[jadabaad]

You couldn't have put this in the Econ thread?

[AAAESLLESO]

You couldn't have put this in the Econ thread?

This is a completely new take on things that obviously needs to be separated from the mundane words of mere mortals.

[Hftqdxpm]

It's not about the future, it's about the past.

[fygESytT]

Unfortunately, the whole presentation isn't online.

[AOE6q4bu]

GASP! A Marxist!?!

[tramadoldiscountes]

Interesting vid. Not sure I buy the whole causation from wage-gap to debt-gap, but it's an interesting theory.

[Cd9JfGHR]

That guy is a tremendous idiot. But I'm sure what he's saying makes lots of sense to those without basic fundamental understandings of economics.

Sez the guy cheering the system that put him out of work.

[SM9WI8oI]

I like the way asher thinks that only communists stay unemployed. That's

[hablyShappY]

btw, I'm employed and asher isn't.

Already got an interview lined up tomorrow. Won't be too long, Kid.

[Byxtysaaqwuz]

Fact: Communism has failed.

[boXGWf04]

You shouldn't. Real wages staying stagnant doesn't mean real wages go down. Social norms changed when credit became easier to obtain (mostly due to technological advances). It is ok to take on extra debt now when before it wasn't.

Social norms might have changed, but economic realities didn't change to accommodate them. It's rather obvious that the prior ease of credit was undeserved... the ability to pay it back does not exist to adequately support the price levels that the ease of credit promoted.

If incomes had kept up with debt (and the prices promoted), there wouldn't need to be a devaluation. But they didn't, so we get the devaluation and the related pain that comes with such an event.

[Preorbtat]

You shouldn't. Real wages staying stagnant doesn't mean real wages go down. Social norms changed when credit became easier to obtain (mostly due to technological advances). It is ok to take on extra debt now when before it wasn't.

For credit to become easier to obtain, you need lenders out there willing to lend their stored capital, which seems to be what would happen under this guy's scenerio. It doesn;t matter people become more willing to borrow without there being someone equally willing to lend.

[pGJLweEw]

Interesting vid. Not sure I buy the whole causation from wage-gap to debt-gap, but it's an interesting theory.

Something had to be done with the capital that was raised by not increasing wages. If it had been invested to increase production then wages would have increased. But that would have brought lower profit margins. Buy lending they actually increased their profit margins. It's not really causation. It's just capitalists taking advantage of the situation and ****ing everything up.

[juidizHusw]

It didn't appear that they needed to invest to increase production, it was already increasing. I think cheap overseas labor probably had more to do with the decline of U.S. wages than anything.

The cheap overseas labor definitely contributed to low wages. It also contributed to keeping prices low which discouraged further production increases in the US. With prices low it was more profitable to loan consumers money than to increase production further in the US, even though it caused a meltdown.

[phpfoxmods]

The meltdown came from stacking bad investment vehicles (derivatives) on top of each other, and using the house pricing boom as the basis for the whole scheme. When house prices began going the other way, the whole system collapsed. Not based on wages, investment capital, or retail loans at all. If C appears to the pros to be due to E, J, L, and S (primary causes), then coming along and insisting that items affected tertiarily were the REAL cause doesn't make it actually so. It just reflects your own philosophy.

[spamkillerf]

If you own shares in companies, you will notice that they don't ask you for advice on investments, creating derivitives or ignoring the demand for high fuel efficiency. The people who actually run companies like GM, the managers, are3 to all intent and purposes, ignored by Marxist philosophy. Those were the people to whom I was refering. They don't look at the marginal dollar and say, "I know, let's lend this out at 10% to someone." They might buy Citibank shares, but they wouldn't have any real idea what those managers are actually going to do.

A side note: If you buy shares in a company, you don't buy them from the company. You buy them from a third party who in turn wants to sell. So "people own both GM and Citibank" don't actually run those companies or decide on worker's pay versus lending decisions.

[Peabelilt]

A whole lecture on the subject by the same person.


Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Marxian View from UVC-TV 19 on Vimeo.

[Cerilopasei]

As a shareholder, try to make wages over investments happen. There is nowhere to even begin. Big retirement funds can wield influence, but the people managing them aren't looking out for the worker either.

Who said shareholders don't want more dividends?

IPOs are handled by investment banks. You, the potential shareholder, do not buy directly from the company. Someone buys the damn shares! The investment bank if you like.

[Bgfbukpf]

He's really nailed the sleazy used car salesman look

You're always so intellectual

[ZZtop]

As we've seen in this current crisis, the shareholders sure told the CEO's how to behave. I'm wondering which CEOs were listening to me, as my Thrift Savings Plan owns stock

Who cares whether CEOs listen to you personally? They definitely listen to major stockholders with power. The shareholders say, "make profit." And that's exactly what the CEOs do. In fact, their pay is in accordance with the profit they make.

You seem to think that I'm talking about some individuals, as if it's a conspiracy or something. I'm talking about the actions collectively taken by the capitalist class, and the failures of the capitalist system.