Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I could read all of that, but you're a state capitalist, so it doesn't matter.
    That would be a funny retort if you even knew what that meant.

    read a book meme.JPG
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That would be a funny retort if you even knew what that meant.

    read a book meme.JPG
    Hypocrisy at it's best, I'd say "read a book" too; but it'd probably end up being that incoherent, boring, overlong and poorly written piece of **** they call 'Das Kapital.'

    ImageUploadedByStudent Room1487373762.577899.jpg


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I pity whoever has to trawl through these 500 posts to collect up people's test results for analysis given the thread has been flooded with the sorts of memes and nonsense that clearly belong in the bar.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I pity whoever has to trawl through these 500 posts to collect up people's test results for analysis given the thread has been flooded with the sorts of memes and nonsense that clearly belong in the bar.
    Yeah, it's certainly gone off topic, Des just lights the fires of my debating engine in a way that only you can top Ray!
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Yeah, it's certainly gone off topic, Des just lights the fires of my debating engine in a way that only you can top Ray!
    I top it because my arguments almost never include memes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Hypocrisy at it's best, I'd say "read a book" too; but it'd probably end up being that incoherent, boring, overlong and poorly written piece of **** they call 'Das Kapital.'
    If you're going to attempt to belittle one of, if not the most influential, ground-breaking works of economic analysis, the book that above all others formed the twentieth century, you have truly shown how incompetent you are.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I pity whoever has to trawl through these 500 posts to collect up people's test results for analysis given the thread has been flooded with the sorts of memes and nonsense that clearly belong in the bar.
    Fair point.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    If you're going to attempt to belittle one of, if not the most influential, ground-breaking works of economic analysis, the book that above all others formed the twentieth century, you have truly shown how incompetent you are.
    Your blinkered bias is laughable; 'The Road to Serfdom' and 'The general theory of employment, interest and money' were both equally as influential if not more so.

    You criticise fleky for hiding behind Friedman quotes and idolising him, yet you literally blow Marx off by saying he's the most influential economist of all time.

    I'd honestly rather be an incompetent ignoramus than a raging hypocrite like you.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Your blinkered bias is laughable; 'The Road to Serfdom' and 'The general theory of employment, interest and money' were both equally as influential if not more so.

    My 'blinkered bias'? I do not deny that Hayek and Keynes made considerable contributions to modern economics, but it is obvious that Marx's writings were and continue to be more influential, economically and politically, that is undeniable.

    You criticise fleky for hiding behind Friedman quotes and idolising him, yet you literally blow Marx off by saying he's the most influential economist of all time.

    I criticise fleky because he has no knowledge on economics yet he throws himself into arguments acting like he is some kind of expert. I do not criticise him for idolising Friedman, as justified as it may be if I did.
    I'd honestly rather be an incompetent ignoramus than a raging hypocrite like you.
    Well half of that is already true, but I'll not lower the tone by resorting to petty insults.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    And this is a common misconception to those who are not well-versed in the subject. The means of production as a term is defined as are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value.

    The idea that the original fortunes on which modern capital is founded were accumulated by “hard work” and “thrift” is an impudent myth. The first historical period of the accumulation of capital is sordid, thievish and bloody from beginning to end. It is the period of the primitive accumulation of capital. The rest of capital has been inherited or accumulated as a result of this event.

    That is a confused statement you have made. I'll transcribe from Shachtman:

    The capitalist says, “Give me a fair day’s work and I will give you a fair day’s pay.” The worker says, “For a fair day’s pay, you will get a fair day’s work.” It would seem that there has been a fair-and-square exchange between the two parties. But let us look a little further.

    If the employer has given the worker as much as the worker has given him, why did the employer need the worker in the first place? He had just as much before he hired the worker as he did at the end of the first working day – assuming he gave the worker, in the form of wages, the same value as the worker contributed to him, in the form of applied labor power.
    This would make no sense, however. The capitalist produces only if a profit can be made. When there is no profit, he does not keep his plant working but closes it down or disposes of it to someone else.

    During the first three or four or five hours of the working day, the worker adds enough value to equal the wages he receives. But he contracted to work a full day. He continues to create value during the balance of the day. This additional value is known as surplus-value. It goes, not to the worker who created it, but to the capitalist who hired the worker for the full day (or week, or month, as the case may be), and who pockets this surplus-value in the form of profit. It is only because the worker can create this surplus, and only because the employer can pocket it, that labor is hired and capitalism can produce. That is the secret, and there is no other.

    That is the basis for the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production as the private property of capitalists makes it possible for them to exploit the workers, to squeeze out of them surplus-value and thereby profits.

    No matter how noble and spotless the methods by which a man may have gathered together a large sum of money in the first place, the moment it is converted into capital, it cannot be increased, and it cannot even be maintained at its original size, without the exploitation of labor. The idea that capital is the result of “hard work” by the capitalists, of their “savings” and “economizing,” of the “risks of enterprise” they take – or of anything else but the exploitation of labor and surplus-value – is utter nonsense.
    0a1.jpg
    If I lent you £5, and want £10 back in a week, that's not exploitation.
    If I lent my bike, and wanted £2 for a day, that's not exploitation, that's Boris bikes.
    If I gave you the tools to make things which would sell, and wanted the """"surplus value""""", that's not exploitation.

    The ""means of production"" were acquired through work. I could own the means of production if I go get a job and buy a factory. Anyone can own it if they work for it. That is the general incentive in capitalism. You supply a demand, either through being self employed, or through being an employee, and you get paid for it. You then use that money to better yourself, through the acquisition of tangible and intangible assets. so that you could make even more money. There's nothing wrong with someone having something and other people not having something, and the people that have something charging for use of that thing. Because the people who have the thing, worked for the thing.

    The fact that there is inequality is not exploitaiton, it is an incentive for people to satisfy the demand the best they can for the lowest cost.
    It is why in a capitalist society you have things being made for the cheapest price possible and as high a quality as possible, while in a communist society you have people filling government quotas, not bothering to rotate the crops on the fields and demolishing an entire agriculture industry. OH WAIT, the workers own the means of prodcution so it's not the government, but rather the Workers' Committee of Arbitration on Labour affairs, who deem that you have not met your quota.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    0a1.jpg
    If I lent you £5, and want £10 back in a week, that's not exploitation.
    If I lent my bike, and wanted £2 for a day, that's not exploitation, that's Boris bikes.
    If I gave you the tools to make things which would sell, and wanted the """"surplus value""""", that's not exploitation.

    The ""means of production"" were acquired through work. I could own the means of production if I go get a job and buy a factory. Anyone can own it if they work for it. That is the general incentive in capitalism. You supply a demand, either through being self employed, or through being an employee, and you get paid for it. You then use that money to better yourself, through the acquisition of tangible and intangible assets. so that you could make even more money. There's nothing wrong with someone having something and other people not having something, and the people that have something charging for use of that thing. Because the people who have the thing, worked for the thing.

    The fact that there is inequality is not exploitaiton, it is an incentive for people to satisfy the demand the best they can for the lowest cost.
    It is why in a capitalist society you have things being made for the cheapest price possible and as high a quality as possible, while in a communist society you have people filling government quotas, not bothering to rotate the crops on the fields and demolishing an entire agriculture industry. OH WAIT, the workers own the means of prodcution so it's not the government, but rather the Workers' Committee of Arbitration on Labour affairs, who deem that you have not met your quota.
    Fairly broad stroke, but its limited by monopolies, which are inevitable when special interests fund politics. It also conflicts with basic rights, funded by taxation, which are a fundamental.

    Large firms are able to aggressively market and drop prices temporarily to undercut new rival companies. Services such as railways and healthcare cannot utilise competition, "rivals" cannot be allowed to go bankrupt and are necessary for the economy.

    What you're referring to is an agreement with proper agreement from both sides. This depends on circumstance, you agree a student loan which can be retrospectively changed. You work a job which can change its terms, pay and hours on a whim.

    Assets often aren't tangible, internships are often gotten through connections, not hard work. Hard work (study) for some kids = better grades but some students who work just as hard (part time job for instance) get lower grades and lower outcomes. A lot of wealth is inherited, not earned.

    Thing is, automation is coming, so lower skilled workers will be removed. What do you suggest to those people, who work hard, when a robot can do their job for £100 a year? Unlivable. Is that a lack of work ethic on the humans part?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Fairly broad stroke, but its limited by monopolies, which are inevitable when special interests fund politics.
    Just like how the trade unions fund the labour party?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Just like communism would never work.
    Yes you point out one crash .
    Which was partially due to hydraulic Keynesianism and the belief that infinite credit supply would lead to infinite GDP growth combined with deregulation advocated by Bill Clinton to allow the poor to get mortgages.
    The reason why true socialism doesn't exist is because no one wants and it's dying. Your dreaming if you think capitalism will get overthrown and I shall continue you to let you dream forever


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Bet they said that about feudalism and slavery back in the day.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Fairly broad stroke, but its limited by monopolies, which are inevitable when special interests fund politics. It also conflicts with basic rights, funded by taxation, which are a fundamental.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Basic rights funded by taxation? If you mean health care and education, then I'm sorry, those aren't rights. You're not entitled to ones labour because that is slavery and is also why taxation is theft.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here is my political compass and Isidewith, I was quite suprised as the compass shows that I am quite libertarian, and the isidewith shows that I side with the greens.
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: jpgisidewith.JPG (73.4 KB, 16 views)
  2. File Type: jpgPolitical compass.JPG (26.9 KB, 21 views)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I pity whoever has to trawl through these 500 posts to collect up people's test results for analysis given the thread has been flooded with the sorts of memes and nonsense that clearly belong in the bar.
    I'll give it a go. Wish me luck.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Get in the liberals you thilthy blairite
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heri2rs)
    Basic rights funded by taxation? If you mean health care and education, then I'm sorry, those aren't rights. You're not entitled to ones labour because that is slavery and is also why taxation is theft.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So when ones labour requires education?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Just like how the trade unions fund the labour party?
    Pretty much.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.