Yes, yes. I forgot.

`the sum total of social relationships that people must enter into in order to survive, to produce, and to reproduce their means of life. As people must enter into these social relationships, i.e. because participation in them is not voluntary, the totality of these relationships constitute a relatively stable and permanent structure, the "economic structure". `

Why did I get 8 pings

Lwhy did I get no pings? Let's start a discussion

What do you think about eating greens with all those insecticides and pesticides

shur up

@Jack12 I only eat reds.

cant even debate one

@Da_Fish stop pinging me commie sucker

What should the role of government be in the economy?

to govern

the government should control the entire economy

What brand of economics do you subscribe to?

wait nvm

Same person different name, Communist

😂

I think that the Government should foster Competition in the economy and to prevent monopolies from developing

Basically Ordoliberalism

monopolies happen anyway and competition simply means exploiting the worker more

Could you elaborate on that?

after i get out of the shower i will

Alright

What is that?

kek

looks like the WWI memorial thing

Some virgin put a no n word filter but basically some black girl sang at the ww1 armistice event in (I think Berlin) and it’s disrespectful as duck

fuck*

@PebbЛe Could you elaborate as to how monopolies happen anyway and competition simply means exploiting the worker more?

Wtf

Black girl singing in a war between white nations

Mk then

muh turks and indians

@Shalopy Econophysics, especially by Yakovenko show that money in a market economy plays the same role as energy in physics; energy is conserved in collisions between molecules as money is conserved in acts of buying and selling. This is a simple observation but it entails something on a much larger scale of importance -- Thermodynamics at play on the distribution of money. Yakovenko shows that the distribution of money follows the same distribution that energy between molecules does, this is called the Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pugAklByimc/SibYvlTjYuI/AAAAAAAACXQ/X_lmOvGJBJ4/s400/gibbs.JPG

The Yakovenkan equations represented an economy framed as Marx termed, simple commodity production -- buying and selling. The distribution of money following thermodynamics shows that in a basic buying and selling economy wealth aggregates to few hands.

If we follow the praxeology of liberal economies we see that they do not follow simple commodity production but implement other methods of capital accumulation (interest on money, or the hiring of wage labor). This polarizes the income even further.

This brings me to the crux of my point, which can be bifurcated into worker exploitation and the natural occurence of economic power being inseparable from political influence.

Noting the maximal entropy of this distribution, barriers to entry exist all over the place in form of cost advantages such as economies of scale and network externalities. Then it comes to the regulatory protections which I'm sure you've been through that already, that perpetuate an arbitrary ownership of conditions in production.

Many of the monopolies in the west have large amounts of political power and are intertwined within the government greatly, despite the anti-trust actions we've seen against Microsoft and Google by the EU.

The motive of a firm to remain afloat is to fight the general downward rate of profit, and to do this in a competitive scene requires the firm to structure itself to its most profitable. Conventional economists like Samuelson claim that the capital intensity of firm (K/L) is not symptomatic of labor power in terms of profitability, however Farjoun and Machover show empirically with vertically integrated labor coefficents that high labor to capital ratios are more profitable -- ergo the source of structuring the firm to be more profitable required the further exploitation of labor power.

The Gibbs-Boltzmann distribution seems to go hand in hand or maybe it is just another term for the Pareto Distribution, where money over time trends towards fewer and fewer people which I think could be overcome by having a monetary upper and lower limit. Being the excess money made from the upper limit would be given in some form or another to the people on or under the lower limit to supplement or bring them to the lower limit. There would still be inequality, but it would be less than it is now.

@PebbЛe

Redistribution does not solve the issue of very uneven wealth aggregation by virtue of market economies involving buying and selling in the first place

Inequality would not necessarily be less if capital accumulation remains in the same methods

Exploitation of labor power is the basis of profit in industries and the wealth aggregation will always produce natural monopolies that will catalyze in power if it influences government policy or efficiently plays the regulation game