I saw this image here

I saw this image here

Explain how can capitalism work so inefficiently, if wages are so fucking low how can the economy even work? Isn't it a situation of overproduction as in a crisis? And also, if it were overproduction, prices would drop as in all crisis, but situation appears stable.

From a keynesian/economical perspective please, not only ideological/philosophical/political

Other urls found in this thread:



50% of americans make less than $30,000 a year and 40% of them make less than $20,000 a year it is neither working nor is it stable when the economy takes a dive every 4 to 7 years

haven't you read adam smith user? there's a fucking invisible hand that keeps it afloat isn't it beautiful? the miracle of the FREE market is even endorsed by God himself!


This lots and lots of credit

Debt bubbles that burst once a decade leading to a group of people previously living a decent life moving down to scraps. Unsustainable in the longterm, good enough for capitalism for now.

I'll have you cucks know that this divide happened voluntarily. Both workers and employers benefit from this inequality because it happened voluntarily, the worker didn't have to continue working in the same occupations if they didn't like seeing their wages spiral down. Clearly if they weren't happy with their situation they would just find another job

wtf? i love inequality now

10/10 accurate a/f

I thought about the bubbles and so… Also in the 80's debt was marginalized in credit cards and financial innovations and deregulations.
Are there any papers/books about that specific problem (from 80's to now, not Marx nor Keynes)?

Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It by RD Wolff talks about just that and how it lead to the crash in 09

His new book 'Capitalism's Crisis Deepens' is a good follow up also

Wages in the center of capitalism were high in the 1950s-60s because of the power of unions and a high average rate of profit in the post-world war era. The wages eventually became unmaintainable as the average rate of profit fell, in addition to an inflation crisis (I don't know the exact Marxist critique of the Keynesian explanation for the inflation crisis)
We've been in a liberal capitalism (the neo-liberal era) ever since. At this point, there was a lot of lobbying power in the US government, as well as other democratic governments in the developed industrial world to: abandon protectionist policies, cut taxes on corporations, privatize public services, and reduce the power of unions and break up union membership. Technology and political developments made it feasible to outsource industrial jobs to the rest of the world, as well as the output of industry in the US and Europe became much more automated.
Falling profitability for investing in real production of goods pushed capitalism back into crisis as the neo-liberal era didn't raise profitability up to post WW2 profitability (Europe was being rebuilt). Privatization, discipline of labor, growing private and public debt , lowering of corporate taxes, outsourcing, technological growth, subsidies, profitable contacting (think military) etc all done to raise profitability.

The problem is profitability was never raised back to a high, further falling profitability was only prevented. It it started falling again just before 2008. Bubbles are also a symptom of profitability being low in the real economy, and corporate and public debts become unpayable when profitability falls, triggering crisis


Believe it or not, a great deal of the business that capitalists do is with other capitalists. That makes a kind of sense if you want to sell product for a good price you sell it to the social strata with the most buying power, which in a capitalist society are the capitalists who earn profit by extracting labor-value. Think about all the things a successful business needs to operate, machines to make the products,raw materials, spare parts, computers and phones to communicate with suppliers, buildings that need to built and leased out etc. this can make up for weak consumer demand in the short-term and as others have noted there's also consumer credit, which is a bit like having your cake and eating it for the capitalist class while it lasts.

One reason I believe wages have been stagnant besides intentional neoliberal policies designed to constrain wage growth is that developed economies over the past couple decades have been slowing down.

You might be interested in Hudson's Killing the Host or Ismael Hossein-zadeh's book Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Crisis: Parasitic Finance Capital basically financial and other rent-seeking forms of capital have grown so powerful that they are choking out productive capital and adding considerably to its costs. In the United States according to Michael Hudson between half and two-thirds of an average worker's annual paycheck is appropriated by FIRE sector charges. This adds considerably to the costs of the vast majority of enterprises as well as the workforce. No surprise that profits have stagnated across the board, but one notable exception is finance whose share of the national profit has grown fatter while others (like industry) have seen a decline in their share.

Most people here probably lean towards the monthly review view that the financial sector has grown because of the falling rate of profit. Or Kliman's monocausal view that the rate of profit has fallen because it fell and therefore the end of capitalism is nigh.

I tend to think Zadeh's view that its actually the opposite is right, real capital accumulation probably did not see a significant decline but was diverted into the FIRE sector where it would enrich the largest and most parasitic elements of the imperialist class.

Problem is that "usury" is integral to any system based on profit-making as much as capitalist revolutionaries and reformers have sought to get it under control. Likewise, if it was eliminated through radical reforms maybe industrial capital would flourish briefly like after WWII but then it experience a serious overconsumption and over/mal-investment crisis.


Mark Blyth also makes some good points on the issue, though I he isn't a Marxist.

When I read all the retarded shit they post I wonder if the """"an""""cap flags are true lolbertarians or they are just taking the piss out of them by perpetuating the stereotypes.

But they did find another job - as revolutionaries.

Remember: there are always vacancies in Vanguard.


How many levels of irony are you on right now?

Like, 2 or 3, my dude

The median wage in the US is over 50k, what are you taking about?

wouldn't that make it a voluntary exchange though?

The "raw" average wage, computed as net compensation divided by the number of wage earners, is $7,050,259,213,644.55 divided by 158,186,786, or $44,569.20. Based on data in the table below, about 67.2 percent of wage earners had net compensation less than or equal to the $44,569.20 raw average wage. By definition, 50 percent of wage earners had net compensation less than or equal to the median wage, which is estimated to be $28,851.21 for 2014.

from ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014