3 ms·

Isn't this one of the thesis of Marx's Capital? That there's a loop in the flow of commodities, money, and labor that generally results in capital extracting mo

Isn't this one of the thesis of Marx's Capital? That there's a loop in the flow of commodities, money, and labor that generally results in capital extracting more capital from the economy. (Typically from wage labor.) It seems to me that without someone applying the brakes to that loop and changing the way distribution or production is done, we're just going to keep riding this positive feedback loop.

koheripbal 7y ago
But that's an oversimplification. The system has its own brakes in the form of corporate bankruptcies and liquidations. The market landscapes are constantly changing and companies get destroyed regularly. ... and this returns that stored capital back into the liquidity system. There's little evidence of a persistent imbalance.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Is it? Or is it a useful abstraction? Fundamentally, capital is seeking to take money, temporarily convert it to commodities, and convert those commodities back into money + some additional value. (Compare this to a more traditional/historical market where you brought commodities, exchanged them for currency, which you turned into an equivalent value of different commodities.) That additional value has to come from somewhere. It could come from buying low and selling dear, from usury, or from buying wage labor at a price less than its value to you. > There's little evidence of a persistent imbalance. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1 percent increased its total net worth by $21 trillion. The bottom 50 percent saw its net worth decrease by $900 billion over the same period. In 2018 dollars. [1] [1] https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-...
nwah1 7y ago
Failure to distinguish land from capital is an enormous possible pitfall for those trying to fight poverty. Land titles, and all other types of access rights to natural opportunities, are means by which "rent-seeking" occurs. Rent=seeking is any type of of zero-sum extractive activity that adds nothing to the economy, and simply serves to make the rich richer. Examples include: holding a prime piece of real estate idle, while waiting for others to add value to that land. Or acquiring a patent just to sue anyone who unknowingly violates it. Or manipulating the rules to your favor through lobbying. Productive activity, however, must be rewarded since that is the engine of wealth. We can't have a high standard of living if production isn't rewarded. Solving inequality by making everyone poor is not going to get you very far. This distinction is essential.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  For sure. I'm a big advocate for removing the benefits of holding land in this way. Especially in cities, where the land could productively house people rather than be empty or have a surface lot on it. > Solving inequality by making everyone poor is not going to get you very far. For sure. I'd like to see more wealth equality, and I'd like to see it done by raising the amount of wealth of the working class.

koheripbal 7y ago

But that's an oversimplification. The system has its own brakes in the form of corporate bankruptcies and liquidations. The market landscapes are constantly changing and companies get destroyed regularly. ... and this returns that stored capital back into the liquidity system. There's little evidence of a persistent imbalance.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Is it? Or is it a useful abstraction? Fundamentally, capital is seeking to take money, temporarily convert it to commodities, and convert those commodities back into money + some additional value. (Compare this to a more traditional/historical market where you brought commodities, exchanged them for currency, which you turned into an equivalent value of different commodities.) That additional value has to come from somewhere. It could come from buying low and selling dear, from usury, or from buying wage labor at a price less than its value to you. > There's little evidence of a persistent imbalance. From 1989 to 2018 the top 1 percent increased its total net worth by $21 trillion. The bottom 50 percent saw its net worth decrease by $900 billion over the same period. In 2018 dollars. [1] [1] https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-...

nwah1 7y ago

Failure to distinguish land from capital is an enormous possible pitfall for those trying to fight poverty. Land titles, and all other types of access rights to natural opportunities, are means by which "rent-seeking" occurs. Rent=seeking is any type of of zero-sum extractive activity that adds nothing to the economy, and simply serves to make the rich richer. Examples include: holding a prime piece of real estate idle, while waiting for others to add value to that land. Or acquiring a patent just to sue anyone who unknowingly violates it. Or manipulating the rules to your favor through lobbying. Productive activity, however, must be rewarded since that is the engine of wealth. We can't have a high standard of living if production isn't rewarded. Solving inequality by making everyone poor is not going to get you very far. This distinction is essential.

Pfhreak 7y ago
For sure. I'm a big advocate for removing the benefits of holding land in this way. Especially in cities, where the land could productively house people rather than be empty or have a surface lot on it. > Solving inequality by making everyone poor is not going to get you very far. For sure. I'd like to see more wealth equality, and I'd like to see it done by raising the amount of wealth of the working class.