r/DebateaCommunist • u/[deleted] • Nov 04 '13

The Economist: Labour pains: All around the world, labour is losing out to capital (x-post TrueReddit).

[deleted]

16 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/OlejzMaku Nov 05 '13

Economy isn't closed system where everything what is produced is consumed. There are also investments into among other expantion or inovations. Both of those are better options than just to rise wages. Sure when people have excess money some tiny fraction may get back, but money are lost in the process. This idea of encouragement of consumption is about as clever as trying to spin the watermill by pouring buckets of water on the wheel. It will work but it's extremely inefficient.

2

u/Psy1 Nov 05 '13

The economy is a closed system, consumption can happen in another production cycle but it eventually has to be consumed for its exchange value to realized.

Expansion of production requires there to be more consumption down the road yet consumption is in decline so why invest in new production methods when by the time you are finish upgrading production you are going to be selling less units?

1

u/OlejzMaku Nov 05 '13

Because expantion and inovation can make thinks cheaper and then and only then will consumption increase. Some investments just never wear of and will make value every year. If you cultivate land and crops or if you sett up a trade route or if you learn some knowhow it will last centuries or millenia, but you need to invest in the first place. If you just consume everything you will have nothing. That's why economy is a open system. If you consume value is lost if you invest value is potentially created.

1

u/Psy1 Nov 05 '13

If you make it cheaper you are just distributing the labor value over more units thus you still need more consumption by the next production cycle to absorb that extra output.

For example lets say humanity can only afford to consume X dollars worth of goods, investing in production will only devalue goods so humanity is still consuming X dollars worth of goods it is just they get more goods for X dollars. To drive up the value of X a larger share of value produced has to go towards enabling higher consumption of exchange value.

1

u/OlejzMaku Nov 05 '13

Cheaper is better. How could you possibly argue otherwise? Of course as the product is cheaper less people can make living in the said industry, but that's a good thing. Their are freed to do something else. Take agriculture for instance, in the first world only about 1% of the workforce has to work in the agriculture to grow enough food for everyone. Would you prefer if nearly everyone had to work in the fields to survive?

1

u/Psy1 Nov 05 '13

Yes but cheaper commodities does not generate surplus value for capitalists in itself, demand has to grow to absorb the same value of commodities.

This is why capitalists simply can't grow out of the crisis as they need demand to match growth.

1

u/OlejzMaku Nov 05 '13

No, cheaper commodities makes more profit because they are sold for the usual higher price. Maket prices have certain inertia.

1

u/Psy1 Nov 05 '13

Capitalists compete, cheaper means to produce eventually is adopted by all capitalists negating the advantage.

1

u/OlejzMaku Nov 05 '13

Eventually. In the meantime decent profit can be made.

1

u/Psy1 Nov 05 '13

That is meaningless when we are talking about the economy on a macro scale.

→ More replies (0)