/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12794360
I want to elaborate on my last post a bit. I dont like your fuzzy phrase "rate of profit". There are better defined concepts
Return on capital=Currently around 15%
Share of national income=For capital currently around 35%.

>>12794418
no, money spent on, say, advertising, just vanishes. It doesnt gain anything because if its for say, a lawn mower, people were going to buy a lawn mower. Competition to have them buy YOUR lawn mower is useful if its through improving lawn mower or lawn mower production capability, that cost sticks around forever, but if its to psychologically convince people to buy your identical lawn mower over someone elses that money simply vanishes.

>>12794436
>I dont like your fuzzy phrase "rate of profit
it has a formula. its surplus value/capital investment
but you dont know what these terms refer to either in the marxian sense since you were not taught them in your liberal economics classes and if you were they were most assuredly misrepresented.

So you see you either need to go back to step 1 and build up an entire alternate vocabulary and world outlook to understand things, or you must settle on fuzzy generalizations

>>12794437
I dont understand your word salad. Say something meaningful.

>>12794448
What is surplus value? Its vexing keeping track of your arbitrary terminology

>>12794448
Heres an idea: Write in english or go talk to your marxist echo chamber.

>>12794418
>GDP=Profits+Wages+Taxes
This formula is wrong.

You mean
GDP = Compensation of employees + Rent + Interest + Proprietor’s Income + Corporate Profits + Indirect business taxes + Depreciation + Net foreign factor income

And no, any combination resulting in a high GDP is not possible, it's hard to imagine an economy prospering with high corporate taxes and no profits. The GDP would be low and shrinking.

You are thinking backwards.
Just because the formula can be used to calculate a given GDP does not mean that its factors are interchangeable or meaningless.

Holy shit do you guys have econ degrees at all or are you all freshmen?

Between the moron arguing China is still communist and your wrong usage of formulas I'm starting to think /his/ knows its shit better than /sci/.

>>12794464
Its the same formula. You can break it down into 5000 components, it doesnt change the meaning. Im getting pissed off at your antics, i would punch you if i saw you

>>12794449
If you spend resources to develop a better lawn mower, it is retained in having better lawn mowers from there on out
If you spend resources to make it more efficient to produce lawn mowers, it is retained in having easier to produce lawn mowers from there on out.
If you spend resources to convince someone to pick between identical lawn mowers, that resource is simply wasted.

This demonstrates inefficiencies inherent to markets. As advertising becomes the prominent form of competition in later stages of industry it is a large factor in rate of profit decline. Because remember we are looking at the industry overall, not individual players within it. The lawn mower industry is spending vast resources competing with itself to produce better/cheaper lawnmowers, when that competition is directed elsewhere it consumes more and more of the rate of profit.

>>12794463
the last hundred years of western economics has been primarily to discredit and obfuscate marx, not to actually produce useful economic theories. Your entire way of thinking is simply backwards and the definition you use for words is designed to be the most dissonant with their actual definitions.

>>12794475
Can you actually say things with meaning? "resources are retained" doesnt have a meaning in english. I figure you are trying to say something complex but cant be arsed to write a coherent description so you just use figures of speech? Look dude, im not inside your head, i cant follow half the crap you write. I feel like you have some ideas but your communication sucks.

>>12794494
I am writing entire examples so that in reading them you can come to understand what words and phrase mean through context.

>>12794474
It's not the same formula, and it's hard to imagine a "high GDP" with no corporate profits involved whatsoever, so stop talking out of your ass if you don't want to get corrected.

>>12794475
Marketing is a service which adds value to the economy. Just because you don't see value in it does not mean others don't. If the market values the activity of publicists and marketing execs high enough to pay them, then clearly their activity has some use.

I also doubt your thesis that marketing is a leading factor in the declining rate of profits. It could simply be that the market is more efficient because of more perfect information available to consumers (ie. User reviews of a product on the internet, easier to compare prices, etc.)

>>12794487
Nobody in business or on any serious university or college related to economics and business gives a shit about Marx. Marxism is not economics. So nobody even cares enough to attack his outdated ideas.

Only retarded liberal arts majors and sociologists give a shit about Marx.

>>12794525
>outdated ideas.
he says with out even knowing what the ideas are.
and then i hear some great new idea that was actually something marxists were talking about 80 years and nobody knows because nobody actually reads marx (not even marxists)

>>12794510
Its hard to imagine an economy with no profits because it has never happened and likely will never do, but capitalism can exist in forms with high profits or low profits. The GDP is split among all participants in the economy, for simplicity i divide the economy in 3 sectors: labor, capital and government. I could also divide it into 300 sectors through the art of subdivision, thats irrelevant. So all the GDP goes to these three sectors, like slices of a cake. Some countries have capital with a bigger share than others. Like Brazil or victorian England.
In parallel to that, theres the concept of the return on capital, how fast does capital reproduce. I think there is indeed a tendency for this rate to shrink asymptotically as it gets harder to grow the economy and it takes more capital to achieve more output. Seems normal, when you are dirt poor and have nothing even a little bit of capital can have tremendous implications, when you go from earning $1 a day to $2 a day thats 100% of economic growth. Its much harder to grow a $50.000 GDP per capita to $100.000 GDP per capita. Currently this rate is at around 15%, it takes 100 of investment to get $15 in profits, maybe in 100 years it will be 10%, and in 200 years, 5%.

>>12794540
Von Mises already destroyed Marxism with his thesis on the Problem of Economic Calculus in a Command Economy a century ago.

For more simple proof, the fact that the price of an oil drum went into the negatives this year proves that the surplus theory of value is wrong and anyone with two braincells can figure this out.

Since Marxist "economics" are based on this core tenet, this proves the entirety of Marxism wrong and not something economists, or intelligent people of any persuation, give a shit about.

>>12794540
Just talk about the ideas in plain english. Stop being so repulsive. Stop using terminology from a private dictionary you wrote yourself, you cant talk with others without a common language. Its like instead of debating concepts you expect to debate about what a word means. Also you can do this without ever dropping the name Marx;

>>12793825
No no, you simpleton you fail to understand. If something works it's Capitalism, if something doesn't work it's Socialism.

>>12789755
>ITT: We've never read/comprehend marginalism

>>12794099
based Real-Communism-has-never-been-tried poster

>>12794561
Be careful, fellow. In his paper, von Mises said the economic calculation problem can never destroy Marxism as a moral ideology, as Marxists can defend a less-than-optimal economic system if it means it's fair. The economic calculation problem proves only that guided economy is less-than-optimal in large scales. In small scales, it works just fine; no family house crumbles because there was no household price system to divide tendies between brother and sister.

>>12794631
>von Mises said the economic calculation problem can never destroy Marxism as a moral ideology
Sure, because ideologies don't need to be based on facts. We still have Flat Earthers and people that don't believe in Evolution as well.

>as Marxists can defend a less-than-optimal economic system if it means it's fair.
It's not fair either, but that's a topic for another thread.

>The economic calculation problem proves only that guided economy is less-than-optimal in large scales.
>less-than-optimal
More like horribly inefficient and broken, thus relegating it outside of the realm of Economics.

>In small scales, it works just fine; no family house crumbles because there was no household price system to divide tendies between brother and sister.
How families manage their private households is outside of the realm of Economics. Democracy too would be an awful system for parents to run their households by giving each kid a vote on whether they want to dine pizza or vegetables, but it works well on a large scale society.

>>12794690
Dude you're dumber than a marxist and that's saying something, i know your lolbertarian cringe kind has been expelled by the nazibots on /pol/ but you need to go back

>>12794811
>being against Marxism means you are a libertarian
Try again, faggot, and with an actual point next time.

>>12794690
I agree with the first three topics, just pointing it out.

>How families manage their private households is outside of the realm of Economics.
It may be outside of political econ, but not outside of economics. What I mean is that there is no price system in a household because the economic calculation problem is an informational problem; in small scales, information flows fast and there is no need to have a price system.

>Democracy
>Working well in large scale societies
Haha

The problem with communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and China was that it got biology dead wrong. Were it not for Lysenkoism those systems would still be holding over today. Capitalism only works because it is able to capture science through its public risk and private profit system. A market can be made for fairy dust, and if the economy depends on fairy dust it will fall apart. Scientists are needed to base products in the real world, and materially benefit people.

The ideal system for science to provide the most benefit would be to have total freedom of information, open source patents, copyleft, repair rights, and so on. Human discretion should also be limited as much as reasonably possible in favor of publicly verifiable randomness to ensure fairness.

>>12794211
Go back to school.

>>12792458
by their definitions someone without enough money for food could be living in “not extreme poverty” while a self reliant village without currency that feeds and shelters everyone would be living in extreme poverty regardless

>>12796970
Not really, check the source.
It's PPP values.

>>12796970
>by their definition some extreme and exceptional cases would not be properly represented by this quick and immediate measure of poverty
>gotcha economists

>>12794631
Soviet communism had an adjustable pricing system somehow related to market pricing. They would manufacture a long list of products at some prices and then adjust prices and production quotas for the next cycle according to demand. Essentially they would produce more of whatever sold better. This was all decided by a bureaucracy called Gosplan. It isnt any better than direct market economics.

>>12796970
Dude go to any shantytown, the ultra poor people still have clothes and food. Everybody has food and clothes because thats sort of the minimum needed to exist. Peoples that starve dont just starve forever, they eventually die. Any shithole where humans beings reproduce and live has food and clothing.

>>12797417
As an anti-communist, I'll admit I am intrigued nevertheless by the idea of a supercomputer AI managing a centrally planned economy. Perhaps the future is a post-scarcity, fully automated, robotic economy with an AI of Matrioshka Brain proportions, managing production of most basic goods while Humans are left free to pursue arts, hobbies, or work as volunteers for things they enjoy (ie. Like open source software works nowadays).
For the foreseeable future, centrally planned economies are best left to the realm of science fiction.

And even then, thinking 200 years into the future, I'm still not sure it would be more efficient than a market system.

>>12797417
I never said it would be better; in fact, it's terribly worse. Why does it sound everybody reading >>12794631 thinks I support guided economy? My commentary was a cautionary one, as Mises himself said that economic arguments could not refute marxism as a moral ideology. Bohm-Bawerk critique, in the other hand...

>>12797449
It was bad for multiple reasons, indolence and ignorance of the planners and their workers among them. I mean just imagine crops left to rot because the central planner got the dates wrong and its all just an excel table to him.

>>12797471
Ah, I remember Reagan's jokes.

>>12797482
It is said that eventually the soviets got their shit together through, i figure, natural selection. They managed to refine their production formulas and have a good match between demand and production. Only took them 50 years including a super horrible first 20 years.

>>12797512
Yeah... not quite though, Tsarist Russia was the #1 wheat exporter in the world, but the USSR was a net wheat importer for its entire existence, only with the collapse of communism was Russia (and Ukraine) able to emerge as major wheat exporters again taking advantage of some of the most fertile farmland in the world which the Soviet system could not take proper advantage of.

In terms of industry the Soviet results were better, mostly during the early phase since building few low tech industries with small supply chains (ie. pig iron smelters, electricity, tanks, AKs and so on) is eadier than managing thousands of consumer goods factories with long supply chains.

By the 1970s the innefficiency, corruption and inherent complexity of the economy was too much for the central managers to cope with and the rot of economic stagnation set in. Another problem was the technological gap with the West which was becoming too big, particularly in electronics and computers.

>>12797512
I don't think so, because otherwise there would be no need for Gorbachev's Perestroika. In any case, planned economy fails to provide innovation and cannot adapt to immediate changes in demand and supply (like natural disasters). And I'm not even accounting for ethical monstrosities like Gulags or Holomodor.

>>12792458
You're confusing the industrial revolution and the scientific method with capitalism.

>>12793850
You're a retard. Capital exists in every society and economic system. The state manages the capital in China. Most of Chinas big companies are controlled by the state. Like Huawei. The state just let's someone run it, but the company is actually owned by the state.

>>12789755
> Scientifically speaking, how would one approach macroeconomic theory to improve society and better science?
Ban fixed pricings and make everything biddable in Dutch style (meaning the price lowers instead of getting higher)

>>12797564
Not really.
The latter is a result of the former.
The enlightenment was a result of the burgeois / liberal revolutions taking power away from the nobility and the Church.

The industrial revolution, aka "Capitalism", led to the scientific method becoming widespread and to the greatest period of technological innovation that the world has ever seen

>>12797541
Wheat exports are an arbitrary benchmark. Id like to see wheat production instead.

>>12797600
The scientific method comes from Galileo. At the root it is just experimental science, before it was just speculative schizo ramblings

We badly need a /hum/ board for humanities. This is just /his/ mixed with /pol/. Where's the science & math?

>>12798151
>Scientific method comes from Galileo
>fails to provide replicability, as he owns the sole telescope in the world
Nothing personal, kid

>>12798173
How about 5 more video game boards?

>>12798959
based epistemological anarchist