solzhesnitchin posted:well from my perspective anyway, then he's essentially saying "the data that would be sufficient to prove my conclusion doesn't exist, therefore you should accept insufficient data as being sufficient to prove my conclusion"
idk... i can see why he started off by referring to how a lot of people have a problem with his whole approach.
as far as i know, nobody is explaining this crisis in terms of empirical data from the entire $70 trillion world economy. i mean, the one you posted uses entirely US data, just like kliman, and the best you're going to get is incorporation of EU data while still ignoring the majority of the global economy that takes place beyond US and european borders. i wouldn't totally dismiss this criticism but it's not something kliman or marxists are particularly guilty on.
swirlsofhistory posted:I want someone to convince me that the falling rate of profit isn't a tautology. It's already in the definition that the 'rate of profit' falls when the 'organic composition of capital' (so defined) rises. That would be fine if this were a scientific theory that gave us something to expect from that, like Newton's second law where we can use it to calculate the torque on a lever. The problem is that the falling rate of profit is itself the thing we're supposed to be convinced of by checking the empirical facts, the thing that's supposed to guarantee the inevitable end of capitalism. To use Wittgenstein's terms: it's to play the role of criterion to symptoms like money profits, payroll, etc., but at the same time it has to be the symptom that hinges on the how the world (capitalism, whatever) really is, and it plainly can't do that given how its truth depends on the defined meaning of its terms alone.
this is a misunderstanding of the falling rate of profit, it's not something specific to marx or an anticapitalist boogeyman or anything like that. it was really standard in classical economics, was developed in response to an empirically observed fall in the rate of profit, and smith, ricardo, mill, etc. all had their own explanations of the falling rate of profit. there's both economists within the marxian tradition that now reject it and those outside it that accept it, basically it's not nearly so simple as you're presenting it.
Edited by babyfinland ()
swirlsofhistory posted:I want someone to convince me that the falling rate of profit isn't a tautology. It's already in the definition that the 'rate of profit' falls when the 'organic composition of capital' (so defined) rises. That would be fine if this were a scientific theory that gave us something to expect from that, like Newton's second law where we can use it to calculate the torque on a lever. The problem is that the falling rate of profit is itself the thing we're supposed to be convinced of by checking the empirical facts, the thing that's supposed to guarantee the inevitable end of capitalism. To use Wittgenstein's terms: it's to play the role of criterion to symptoms like money profits, payroll, etc., but at the same time it has to be the symptom that hinges on the how the world (capitalism, whatever) really is, and it plainly can't do that given how its truth depends on the defined meaning of its terms alone.
Usually it's implied that the reader knows capitalism needs an increase in profits to survive. Surplus value is the entire point of capitalism. I guess you missed out on that and it needs to be stated, but yes the implication in proving empirically that the rate of profit is falling is to explain crisis and the tendency towards crisis and value destruction cycles. If you can't figure out how this would occur, I'm not sure you have even opened Capital.
If you want some kind of crystal ball where we can empirically say: the rate of profit will reach this low point in 2017 and that's when WWIII will start to destroy enough value for capitalism to survive, that's not going to happen nor should it happen, science in general does not function that way.
babyhueypnewton posted:I guess you missed out on that and it needs to be stated, but yes the implication in proving empirically that the rate of profit is falling is to explain crisis and the tendency towards crisis and value destruction cycles
im not sure this actually parses
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:I guess you missed out on that and it needs to be stated, but yes the implication in proving empirically that the rate of profit is falling is to explain crisis and the tendency towards crisis and value destruction cycles
im not sure this actually parses
yeah that sentence could have been written better 
discipline posted:stiglitz is garbage
do you have a nobel prize? no? then shut the fuck up.
*hugs body pillow with picture of The Glitz on it*
jools posted:babyhueypnewton posted:I guess you missed out on that and it needs to be stated, but yes the implication in proving empirically that the rate of profit is falling is to explain crisis and the tendency towards crisis and value destruction cycles
im not sure this actually parses
*scans
Lessons posted:swirlsofhistory posted:
I want someone to convince me that the falling rate of profit isn't a tautology. It's already in the definition that the 'rate of profit' falls when the 'organic composition of capital' (so defined) rises. That would be fine if this were a scientific theory that gave us something to expect from that, like Newton's second law where we can use it to calculate the torque on a lever. The problem is that the falling rate of profit is itself the thing we're supposed to be convinced of by checking the empirical facts, the thing that's supposed to guarantee the inevitable end of capitalism. To use Wittgenstein's terms: it's to play the role of criterion to symptoms like money profits, payroll, etc., but at the same time it has to be the symptom that hinges on the how the world (capitalism, whatever) really is, and it plainly can't do that given how its truth depends on the defined meaning of its terms alone.
this is a misunderstanding of the falling rate of profit, it's not something specific to marx or an anticapitalist boogeyman or anything like that. it was really standard in classical economics, was developed in response to an empirically observed fall in the rate of profit, and smith, ricardo, mill, etc. all had their own explanations of the falling rate of profit. there's both economists within the marxian tradition that now reject it and those outside it that accept it, basically it's not nearly so simple as you're presenting it.
I mean the marxist one, it's the one held by some marxists that I disagree with.
swirlsofhistory posted:I mean the marxist one, it's the one held by some marxists that I disagree with.
okay, so: the marxian understanding of the falling rate of profit ranges from the 'orthodox' interpretation put forward by kliman et al., based on marx and earlier classical economists, that increasing technical efficiency will drive down the rate of profit by replacing living labor with dead labor, to the (more common) interpretation by oshikio and other neo-ricardian influenced thinkers that productivity gains from that technical efficiency can close the gap created by the loss of living labor it replaces. so which marxian understanding do you disagree with, the first one, or the one that says exactly the opposite, and why?
babyhueypnewton posted:swirlsofhistory posted:
I want someone to convince me that the falling rate of profit isn't a tautology. It's already in the definition that the 'rate of profit' falls when the 'organic composition of capital' (so defined) rises. That would be fine if this were a scientific theory that gave us something to expect from that, like Newton's second law where we can use it to calculate the torque on a lever. The problem is that the falling rate of profit is itself the thing we're supposed to be convinced of by checking the empirical facts, the thing that's supposed to guarantee the inevitable end of capitalism. To use Wittgenstein's terms: it's to play the role of criterion to symptoms like money profits, payroll, etc., but at the same time it has to be the symptom that hinges on the how the world (capitalism, whatever) really is, and it plainly can't do that given how its truth depends on the defined meaning of its terms alone.
Usually it's implied that the reader knows capitalism needs an increase in profits to survive. Surplus value is the entire point of capitalism. I guess you missed out on that and it needs to be stated, but yes the implication in proving empirically that the rate of profit is falling is to explain crisis and the tendency towards crisis and value destruction cycles. If you can't figure out how this would occur, I'm not sure you have even opened Capital.
If you want some kind of crystal ball where we can empirically say: the rate of profit will reach this low point in 2017 and that's when WWIII will start to destroy enough value for capitalism to survive, that's not going to happen nor should it happen, science in general does not function that way.
But falling money profits relative to investment (or debt on the books) already signals a crisis of sorts. That's the empirical data that's supposed to point to a falling rate of profit, so what does having a theory of it add? If you want to say the theory called the falling rate of profit is just a generalization of some empirical data –fine– but to suppose that falling profitability is the result of a falling rate of profit law or tendency is simply to define it in such a way as to guarantee the presence of itself. And that's not legitimate because the presence of the falling rate of profit is the thing that's supposed to be proved, because if it were the case, it would have implications for reforms, wage struggles, and anti-capitalist movements.
Lessons posted:swirlsofhistory posted:
I mean the marxist one, it's the one held by some marxists that I disagree with.
okay, so: the marxian understanding of the falling rate of profit ranges from the 'orthodox' interpretation put forward by kliman et al., based on marx and earlier classical economists, that increasing technical efficiency will drive down the rate of profit by replacing living labor with dead labor, to the (more common) interpretation by oshikio and other neo-ricardian influenced thinkers that productivity gains from that technical efficiency can close the gap created by the loss of living labor it replaces. so which marxian understanding do you disagree with, the first one, or the one that says exactly the opposite, and why?
Both are tautological IMO, but I'm concerned with the first one that actually claims to explain crises.
jools posted:swirlsofhistory do you disbelieve weather forecasts and climate science because theyre also tautologous
i certainly do. weather reporting is basically atmospheric astrology.
Lessons posted:swirlsofhistory posted:I mean the marxist one, it's the one held by some marxists that I disagree with.
okay, so: the marxian understanding of the falling rate of profit ranges from the 'orthodox' interpretation put forward by kliman et al., based on marx and earlier classical economists, that increasing technical efficiency will drive down the rate of profit by replacing living labor with dead labor, to the (more common) interpretation by oshikio and other neo-ricardian influenced thinkers that productivity gains from that technical efficiency can close the gap created by the loss of living labor it replaces. so which marxian understanding do you disagree with, the first one, or the one that says exactly the opposite, and why?
ok, i googled oshikio and this is what i got
looks like kliman is the winner here by my count.
while that youtube was compelling in some respects, do you have any suggestions for authors/books/articles to read w/r/t/ the neo-ricardian argument?
AmericanNazbro posted:Alex.
while that youtube was compelling in some respects, do you have any suggestions for authors/books/articles to read w/r/t/ the neo-ricardian argument?
steve keen seems like a pretty accessible writer? i don't really know enough about the topic to suggest anything scholarly. i don't believe he goes into the falling rate of profit here but it definitely deals with his disagreement with marx that would be relevant in that case.
http://myclass.peelschools.org/sec/12/14451/Resources/theory%20of%20value%20critique.pdf
gyrofry posted:the red army faction didnt waste their time droning on about economics and they almost succeeded in overthrowing nato. maybe its time to put down the calculator and pick up the balaclava nerds
speaking of which, they are now making a concerted effort to disarm the proles, lol
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/
http://www.smallarmsstandards.org/isacs/
Lessons posted:AmericanNazbro posted:Alex.
while that youtube was compelling in some respects, do you have any suggestions for authors/books/articles to read w/r/t/ the neo-ricardian argument?steve keen seems like a pretty accessible writer? i don't really know enough about the topic to suggest anything scholarly. i don't believe he goes into the falling rate of profit here but it definitely deals with his disagreement with marx that would be relevant in that case.
http://myclass.peelschools.org/sec/12/14451/Resources/theory%20of%20value%20critique.pdf
oh thanks, i'm familiar with keen. i was reading some of his work during the 08-09 crisis but i honestly don't have a large enough knowledge base about this stuff and i just want to read more material from various authors with competing views
Lessons posted:you're trying to judge marx based on a positivist formula that he wasn't adhering to so of course you're not going to be able to square that circle. but if that's your formula you'll have to throw out the rest of economics though too, and not just marx's.
I wasn't aware that Marx began and ended with the falling rate of profit. There's a crisis theory I find compelling contained within the first three chapters of Capital volume I which isn't tautologous and doesn't have ultra-left political implications.
jools posted:swirlsofhistory do you disbelieve weather forecasts and climate science because theyre also tautologous
Meteorologists didn't discover rain after finding atmospheric pressure. Initially the presence of rain was the criterion of rain, set by convention, not the symptom of mercury falling in its barometer. Only later is atmospheric pressure taken as convention for what inclement weather is.
babyfinland posted:im cuter than you solzhesnitchin
says guy whose appearance prompted the leaders of islam to recategorize the burka as unisex attire
discipline posted:
did you register just to post that? fucking lol
Lessons posted:solzhesnitchin posted:
well from my perspective anyway, then he's essentially saying "the data that would be sufficient to prove my conclusion doesn't exist, therefore you should accept insufficient data as being sufficient to prove my conclusion"
idk... i can see why he started off by referring to how a lot of people have a problem with his whole approach.
as far as i know, nobody is explaining this crisis in terms of empirical data from the entire $70 trillion world economy. i mean, the one you posted uses entirely US data, just like kliman, and the best you're going to get is incorporation of EU data while still ignoring the majority of the global economy that takes place beyond US and european borders. i wouldn't totally dismiss this criticism but it's not something kliman or marxists are particularly guilty on.
yea i concede the point. i guess im just used to seeing a certain set of issues being talked about (the "savings glut", trade deficits, deregulation etc) and his approach is very very different. i should really just try reading the book on its own terms.. im particularily enticed by seeing that theres a glowing 43 paragraph review on amazon written by mccaine