out loans to the periphery. The appearance of a service economy in the imperial core is just due to the freeing up of unproductive labor for other tasks due to the improvements in shipping, logistics, communications and so on. Workers always needed to move goods and services from one place to another. It just never got concentrated into one capital until today with Amazon and the other big tech commerce and communications platforms.
>>2565174You want to keep the imperial core a labor aristocracy instead of seeing the core proletarianized. Class mobility is not a communist goal.
>>2565182Dude, the West has lost expertise in many, many different productive spheres, instead relying on Chinese imports - which results in 2 trillions in goddamn deficits per year in USA alone.
>>2565183Nurses, and service economy in general, is dependent on average wage and product output in a country. If you have a whole lot of dollar millionaires who want to live rich, service industry is going to be booming. And if service industry is the only fucking place that's good, why would you become an engineer?
What fucking labor aristocracy? You don't even need unions because your jobs are precarious bullshit that can be safely closed with no loss to society or even yourself
>>2564933>Capitalist crisis destroys level of life, it's not JUST crisis of overproduction.To separate "crisis" with "destruction of life" is asinine. You defy Karl Marx Thought. Karl Marx said all capitalist crises are overproduction. Crisis is when imperialists steal too much, not too little.
>In case of USA, crisis manifests as US goods and services as not being market competitive, i.e. American population was deemed excessive by the Hand of the Free MarketMaterial laws of competition and value operate to full effect in monopolist capitalism. When vulgar imperialists say that they suffer from high prices, they only demand more plunder.
>>2565182Imperialists taxing themselves is given but UBI is an imperialist tax on all workers and peasants.
>Porky has always opposed 100% unemployment.
I'm guessing you made a mistake there, but no they haven't been, porkies sometimes liked Keynes and were trying to reach for full national employement after WW2 at least in the west, through government programs and such.
I was always taught that's it's impossible. That some people who can work don't work. They are in between jobs. They got hired for a job but they haven't started yet.
>>2565174my point is that calling service sector workers "leeches" when it's the capitalists who outsourced the commodity production jobs is reactionary. the capitalists are the leeches
>>2565599Capitalists don't consume as much actual real world product as the collective weight of unproductive workers. Oh no, rich are CONSOOOOOOOMING over-evaluated luxury goods! Oh no, they travel to Epstein islands, unlike ordinary workers who relax in a pub! Soooo much society's product is consumed by the bourgeoisie!
You exhibit a very severe case of commodity fetishism - you actually think that luxuries and such are objectively valued at their price. If you properly evaluate society's needs, unproductive workers are, collectively, larger leeches on the common prosperity; pensioneers are also leeches, btw, because pensions are essentially a pyramid scheme. So fucking what, why are you hung up on the "leech" part? Unproductive sector worker is too mouthful. Capitalists are propagating unproductive labor because it's more profitable to leech off there - just like luxury goods allow for huge valuations and whatever prices you want even with high-er wages, service sector jobs don't require as much upfront capital, or capital at all, and it's just mathematically more profitable on average than creating industrial jobs.
Like, how are YOU going to save USA from 2 trillions in budget deficits? What's your solution? Do you really think that this bloated unproductive sector is sustainable? What, are you going to prop it up, somehow? Are you going to leech resources off the third world and USA's own productive sector workers to maintain the comfort of your Amazon deliveries? Because you literally cannot use unproductive sectors' workers labor to maintain service sector, it's impossible, you have to maintain it with REAL FUCKING PRODUCT.
So, like, what are you going to do? Oh, you seized capitalist property, nationalized it, stopped paying the rent, etc etc. How much money would these measures save for your balance sheet?
>>2565733Le productice forces are developed to le obscene levels tho. They wont le create le new productive jobs. They wont hasten le crisis of le overproduction, or something. Besides all those service jobs are there to le make le capitalism work le smoothly, or something.
>>2565733I am going to destroy productice forces and le surplus population and rebuild again. Then send all these leeches to factories to make commodities.
>>2565733>service jobs are le profitableSo, how a warehouse worker making a profit for a capitalist, for example?
>>2565599>>2565733>just like luxury goods allow for huge valuations and whatever prices you want even with high-er wages, service sector jobs don't require as much upfront capital, or capital at all, and it's just mathematically more profitable on average than creating industrial jobs. Like, have you heard about the Dutch Disease? Wiki retardedly claims that other sectors suffer due to currency appreciation, but in reality it's because investments flow to one specific industry while letting other industries starve. Service sector in the USA is the main driver behind America's Dutch Disease. Like, right now it's AI, to the point that ALL companies HAVE TO claim to be part of the AI bubble to receive investments, but overall, when you ignore bubbles, service sector was always valued above everything else.
I won't bother looking for that graph when Chinese industrial sector got boosted by investments that previously went into real estate development, after the real estate got no bailout and was "destroyed". Real estate, if you don't know, is on the expenditures side of the balance sheet, and construction workers are unproductive workers, lololol
>>2565738Are they obscene, though? I don't see hoverboards, androids sweeping the streets, and no second layer of VR reality under my fingertips
>>2565744They are. There are goods piling up in warehouses.
>productivity means creating surplus value
>>2565743Logistics are expenditures. That's why China developing roads and optimizing routes decreases prices so good - producers can put a much lower price tag than otherwise would be mathematically possible
>>2565746Wut. Profits are unpaid wages, to simplify. Productive vs unproductive work is a matter of economic balance sheet of society. Admittedly, productive vs unproductive is a very bad naming sense, Marx had a huge problem with this, say, "socially necessary labor time" is a right disaster
>>2564012society is already a giant company store
>>2565748Productivity means creating value
>>2565749Oh, and USA prefers instead of developing roads to subsidize the producers by throwing money at them. So, like, you get the actual real world example of Rightoid scare about communist goods being unprofitable and net drain on the economy even if they are cheap and/or better quality.
>>2564933Ubi raises unemployment and decreases wages and would not exist in Communism because everyone generally is employed so they can life on wages therefore UBI is anti-Communist tax on proletarians and imperialist
>>2565746So, imperialism?
>>2565753????????
How's that going to improve productivity? What, are you going to destroy a country creditability just to keep all those leeches fed?
Thing is, saving US' balance sheet would require DESTROYING WEALTH. As in, it would require breaking apart all those chains of budget spending, first and foremost the military, obviously, and thne subsidies of all shapes and forms towards all the economy, with the purpose of rerouting funds to go somewhere productive. This would erase vast quantities of wealth, because DUH, your economy is so heavily subsidized it cannot stay solvent even with ever increasing subsidies, it's in a runaway effect already.
And fucking pray to whatever deity you want that USA won't go through USSR's level of dissolution. People like to claim that USSR's industry was strong - and indeed it was - but the planning got so bad over time that eventually it started economically be more viable to buy grain in goddamn Argentina or South Africa and ship it amazing distances rather than giving money to collective (they were essentially state owned by that point) farms. Expenditures - and Soviet state INSISTED on increasing expenditures! - piled up so fast and wild, for example, collective farms in 1980s were tasked with providing their workers with new housing, which was basically the last straw that broke camel's back; this housing was finished by workers' own hands up until 2000s because collective farms ran out of money, from taxes, from low prices (which they couldn't raise because nobody would buy that food if it costed more, because it was already cheaper to import it than to produce at home), from bad management of milk production (they were industry-wide cheaping out on machines and working by hand, as well as cheaping out on fucking cleaning the sheds), yadda yadda. And the thing is, collective farms were LESS SUBSIDIZED OVERALL than American farms at the time and even today; subsidies, whatever the case, should be returning more product back than what was invested; in USSR, investments produced negative return. USA is like that in many cases as well, return is negative if subsidies are not increased.
Like, practically speaking, do you really need more real estate, or do you merely need to redistribute existing houses to cover people's needs? Like, if you stopped all real estate development overnight, how much money could you save up for more productive needs? And then, when you solve the issue, you can get back to building new housing. You get my idea?
>>2565733>Capitalists don't consume as much actual real world product as the collective weight of unproductive workers.Ok but they are still the ones responsible for outsourcing all the productive labor, this is the fact you keep dodging.
When you say workers in the imperial core are leeches for not producing surplus value, I call your bluff, and remind you that the capitalists are responsible for the "collective weight of unproductive workers" since they are the ones deciding where the jobs go. They are not job creators, as they like to call themselves, but job gatekeepers. They outsource jobs to wherever the wages are lowest, usually the oppressed nations under imperialism. Yet instead of blaming the people doing the outsourcing, you blame the people who had their jobs outsourced, and you misuse Marx to justify this. It's bait, and everyone can see that. You are pitting worker against worker instead of worker against capitalist.
Marx said:
<Thus we find that certain exponents of the mercantile system (which is based on the formula M — C … P … C' — M') deliver lengthy sermons to the effect that the individual capitalist should consume only as much as the labourer,that the nation of capitalists should leave the consumption of their own commodities, and the consumption process in general, to the other, less intelligent nations but that they themselves should make productive consumption their life’s task. These sermons frequently remind one inform and content of analogous ascetic expostulations of the fathers of the churchYou are simply rehashing these "sermons" but from the inverted standpoint
>>2565733i'm so frustrated that all the other replies to you didn't even call you out for dodging the point:
>calling service sector workers "leeches" when it's the capitalists who outsourced the commodity production jobs is reactionary. the capitalists are the leechespeople really will just ignore the context of the conversation and let scum like you goalpost shift and level random accusations. they fall for rhetorical sleight of hand so easily.
>>2565778He is just a theorycel autist
>>2565783I'm fine with theorycel autism when it
isn't being misused to pit worker against worker
>>2565775>Ok but they are still the ones responsible for outsourcing all the productive labor, this is the fact you keep dodging.They are not lmao. You are accusing capitalists of acting capitalistically. China, for example, took upon itself to build factories, acquire technologies, create logistics, and Westoid competition has merely compared the prices and decided in favor of abandoning all hope in the US and start buying from China. That's blatantly more profitable! There was no choice involved, they just chose what benefitted them the most.
>capitalists are responsible for the "collective weight of unproductive workers" since they are the ones deciding where the jobs go.Sure, I agree. Capitalism and capitalists are bad planners, because of anarchy of the market
>>2565778Where was I dodging it? The post you are responding to explains my position very well - they are leeches in economic sense, and they are COLLECTIVELY more of a leech than collective capitalist class; per capita it's obviously a capitalist who is more of a leech (i didn't say that in my post, and didn't intend to, because DUH it's obvious)
Meanwhile, you folks didn't give me one example of how you are going to solve USA's 2 trillion dollars in budget deficits problems - the best you did was propose debt repudiation, lmao
>>2565785>to pit worker against workerBuddy, you will have to choose one worker over another in the very act of economic planning. The very act of redistributing wealth is "pitting workers against workers". Common benefit is that productive sector workers MUST BE valued above unproductive sector ones, they should receive better wages, they should get their kids into prestigious schools, and their craft must be propagandized as above delivery workers, nurses, yadda yadda - only like THIS you can make it so people would choose productive labor over jobs that make them poorer over time or get-rich-quick schemes or ticket scalping or selling fentanyl on the streets. It's this fucking simple and obvious
>>2565792
>Meanwhile, you folks didn't give me one example of how you are going to solve USA's 2 trillion dollars in budget deficits problems - the best you did was propose debt repudiation, lmao
> only like THIS you can make it so people would choose productive labor over jobs that make them poorer over time or get-rich-quick schemes or ticket scalping or selling fentanyl on the streets. It's this fucking simple and obviousyou goalpost shift from calling nurses leeches because they don't work in factories to pretending you were only talking about drug dealers and ticket scalpers, and you think it's my personal job somehow to solve burgerland's crisis that its capitalist class created even though you already admitted that crisis was systemic and beyond their control. If it's beyond their control, when they have much more power and much more influence, then how is it under my control? You're being trollish and everyone can see you in real time trying to reframe your previous absurd conclusions to make them sound more reasonable
porky outsourced the jobs
the jobs won't come back until US currency hegemony dies
capitalism creates a reserve army of labor, and you should view that as systemic, rather than blaming the workers
it's that simple
>>2565797>the jobs won't come back until US currency hegemony diesThis is nonsense. When American currency hegemony dies, USA becomes Brazil
>>2565799it's not nonsense. what does trump want to do? reindustrialize! but what is his other goal? keep the dollar strong. the two goals are impossible together. you can't bring the jobs back, because burgers work for higher wages. People say this makes burgers spoiled, but they also pay higher prices. US currency is hegemonic because it is the world reserve currency. Burgers CAPITALISTS pay lower prices for importing commodities, but then they resell it at higher prices to american workers. The american worker's wage will buy more outside of america, but doesn't buy much inside america. if you tried to bring back industry to america, you would have to lower wages to be competitive with 2nd and 3rd world countries, which would lead to class struggle and riots. the burger porky doesn't want that. The other option is to make the burger currency weaker. world reserve currency status depends on burger reich racking up trade deficit, printing money, inflating currency over time, and importing more commodities than it exports. currency hegemony would end if you brought back jobs, but currency hegemony will also end anyway because inflation will eventually cause burger population average wage to go below subsistence, which will cause class struggle and riots. class struggle and riots is in burger future either way. only way out is for burgers to start big war, but big war requires draft, and bringing back burger draft will result in class struggle and riots. class struggle and riots is burger reich future no matter what option burger ruling class takes. reindustrialization will be good for burger reich but will kill US currency hegemony and cheap imports, which is bad for burger porky. burger porky outsourced to china, but now china is more developed than burger in many regards, and is even catching up in GDP PPP which porky fetishizes the most as an important metric.
>>2565768You seemingly dont understand how national debt works. AmeriKKKan national debt is owed to capitalist parasites you cry about, mostly amerikkkan ones. Repudiating national debt would mean expropriating their bonds.
>>2565807I don't think this solves the underlying issue but okay, do it
>>2565806>you can't bring the jobs back, because burgers work for higher wages.>you would have to lower wages to be competitive with 2nd and 3rd world countries, You can bring jobs back if you automate enough. Higher end American stuff is still good, but the amount of parasites make it worse and worse for them.
Burger currency abroad =/= burger currency at home. Two systems are essentially insulated from each other. Comparing dollar wages is fucking stupid, like, a couple of years back Japan had yen devalued, "wiping out" what, 40% of their GDP and wages? What, do you think they've had holodomor happen to them? Nah, nothing of the like happened.
Burger currency abroad is popular because foreign exporters prefer USD denominated bonds because of inflation differences. Japanese Yen was popular for a while because it had great inflation compared to other currencies. This is one of the reasons why Westoid economists jerk off to inflation so much, and laugh at Russia and the like for having high inflation - economists are stupid enough to think that the whole world works just like US inner market, lol
>US currency is hegemonic because it is the world reserve currency.You have it backwards. USA no longer hegemonic means that reserve currency is shifting. Trump and the like try to rein in inflation because they have no fucking idea how to solve their issues, they can only patch the leaking cauldron here and there, nothing else
>what does trump want to do? reindustrialize! but what is his other goal? keep the dollar strong.Trump's first instinct was to use his position to create a money flow for himself that doesn't get governed by the senate - tariffs. It's the only thing he can do that doesn't have power struggle problems and also can be redistributed towards other US goals. It's not going to help reindustrialize because USA will invest this money into negative returns stuff (ala USSR) instead of directly building infrastructure (like China does).
>world reserve currency status depends on burger reich racking up trade deficit, printing money, inflating currency over time, and importing more commodities than it exports.Not really? USA was exporting a lot of goods back in the day, USD was popular for this reason; if you will buy from the USA anyway, why do you need currencies other than USD? Gold was good for multipolar world of the past because all currencies were based on gold. Then USD because a good currency for speculation against other countries, especially exporting ones, like entirety of South America with their crazy inflation figures, because it benefitted local exporters to have local currencies inflate faster than USD because keeping USD becomes a "passive source of income". Kind of like holding bitcoin - you just know that it will appreciate over time, regardless of anything.
Cheap imports is mostly Chinese fault, or rather, the fault of USA letting other countries to trade on their home turf without much tariffs. It worked before because USA was strong and could outproduce whatever foreigner at will, but eventually, Japan broke the system, and USA got mad and panicky and all that. Then they forgot it happened, China offered immense profits, and USA are mad again - except this time around they don't have anything to retaliate with.
>>2565819>You can bring jobs back if you automate enough. Wrong. Automation eliminates jobs. Read marx
>Burger currency abroad =/= burger currency at home. Two systems are essentially insulated from each other.Wrong. AmeriKKKans have no dual circulation because all wealth they consume is stolen from third world.
The number one thing that makes many marxists seem like pseuds with no credibility is trying to handwave away the world we live in.
Why aren't you doing anything to organize? Well, our economy is mostly services, and service workers aren't real proletarians. Capitalists outsourced all the REAL jobs, so now I'm going to outsource responsibility for the revolution.
Give me the naive people who want to form a communist ""union"" of pornographic commission artists any day.
>>2565755UBI raises demand and increases employment. UBI does drop wages but this is a good thing you labor aristocrat piece of shit. I want to proletarianize the imperial core.
>>2563763What actually was wrong with "100% employment" i.e. Keynesian economics is that it only subsisted through *massive* deficit spending that the world is still reeling from. It led to what became known as "stagflation" which is what allowed Thatcherism/neoliberalism to take hold, rather than it just being the fault of a "few evil people" like the DSA believes.
To make the sale for neoliberalism, they emphasized the greatness of "choice." "You're not losing your healthcare, you get to CHOOSE your healthcare!!!" This is just the propaganda, as the actual economic reasoning for it is what I noted above.
We can't just go back to Keynesian theory. It doesn't work. That's the basis of why socialism is necessary.
>>2566109You're aren't a communists, not even a leftist. You're regurgitating Koch brothers nonsense propaganda
>>2566403This simply isn't true. Debt to GDP ratios plunged during the Keynesian period and began trending upwards again afterwards. Budget surpluses were more common in that era than afterwards (but even when deficits were run, debt as a share of GDP fell due to high growth). Class dynamics (and some less-existential economic policy blunders) were by far the bigger factors.
Moreover one not need use Keynesian methods to maintain full employment. The USSR, for all its flaws, was not Keynesian.
>>2565829I'm assuming infinite markets, like during the marshall plan. American industries were more modern and automated than European ones, and despite all the automation, jobs soared
I wish it was easy to get employed, wage slavery is bad but death from homelessness is worst
>>2566706If you lived in China, you would be encouraged to start your own business
>>2563997A UBI sum is much less for the individual than a lot of welfare programs, and once established you can do harsh cuts to welfare, including the programs that aren't just cash withdrawals. I think that's it for libertarians
>>2565733why are there so many lying libertarians on this site. You are not a marxist
>>2566109You are totally wrong. Damn you and your Keynesian nonsense. Ubi decreases imperialist employment by subsidizing imperialist idleness, thereby increasing aggregate reserve army of labor by increasing demand for third world plunder, intensifying exploitation of third world and embolden labor aristocrat.
The greater the imperialist welfare, the functioning plunder, the extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the absolute mass of the parasitic population in the imperial core and the productiveness of third world labour, the greater is the consolidated surplus population that is generally the entirety of the imperial core. The relative mass of the imperial surplus population increases therefore with the potential energy of imperialist welfare. But the greater this parasitic reserve in proportion to the active labour army of the third world, the greater is the mass of a consolidated parasitic population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the imperialist population, the industrial reserve army of the world, the greater is official pauperism of the workers and peasants. This is the absolute general law of imperialist welfare. Like all other laws it is modified in its working by many circumstances, the analysis of which does not concern us here.
>>2566831What am I lying about
and where am i libertarian? If you are so goddamn smart, do explain how to solve 2 trillions in deficits
>>2565819>Not really? USA was exporting a lot of goods back in the daythat doesn't refute the point
<world reserve currency status depends on burger reich racking up trade deficit, printing money, inflating currency over time, and importing more commodities than it exports. empires start out protectionist and export driven, but once they have world reserve currency status, to keep it they need to be import driven. it's a poison pill for that reason.
>>2568369You can solve deficits by controlling capital inflows. But doing so would severely affect the USD status as reserve currency, and it would also affect big banks' profits. Which is why the ruling class is using the extremely retarded method of tarrifs instead.
>>2568375>but once they have world reserve currency status, to keep it they need to be import driven.>>2568379>You can solve deficits by controlling capital inflows. But doing so would severely affect the USD status as reserve currencyYou people have had your brain rotten by reserve currency meme. The reason for USA decline is not reserve currency, it is a relative decline of US industrial base compared to China's
>>2568380I'm answering how to solve the trade deficit, not how to solve US industrial decline. That problem is much harder, and it has to do with declining profits, which is the entire reason why industry has been outsourced since the 70s, and which the ruling class now hopes to counter with AI. The reserve currency status is absolutely a factor as well, it keeps the dollar value high and makes exporting harder.
>>2568384Dude, IIRC Marx himself wrote that American farmers, despite getting paid more than their European counterparts, remain more competitive and have better profits. Or maybe Engels. And USD was priced high back then as well! And exports were great regardless of USD value
Thing is, high dollar value didn't prevent USA from being 50% of world's trade in 1950s (or when was it). Economists framing it all through currency lens are retards, plain and simple, they are the school of economics that drove US into the ground
more like they were explaining modern capitalist currents as logical and not-problematic i.e. serviced the capitalist class by giving justification for their actions, and yet for some reason you listen to their school of thought. The humbling of Japan and Europe by devaluing dollar is like the pinnacle of economic science to them
>>2568380There are two forces at play here. The reserve currency status allows the US to have huge economic power and influence. It also reduces the cost of borrowing. The US does not want to lose this status.
At the same time, the reserve currency makes it harder for US industry to thrive, on top of the declining profit rates due to TRPF.
So the US wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to control its capital account, while also simultaneously maintain its reserve currency status, through outright violent coercion, or insane financial instruments like 100-year bonds.
The US will likely fail at both and they are aware of it. Which is why the actual solution they are aiming for is WW3, to both solve overproduction, and subjugate their competitors.
>>2568390There are many other explanations for those things. The US could be having more agricultural land per worker, better farming techniques, practiced extensive mechanised agriculture etc. And about 1950s, the US was the winner of WW2 and had a mostly intact industry, compared to Europe that had a destroyed industry AND lost its colonies.
>>2568393>The US could be having more agricultural land per worker, better farming techniques, practiced extensive mechanised agriculture etc.DUH. How else could it work? Again, dollar wages don't matter as much as you think. If a country has developed industries (relatvely speaking), however high or low their currency is, they will still have profitable exports.
USA doesn't have this kind of industry anymore, and China is eating it's cake in every field. Reserve currency status, again, doesn't matter as much as you think it does.
>>2568391>The reserve currency status allows the US to have huge economic power and influence. It also reduces the cost of borrowing.Does it tho?
Back in the day, Russian Empire was obsessed with gold-backed ruble, to the point of borrowing foreign gold to maintain ruble price. Today, Millei uses Trump's bailout funds to keep peso afloat. IIRC Britain under Thatcher was devaluing their currency because this kind of value-saving nonsense brough British industries to their knees, and a capitalist government couldn't find another way out.
>>2566859The imperial core is over-employed. Increasing unemployment just brings the core closer to the periphery. This nonsense blames the exact opposite of the bomb-building labor aristocrats who are the real problem.
>>2568396It's not an either/or thing. An undervalued currency helps with exports, this is an undeniable fact.
>>2568380>You people have had your brain rotten by reserve currency meme. The reason for USA decline is not reserve currency, Refuting a statement that was never made
<it is a relative decline of US industrial base compared to China'sUS industrial base declined because they outsourced everything for cheap labor. The currency hegemony situation is indicative of this. You are not wrong but you are also pretending like the other anon is saying something mutually exclusive.
>>2565829why do you ALWAYS piggyback on my conversations. it doesn't matter what thread I'm in. you show up to do "Wrong. you deny blah blah blah line" speech. fuck off dude. you ruin every nuanced conversation i have on here. you are stalking me. you are a fed.
>>2568474>"undervalued" currencyno such thing. It's not either-either. Some things are cheaper on one market and pricier on another - difference averages in currency exchanges
>>2568477>US industrial base declined because they outsourced everything for cheap labor. They didn't, they got outcompeted by native producers of numerous nations who did the same job cheaper, most notable example of such a nation being China. At the time, Americans already had separated corporation HQs from producers, so the ones being outcompeted were producers and not corporations; instead, corporations had replaced one supplier with another, residing overseas.
With the exception of China, I don't know any other country that had received any kind of technology from those corporations, nobody except for China bought factories in USA and Europe and transported them overseas.
>>2568483Undervalued currency means a currency that isn't allowed to be traded freely on the market, and upon which a downward pressure is exerted by the govt that issues the currency.
>>2568491No infinite value engines exist in economics, just like no perpetual engines exist in physics. "Undervaluing currency" means there is a way to artificially change value of goods - meaning such a perpetual engine. And we know for a fact that's bullshit, Marx went over examples of such machines in the first chapter of Kapital
>>2568676>"Undervaluing currency" means there is a way to artificially change value of goods - meaning such a perpetual engineI'm not sure I follow.
>>2568483>They didn't, they got outcompeted by native producers of numerous nations who did the same job cheaper, most notable example of such a nation being China.once again, you're acting like that's a mutually exclusive explanation. America outsourced BECAUSE they got outcompeted, and America's reserve currency strategy dictated letting this problem get worse because they followed an import based strategy rather than an export based strategy. Past declining empires like the British and Dutch made similar mistakes. The reserve currency thing isn't a meme. These problems all feed into each other. Imperial core capitalists also become seekers of interest and rent, rather than profit, through the process of financialization, which is another reason the industrial base in the imperial core declines. You win power by being more productive, but then once you're at the top you refuse to stay productive, and instead rest on your imperialist laurels, seeking rent and interest, outsourcing production, letting up-and-coming nations outcompete you, and letting money printer go Brrrr because you think you can coup and sanction everyone to death forever.
Unique IPs: 36