Domestic American economy about to get crushed?

[mblat1968]

I don’t really care about how anyone feels about Marx his theories about how capitalism was going to play out in the west largely seem supported for the most part. We can use differential equations to demonstrate and maybe Turchin is a less politically loaded mouthpiece for the same vector. Adam Smith godfather of capitalism wasn’t against land lords because he hated the idea of rich people, he was against landlords because he knew and went to great lengths to educate people that resource hoarding breaks the underlying math that fuels capitalism and it’s hunger for growth.

All modern capitalists are really just religious Friedmanites unknowingly preaching a narrow niche of non standard capitalism that supports our current meltdown persisting imo. We need to return to the wisdom of Smith, and reconsider the works of Locke and Voltaire and throw the Friedmanites out with the bath water. Smith was right, Turchin did the math.

I’m not talking about politics I’m talking about economics.

Maslows hierarchy of needs is something you learn in 6th or 7th grade intro to philosophy so I’m not sure how smart sounding that is but if it seems overly “high minded” I guess the metaphor on ice cream or TVs being affordable while getting your dental work done is not is ultimately the more practical point.

If elementary school philosophy was too heady I’m sure you’ll love the post calculus data modeling approach

As far as the education in Russia during Marx era or possibly later I can’t really comment. I only know the writing of Anton Chekhov which is a pretty depressing state. Certainly he paints a picture that many Russians valued education when it was an option and that education was prized as an escape route from systemic suffering. Most of the well known Russian authors paint a picture of Russia from that time period that sounds really no different to the west in this regard though.

Here is what you’re doing.


You make a number of statements that are factually wrong. When those errors are pointed out, you dismiss them with a shrug. Then you move on to long, largely irrelevant observations. For example, what does the Russian education system in the 19th century have to do with the subject at hand? For the record, Russia did not have compulsory education until after the Revolution—roughly fifty years after Marx had already died.


You then introduce vague claims about the “death of civilization” (which, by the way, I largely agree with), but none of this addresses the original claim that started our conversation.


That claim was: “a large percentage of the U.S. population lives in abject poverty.” This is simply not true.


If you want to discuss that specific issue, fine—I would be open to it. But everything else you’ve raised so far is either irrelevant to the point you were trying (and failing) to make, or outright absurd—such as the claim that “Marx’s theories has largely been proved correct.”

 

[couragewolf]

Here is what you’re doing.


You make a number of statements that are factually wrong. When those errors are pointed out, you dismiss them with a shrug. Then you move on to long, largely irrelevant observations. For example, what does the Russian education system in the 19th century have to do with the subject at hand? For the record, Russia did not have compulsory education until after the Revolution—roughly fifty years after Marx had already died.


You then introduce vague claims about the “death of civilization” (which, by the way, I largely agree with), but none of this addresses the original claim that started our conversation.


That claim was: “a large percentage of the U.S. population lives in abject poverty.” This is simply not true.


If you want to discuss that specific issue, fine—I would be open to it. But everything else you’ve raised so far is either irrelevant to the point you were trying (and failing) to make, or outright absurd—such as the claim that “Marx’s theories has largely been proved correct.”

I was responding to the statement that in Marx’s time no one cared about the cost of education because no one had an education. I’m not sure in the discussion of measurements or poverty whether the comparisons between today’s quality of education and the quality of education Russians were getting in the time of Marx is the way I’d be thinking about Americans current poverty index.

I’m not entirely sure what I said that you find wrong, but if you want to pull the thread I’m open to introspection.

My earlier point was that the description of poverty we use to measure as an economic index being a calculation from the 1970s on how much income you need to have 1/3 to spend on food qualifying you as impoverished is sort of nonsensical in any family if 4’s modern budget.

I’m making the claim that a great deal more Americans are living in poverty than what the economists count as impoverished. As far as trends are concerned I think we’re on an exponential function of increasing that ratio.

Everything else I said was just an attempt to pin the nose on why I think it’s happening. You’re welcome to disagree but I’m pretty confident my specific point that Milton Freidman liberalism and rentier capitalism consuming Adam smiths frontier capitalism is what’s largely killed our country and futures and resulted in the death loop we see today. People’s blind adoption of those policies and practices are clearly direct contributors to the problems we face.

Love him or leave him Marx’s whole theory that capitalism will eventually eat itself alive when the value of labor is suprassed by the value of amassing capital that devalues labor and ends up owning everything so no one who works can afford real things seems perfectly reasonable to point out in a moment when people can no longer afford child care for more than one kid.

 

[couragewolf]

Probably worth saying that Marx’s criticism was entirely lazy because he didn’t really propose solutions in any manner only poked at the problems.

 

[mblat1968]

I was responding to the statement that in Marx’s time no one cared about the cost of education because no one had an education. I’m not sure in the discussion of measurements or poverty whether the comparisons between today’s quality of education and the quality of education Russians were getting in the time of Marx is the way I’d be thinking about Americans current poverty index.

I’m not entirely sure what I said that you find wrong, but if you want to pull the thread I’m open to introspection.

My earlier point was that the description of poverty we use to measure as an economic index being a calculation from the 1970s on how much income you need to have 1/3 to spend on food qualifying you as impoverished is sort of nonsensical in any family if 4’s modern budget.

I’m making the claim that a great deal more Americans are living in poverty than what the economists count as impoverished. As far as trends are concerned I think we’re on an exponential function of increasing that ratio.

Everything else I said was just an attempt to pin the nose on why I think it’s happening. You’re welcome to disagree but I’m pretty confident my specific point that Milton Freidman liberalism and rentier capitalism consuming Adam smiths frontier capitalism is what’s largely killed our country and futures and resulted in the death loop we see today. People’s blind adoption of those policies and practices are clearly direct contributors to the problems we face.

Love him or leave him Marx’s whole theory that capitalism will eventually eat itself alive when the value of labor is suprassed by the value of amassing capital that devalues labor and ends up owning everything so no one who works can afford real things seems perfectly reasonable to point out in a moment when people can no longer afford child care for more than one kid.

"At Marx’s time, no one cared about the cost of education because no one had an education." — I did not say that. I said that Marx did not need to fathom this situation because he lived that reality.


"You’re welcome to disagree." I disagree with the reasoning, not the conclusion. The simple reason is that we do not live in Friedman-style liberalism—and we haven’t for a very long time. Everything you complained about (rightfully so)—education, health, etc.—is very far removed from self-regulating free markets. Whether that’s good or bad is a separate debate. But you can’t claim that free markets are the reason for the lack of educational options in Appalachia when the U.S. has had a government-run educational system for over 100 years.


"Marx’s whole theory that capitalism will eventually eat itself alive when the value of labor is surpassed by the value of amassing capital that devalues labor and ends up owning everything so no one who works can afford real things." — I think you’re overstating the case here. I don’t claim to be a studied Marxist, but I do recall that. There were similar themes—just not exactly that, if I remember correctly.


In any case, let me try to summarize.


What we agree on:
The distance between "haves" and "have-nots" is increasing. That, coupled with upcoming economic changes caused by AI, will inevitably lead to significant social upheaval, potentially up to and including violent revolution.


What we disagree on:
You claim that, at this very moment, a "significant percentage of the population lives in abject poverty." In my opinion, the hard data does not support that conclusion.

I am welcome corrections to those two positions.

 

[NorCALSpeed]

The “poverty line math” still equates to 1970s cost of living ratios so just be aware that this isn’t exactly representative of modern American life. Food is far cheaper actually(atleast very unhealthy food). However the basic costs of rent, electricity, travel to work etc are dramatically higher. The concept is that participating in society(being employable) is multitudes more expensive than it once was

Not to mention healthcare and education. Pretty much everything has outpaced wages.

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Hahaha. People here think they get Marx.

 

[couragewolf]

Hahaha. People here think they get Marx.

Rich coming from the guy that thinks the biggest single expander of government in all American history is some kind of libertarian

 

[governmentsucks1776]

Rich coming from the guy that thinks the biggest single expander of government in all American history is some kind of libertarian

Should I remind you of my credentials?
I am not some kind of clown

 

[SierraShooter]

$20T is like 70% of GDP... so yeah, I've heard absurd numbers like this from Trump, but it's usually a hand-wavy 10yr projection. Big investment from TSMC and the likes don't always come to fruition... so I'm skeptical. Here's my take:

If this were true, it should be very easy to spot what the business and investment opportunities are. What are they? I'd happily start a business and hire American workers.

Whatever the sum of investments made by foreign companies are, you might be able to trade on the companies or even work for them, but I'm not sure a person could start one. But you COULD start up a coffee shop next to a factory and pick up the knock on business. Economic activity typically spawns some prosperity.

 

[SierraShooter]

The United States just locked in a spending plan that blows out tax revenues and all but guarantees a debt growth over the near term of 16 trillion dollars.

The goal of deflating the debt also means your assets lose value including whatever savings or real estate or anything else you own.

Of course, all of this pretends everyone will keep buying our treasuries at auction which seems absurd to expect continuing.

Your stocks are going up sure, relative to the value of EVERYTHING else everyone owns. How long that can continue seems suspect at best the market is full casino mode at this point.

When was the market not in full casino mode? Stock prices are often based largely on what people think might happen, not on actual P/E statements. It seems absurd to me, but I am a market economics dolt. If stocks were locked to real income minus expenses there would be little speculation and we could all just be picking the horse we think will win. Payouts/dividends would be based on real numbers.

 

[couragewolf]

When was the market not in full casino mode? Stock prices are often based largely on what people think might happen, not on actual P/E statements. It seems absurd to me, but I am a market economics dolt. If stocks were locked to real income minus expenses there would be little speculation and we could all just be picking the horse we think will win. Payouts/dividends would be based on real numbers.

The stock market has not been full casino mode throughout most of its existence. That’s why it’s worth talking about things are uniquely disproportionate presently.