york | A recent exchange on capitalaspower.com, titled ‘Capitalizing Time’, suggests a possible confusion regarding our claims, so a clarification is in order. Over the years, we have argued that the relationship between sabotage and distribution tends to be nonlinear. Up to a point, sabotage redistributes income in favour of those who impose it; but after that point, sabotage becomes ‘excessive’ and the effect inverts. One illustration of this nonlinearity is given by the relationship between unemployment and the capital share of income.
In ‘Capitalizing Time’, Blair Fix plots this relationship, with the income share of capitalists on the vertical axis and the rate of unemployment on the horizontal axis. However, the low-pixel graphics of the chart are too crude to reveal the nonlinearity. Figure 1 corrects this shortcoming. It shows the same relationship, but with finer graphics that make the nonlinearity visible (the definitions and sources for all figures are given in the Appendix). Note that, unlike Blair, we use the capital share of domestic income rather than of national income. The reason is that the latter measure includes foreign profit and interest, which are unaffected by domestic unemployment. In practice, though, the two sets of data yield similar results.
In ‘Capitalizing Time’, Blair Fix plots this relationship, with the income share of capitalists on the vertical axis and the rate of unemployment on the horizontal axis. However, the low-pixel graphics of the chart are too crude to reveal the nonlinearity. Figure 1 corrects this shortcoming. It shows the same relationship, but with finer graphics that make the nonlinearity visible (the definitions and sources for all figures are given in the Appendix). Note that, unlike Blair, we use the capital share of domestic income rather than of national income. The reason is that the latter measure includes foreign profit and interest, which are unaffected by domestic unemployment. In practice, though, the two sets of data yield similar results.
11 comments:
You have posted this question about 5 times now. I think I am the only one to respond, back around the first posting.
"But there is a prior question that nobody seems to ask: can capitalists afford recovery in the first place? If we think of capital not as means of production but as a mode of power, we find that accumulation thrives not on growth and investment, but on unemployment and stagnation."
In times of stagnation, government power increases through various needed government programs to maintain living standards. Money and capital are power and in times of stagnation, government has a higher percentage of both, and also citizens dependent on it to sustain them. When growth happens and more capital and money as a percentage goes away from government, and the power balance moves towards the citizens rather than government.
Clearly less people employed means they are not under the power or dependent on a corporation or employer or even customers anymore for their livelihood, but instead they are under the power of the government. It could very well be true the government will adjust policies to stunt growth to maintain it's power rather than allow growth and out of the growth release more power to it's citizens.
I wouldn't use the word can government or capitalist "afford" to allow recovery, because we look at affording as the resources necessary or the reserves, or finances or ability to do something. With growth we all have more power, we all have more freedom, we all have more resources including the government the corporation and citizens. The government would have more resources, and more freed up resources to do more service, however, it would have less dependent on it and at it's mercy.
I watched the presentation on the Hollywood, and the advertising when I researched this the other times you posted this point of view. And I skimmed through this guy, he takes a long time to say something. And when he talks he makes points based on assumptions which do not include factors like, worker moral and varying human productivity, which ends up controlling exploitation, or even workers seeking better work conditions. He also never considers how profit is controlled, he talks of cost controlling, but never considers profit control by way of competition.
So in the end as he tries to build a case without considering these elements above, plus government policy and tax policy, he doesn't get very far.
I liked the question at the end...If Capitalist are so powerful, why are they so afraid?
[quote]Over the years, we have argued that the relationship between sabotage and distribution tends to be nonlinear. Up to a point, sabotage redistributes income in favour of those who impose it; but after that point, sabotage becomes ‘excessive’ and the effect inverts. One illustration of this nonlinearity is given by the relationship between unemployment and the capital share of income.[/quote]
Are you satisfied that this model accurately captures the key forces at play?
Where would you place the force of "POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM" as we note that the vulnerable working class make use of populist politics to gain control of the seats of power in a particular MSA (local economy) yet after they have control over:
* The Educational System
* The Local Economic Development Policy
* Tax Policies
* Government Spending Priorities
* Cutlure/Social Standards and Religion..................
We note that they have failed to DEVELOP THEIR CONGREGATION that supported their rise to power, so that they could command the wages or bring businesses to fruition in support of the DESIRED STANDARD OF LIVING for the community in question.
I've featured Bichler and Nitzen eleven times over the past two years. http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=bnarchives If by Hollywood, you're referring to the post where I placed the Thelma and Louise video up top and you wrote an enlarged version of the incoherent stuff you wrote today http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2013/10/can-capitalists-afford-recovery.html#disqus_thread - it was as clear then as it is now that you haven't taken the time to understand Bichler and Nitzan and you are - as usual - reflexively reciting talking points out the side of your neck.
as we note that the vulnerable working class make use of populist
politics to gain control of the seats of power in a particular MSA
(local economy)
That stands out as easily one of the most ridiculous assertions OF ALL TIME!!!
Ain't no vulnerable working class making use of anything anywhere except the pipe and the dole. Elite gatekeepers and other self-serving nefarious busters traded on their racial bona fides to acquire livestock management positions over the vulnerable working class. If there is a question I would raise with regard to the living memory history of these gatekeepers, it's whether they failed their constituents on purpose (sabotage) or whether they were flatly incompetent and not up to the responsibilities they acquired through politics.
No if you noticed even in the 2 hour video you posted today somewhere in the middle of the video the guy introduced someone who will be talking and illustrating how his notions are illustrated in the hollywood movie industry. I believe I watched that guy give his spiel a while back along with some other presenters in that same little room setting, with the same time for questioning after.
I have taken enough time to understand the jist of the position, probably a mere 4 hours or so total. I believe with how repetitive these videos and essays along this line of thought are, I have become coherent enough to understand the position and make valid points back without the only line of defense being I need to take a week long class of this drone.
You do realize how irritating it is to listen to a couple of hours of someone think he can read minds and motivations, and build assumptions upon assumptions to make his case while only accounting for maybe the a third of the factors involved that would create an outcome.
"you wrote an enlarged version of the incoherent stuff you wrote today"
You mean in comparison to this guy's little presentation today? You can't even defend or re summarize any point of it. Except the same thing always said.. The capitalist don't want to make more money and grow their business and market share, they want to keep you down, so the contrast between what your life looks like and what their life looks like becomes greater and greater. The worse off you are the better they feel.
The guy was asked, hey what is the ultimate unemployment rate where the capitalist feel they have the most power? He fidgets for awhile and lets us know he thinks its around 8% but nobody really knows. The only way we know is if the capitalist (the group of unity) go too far and break the system, then we know they let the unemployment go too high.
So for this guy, most of the time capitalist have been not meeting their goal of happiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
It's only now, when Obama has been, wait, he isn't running anything doesn't have any liability here, It's only now the capitalist who have been running the country have been able to sustain unemployment to the level that finally satisfies them... Isn't this really just another way to isolate Obama from any culpability.
If this were Bush, we wouldn't be looking at the capitalist running the country, we would be talking about how Bush's and republican policies are causing unemployment, homelessness, hunger, and general poverty. Today, there has got be another reason besides poor government and anti employment policies that are causing this poor growth. It's must be the employers themselves.
.
I think the whole idea of sabotage is where we have flesh out what they are getting at, in this link:
http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/395/02/20140416_nb_profit_from_crisis_frontline.pdf
"So try this: in our day and age, the key goal of leading capitalists and corporations is not absolute utility but
relative power. Their real purpose is not to maximise hedonic pleasure but to “beat the average”. Their ultimate
aim is not to consume more goods and services (although that happens too) but to increase their power over others.
---ok sorta right, it's over others as far as who their competitor is. It would be the goal of a capitalist to increase market share to the point where they become a monopoly. Meaning they can dictate to the price until there price is so high, someone else comes in underneath them to start competing again.--
"Note that capitalists have no choice in this matter. “Beating the average” is not a subjective preference but a
rigid rule, dictated and enforced by the conflictual nature of the system. Capitalism pits capitalists against other
groups in society—as well as against each other."
---Capitalist are pitted against those who are competing for the same market share, but it paints a different picture when you try to make this a capitalist against groups in society. Capitalist need groups of people to use their product or service, there is no other way they can attain more power or market share, they have to serve other groups satisfactorily to gain. --
"Now, if you look at capitalists through the lens of relative power, the notion that they should love growth and yearn for recovery is no longer self-evident. In fact, the very opposite seems to be the case. For any group to increase its relative power in society, that group must be able to strategically sabotage others in that society. This rule derives from the very logic of power relations. It means that capitalists, seeking to augment their income share—read power—have to threaten or undermine the rest of society"
In terms of sabotage the capitalist only wants to sabotage his competition. For instance Target has shoppers who buy groceries at their store and some household items. If Walmart which has more selection for household items and hardware and sporting goods, but not groceries, decides to start offering groceries, they don't need every target customer to come over to Walmart to hurt Target, but only shave of 5 to 15% who decide Walmart has enough of what I need for groceries today rather than making a trip to Target. And this will be a sabotage of Target's financial health and market share.
Using terms like "strategically sabotage others in that society" gives the impression there's something more at play than capitalist competition in different markets of the society. It is true to a degree that higher unemployment can suppress wages and therefore labor cost for the employer, and also a better employee pool, but the other side is there is less money to buy the products and services, and therefor to make money and acquire capital. Capitalist can't have power with nobody to serve or have buy their products, and employment is needed for that.
Does anyone see this implemented on a large scale?
lol, search status-seeking at this blog and read the top post. summary enough for you? That you missed this as one of the foundation stones of my world view, considering how much time you've invested in prattling hereabouts - underscores how pathetically little you read, listen, or comprehend.
That an academic is rattling cages hither, thither, and yon - with one of my cornerstones just tickles me pink. As for that politically partisan ass-hattery you've projected on me, dood, that's all you and only you. Government at all levels is merely an instrumentality of elite coercion, irrespective of who happens to be wearing the paper hat of office.
lol, next time give me a heads up and i'll give you a grand tour. As far as the rest, I thought you were sufficiently well versed in the canon of Adolph Reed Jr. that the role of elites in fomenting race nationalism was an established prior for you. Am i mistaken, or are you putting on a WWE show of pretend peasant partisanship?
That's a nice post, and I agree there many who are on that track, but that is no summary of what this guy is saying here. What you posted at the http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2008/06/peacockpeahen-spectacle.html had much to do with the human nature of the discontent, and even the nature within in all of us to a degree. This guy heading this thread, never has a hint of human nature factor into his equations. Workers all are the same capitalist (whoever they are, not workers or working apparently) exploit the workers who will be a constant supply constant productivity no matter the incentive, the condition, or skill level.
Somebody sabotages some vulnerable group, we never hear the methods or what the status of the group was before and what they had before the sabotage, we don't even know who the group is. We don't know who the capitalist is, we don't know if we are all capitalist sabotaging each other. We know it's deliberate and they are all powerful, and yet scared they might go too far. And they can't afford to have universal economic growth because then the all powerful will lose their power. And this is the first time they have had sustained ultimate power because the unemployment rate is around 8%.
"That you missed this as one of the foundation stones of my world view, considering how much time you've invested in prattling hereabouts - underscores how pathetically little you read, listen, or comprehend."
It hasn't escaped me that you think communism is a superior economic system, however, I also have noticed quite an adjustment in your stance than the early years of our arguments. I suspect when you mature even more this guy's idiocy will become juvenile and naive to you as well.
The partisan point was not directed at you, I understand your ideas of one thought two party system, but you are not everybody. Had there been a Bush or a Romney running the white house right now, we wouldn't have talks of capitalist in power running the show, we would have just been talking about the republicans poor policies and not caring about the poor. You know it and I know it, and your lack of partisanship should enable to see that and understand that and actually admit it.
Post a Comment