Re: Palestine: from the fall of the Ottomans to Today
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:35 am
It could also mean two completely different things: a.) if you have lets say a 100 year period, take any 30 year average and compare this with two other 30 year averages. Look where the tendency lies. b.) it means that what comes up must go down. The attractor is not an absolute constant however, it's only meant to be free of demand and supply equilibria. It might have slower movements and developments.vicdan wrote:1) All it means is that you are capable of taking an average. It doesn't mean that price is an attractor.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But long-term averages show the tendency to settle around a price in many cases.
Again you ignore Marx his "provisions and exceptions". If you're gonna critique the theory, try a bit of effort. Now you're forcing me in 'defender' mode while I just want to explain and better understand the theory in doing so. Or you prefer making people into 'defenders' so you can call them a name, put them into a category of some kind? Hm? So far my goal is to attack the ignorance of the theory I see here exposed and to learn from it, spreading the wealth in the process.2) 'in many cases'? What a ringing endorsement of the idea that all commodities have a 'natural price'.
There are specific conditions for a labor-product to be called a commodity in the abstract sense of the theory. I bet you don't know that.3) natural price as minimum price of commodity production labor (i.e. for the low-hanging fruit of commodities) by definition doesn't work for any commodity which isn't absolutely overwhelmingly available.
So do you admit now it hasn't been really disproven? That's correct because what happened that it has been abandoned, marginalized or as a Marxist would say ignored. The rejecting was a lack of perceived use-value as the new goal was to modernize capitalism and market processes, and the value of looking beyond that was questioned. But that's why it always pops up again during some crisis :)To believe in those just because it hasn't been disproven is religious faith. You know, just like marxism.
But you must then also agree that national boundaries, nation-states are void in a global super-capitalist system?Yes, entire industries might die -- and in the long run, the whole world will be better off.
This would be an interesting discussion, where it would migrate to. But it's too much off-two-topics.No, dude, capital would migrate into other things we do better. Our government protects those uncompetitive industries because they have small but vocal political participation, while the great unwashed masses, who pay excessively for steel, cars, and electronics, don't generally voice themselves on this matter.
Yeah, that same guy who came up with 'natural prices' showing up in the long run, the ones you're so ranting about. It must have been a very smart guy or he had a few things accidentally right ;) But the problem with all purely economical theories which include globalism is that they don't touch the whole social issue, the whole human dimension that is crucial in estimating the effects.Man, you know very little about economics, huh? This issue has been understood two centuries ago, by one David Ricardo. it's called comparative advantage. A globalized economy would end up producing that which it's best at, no matter where the absolute advantage lies.
That's a limitation only you suffer. A free market is not a static entity, not an idea that remains working exactly the same every time you flick the switch. You work too much with computers! :)You can't both believe that free market will make the workers better off, and that free market will only keep exacerbating the workers' exploitation.