4 ms·
Here’s a recent quote from the Marxist rag The Economist: > One reason for the measure’s current strength is that the balance of power seems to have moved in f
by Privacy846 6y ago
Here’s a recent quote from the Marxist rag The Economist:
> One reason for the measure’s current strength is that the balance of power seems to have moved in favour of capital, and against labour, in recent decades. The decline of trade unions, and the addition of China to the global market, have weakened workers’ bargaining power; in the past 15 years, corporate profits have been regularly equivalent to more than 10% of American GDP, and at a much higher level than they were between 1960 and 2000.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/12/04/expensive-stocks-do-not-necessarily-mean-a-crash-is-close https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/12/04/expensiv...
But I’m still Graham’s Billionaires Build la-la land is still a reality, though.
- varjag 6y agoThis has nothing to do with labor theory of value.
- Privacy846 6y agoIt is, however, relevant to my claim—which you took such offense to—that it is virtually impossible to become a self-made billionaire. The Economist author seems to agree that capitalist class struggle will help the would-be billionaire, not just his ability (pace Graham) to Build.
- varjag 6y agoNo, I called you precisely on labor theory of value. It is nothing short of incredible you manage to read between the lines in a one-liner. It is obvious that you can't really have any social advancement without any supporting social dynamics. Also odds are overwhelmingly against any given individual becoming a billionaire from a commoner background… yet the examples are numerous, and particularly in tech. I'm not commenting about merits of Graham's observations as am not a venture capitalist. But the LTV bit you were on, that's some ancient bullshit. I lived in the tail end of USSR, could observe first hand how well it worked.