Relationship of Marxism to Progressive Policies and the Virtues or Risks Thereof

[theprestige]

Since this is a thread with some nominal link to Marxism: The "theoretical" end point of the ideology of capitalism is for one person to own everything. Now economists will say that wouldn't happen but that's by adding additional ideas into the ideology yet in the real world what we see is that monopolies will arise unless there are laws that prevent that.

I would say that Marx's description of capitalism (as it was conceived back then) and his critique of it is supported by the evidence. Which shouldn't be surprising if you look at recorded history, what we see is that unless force is used one person does effectively end up owning everything.

(Note: This is not saying that Marx's ideology would work or that I agree with it - I don't.)

To be fair, Marx's description of socialism also results in monopoly ownership.

And last time I checked, Marx's description of capitalism doesn't predict that one person ends up owning everything. It predicts that society will reach a breaking point, after which the worker of the world will unite and take ownership of all the capital, and capitalism will vanish forever. What happened instead was that the Brits invented labor unions, which turned out to be a huge improvement, and the Russians tried to force communism instead of waiting for it to happen organically like Marx predicted, which turned out to be a disastrous horror.

 

[lobosrul5]

All shares are equal. That's how shares work. Someone who owns more shares can have more influence, certainly. I don't think you understand how shares work.

Thats not entirely true.

Understanding Share Classes: Types, Rights, and Key Features Explained

Discover the different types of share classes, their specific rights, features, and impacts on investments. Learn how Class A, B, and other share types affect voting and costs.

www.investopedia.com

To be clear these are different classes of common stock for the same company with different voting rights, not common (ownership) versus preferred shares (a hybrid between ownership and debt).

Facebook (Meta) and Google (Alphabet) are two tech giants that are kinda famous for doing that. Tesla did not, but Musk wants to.

Loading…

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

As far as I can tell, it's just that elevator maintenance is complex and expensive, and there just isn't enough room in the market for additional competitors.

Kind of like how there's only one company in the whole world that makes extreme ultraviolet photolithography machines, despite the huge demand for such.

I think you've made your case that analogies suck, without trying to reinforce it with egregiously stupid ones.

 

[theprestige]

I think you've made your case that analogies suck, without trying to reinforce it with egregiously stupid ones.

Well that escalated quickly. Or should I say, elevated quickly. But I wasn't trying to argue from analogy here. I was trying to give an example of a similar market shortfall, that might be more familiar to people.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Well that escalated quickly. Or should I say, elevated quickly. But I wasn't trying to argue from analogy here. I was trying to give an example of a similar market shortfall, that might be more familiar to people.

Well, I don't particularly want to escalate things, but it's a novel take that more people will be familiar with bleeding edge semiconductor manufacturing technology than lifts. (or elevators, if you prefer)

 

[theprestige]

Well, I don't particularly want to escalate things, but it's a novel take that more people will be familiar with bleeding edge semiconductor manufacturing technology than lifts. (or elevators, if you prefer)

It's just that the limited number of companies (1) making EUV machines, and how they're not selling any to China right now, has been in my newsfeed lately. Everybody's familiar with lifts, of course. But until I bought a condo in a building with two of them, I never knew that there aren't enough elevator maintenance companies to meet demand. We actually tried to switch companies, because we were so pissed off at the way TKE was treating us. Turns out TKE knew better than we did what side our bread was buttered on. So we stuck with them, but wrote a much more equitable contract at contract-renewal time. Even so, our elevator upgrade project is taking *forever*, and has actually been delayed more than once so the could do work for other clients.

 

[dirtywick]

i think you’d be surprised how many single companies have a large market share of a product. the company i work for makes all the private label for two particular paper products for all major retailers except for costco. that gives us something like 85% market share. and we’re pretty likely to land costco

and this is much more common than you think it is

 

[steenkh]

And last time I checked, Marx's description of capitalism doesn't predict that one person ends up owning everything. It predicts that society will reach a breaking point, after which the worker of the world will unite and take ownership of all the capital, and capitalism will vanish forever.

You are partly wrong. Marx's economic theories in Das Kapital predict that the strongest capital is going to win all if capitalism continues unchecked. Marx's revolutionary manifesto predict that capitalism will be overthrown by the workers.

 

[theprestige]

You are partly wrong. Marx's economic theories in Das Kapital predict that the strongest capital is going to win all if capitalism continues unchecked. Marx's revolutionary manifesto predict that capitalism will be overthrown by the workers.

Thanks for the correction. I'll keep this in mind.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Marx also showed that Say's Law is wrong by pointing out that capitalists do actually hoard money.

Not that this had any impact on the belief system of neoclassical economists which is founded on the principle of the market moving from one stable equilibrium to another stable equilibrium.

 

[lobosrul5]

Marx also showed that Say's Law is wrong by pointing out that capitalists do actually hoard money.

Not that this had any impact on the belief system of neoclassical economists which is founded on the principle of the market moving from one stable equilibrium to another stable equilibrium.

Money hoarding isn't really a thing anymore.... except the crypto and gold bugs (a relatively tiny % of global wealth is there). If you put money in the bank they are going to lend it out, multiple times actually, which stimulates the economy. Only if you are taking cash and putting it in a safe or hiding it, are you really hoarding money.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Money hoarding isn't really a thing anymore.... except the crypto and gold bugs (a relatively tiny % of global wealth is there). If you put money in the bank they are going to lend it out, multiple times actually, which stimulates the economy. Only if you are taking cash and putting it in a safe or hiding it, are you really hoarding money.

No, they are not.

What Marx pointed out was that capitalists sell to accumulate more capital, not to buy goods. This leads to cyclical economic crisis because production never does equal consumption. I.e., the equilibrium is unstable.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, they are not.

What Marx pointed out was that capitalists sell to accumulate more capital, not to buy goods. This leads to cyclical economic crisis because production never does equal consumption. I.e., the equilibrium is unstable.

Your link does not contradict what I said in my previous post. You deposit money in a commercial bank. They lend it out by creating a deposit in the borrowers account. They can then lend that money out. They are creating money supply which stimulates the economy. Just holding money in an account does something unlike hoarding cash. Since the FDIC was created in the USA, keeping money in a deposit account is just as safe as hoarding cash... theoretically safer actually since it cannot be destroyed. I assume the UK has similar.

 

[catsmate]

Nonsense. In capitalism competitors can enter the market and offer alternatives. That others haven't done so in Portland has nothing to do with capitalism. In socialism there's the state and the black market. That's it.

You really don't have a clue do you?

 

[Helen]

You really don't have a clue do you?

Perhaps he could buy one?

 

[catsmate]

Perhaps he could buy one?

 

[acbytesla]

Your link does not contradict what I said in my previous post. You deposit money in a commercial bank. They lend it out by creating a deposit in the borrowers account. They can then lend that money out. They are creating money supply which stimulates the economy. Just holding money in an account does something unlike hoarding cash. Since the FDIC was created in the USA, keeping money in a deposit account is just as safe as hoarding cash... theoretically safer actually since it cannot be destroyed. I assume the UK has similar.

You guys are right. They are not hoarding cash. But the turnover of cash is very slow. And banks are only loaning to qualified borrowers. Which do not enter the bank every day. This is a huge reason a top heavy division of income and wealth is not good.

 

[lobosrul5]

Nonsense. In capitalism competitors can enter the market and offer alternatives. That others haven't done so in Portland has nothing to do with capitalism. In socialism there's the state and the black market. That's it.

There are a number of reasons why competitors don't enter markets. It can be either too much or not enough regulation. Not enough?? Yeah, like say you want to enter the elevator market in a big city. But the sole huge elevator service co there will then just operate at a loss until you go out of business. You'd need deep pockets to move in and its likely you'd get a better roi by buying or investing in the current elevator Co.

 

[acbytesla]

There are a number of reasons why competitors don't enter markets. It can be either too much or not enough regulation. Not enough?? Yeah, like say you want to enter the elevator market in a big city. But the sole huge elevator service co there will then just operate at a loss until you go out of business. You'd need deep pockets to move in and its likely you'd get a better roi by buying or investing in the current elevator Co.

And dominant companies sometimes buyout competitors to maintain monopolies. I worked for such a company. We were bought out and I was fired. The customers were instantly limited.

 

[Trausti]

You really don't have a clue do you?

My mistake. The 20th Century has plenty of examples of socialist economies far outpacing the capitalist west. Indeed, East Germany had to build a wall to keep those unproductive capitalists out of their socialist paradise.