Capitalism: Competition, Conflict and Crises, Lecture 3: Profit and Production

[@Guoldisney]

This seems to be the most scientifically rigorous refoundation to economics, but I am an ecologist not an economist.

[@KarlHoweth]

Anwar Shaikh is one of the most brilliant economists today.

[@Diamat1917]

8:50 Difference approach to the process of production from classical and neoclassical point of view

[@Diamat1917]

10:00 Distributon comes AFTER production and exchange comes after production. That is why it is necessary to start with production. Exchange is merely one of meany forms of distribution

[@Diamat1917]

56:00 Marx and Stewart! Profit has TWO sources: surplus profit and profit due to transfers (merchants profit, interest and rent). Example of rpofit due to transfer : stealing of tv ===> origin of merchant capital

[@Diamat1917]

1:12:27 Slide of production process as per Marx contrary to production function Y=f(K,L) - picnic example

[@Charles-kk6vj]

This is a great lecture, but it seems weird to still be looking at the economy from a manufacturing centric view. I know the idea is that the core idea still applies, but does it hold out empirically when you look at: retail workers, marketing consultants, taxi drivers etc. These still have capital + labour, but not really any inital low productivity, shift work, or even clear outputs. Do we just assume the service sector has similar cost curve shapes to traditional manufacturing sectors?

[@justinlevy274]

Yes, the service sector is similar. I believe he has charts for it in his book. The key factor is still output per unit of time. A taxi driver may be driven to make 20 trips per shift instead of 12. A marketing consultant may be given a case load that normally would require 3 people to handle. I'm sure you've seen retail shops that have only one employee in the whole building who handles everything even though it's clear they need more help. The productivity is (on average) the same as elsewhere as most people tend to move more slowly at the beginning and end of the shift and before/after breaks.

[@tormunnvii3317]

Does a fully automated production process result in surplus profit? Is living Labour necessary to produce surplus profit, to put another way?

[@yevraskiy7545]

you can't make fully automated production process someone has to make the machines and mines the material

[@tormunnvii3317]

@@yevraskiy7545 ok then, if that could be automated too, what then?

[@justmrod]

Exactly, it wouldn't because there would be no value, meaning no one would need to pay for anything, its a case of a post-scarcity society. The worst part however, is that if we lived in a society which required such a minimum amount of labour, it would mean, that in this automation, the owner of production wouldn't need to hire workers, however, who consumes these goods ans services?, its clear that it is workers who apply for this task, but if there is no need to hire workers no one need to pay people to do work, so there is no wage no purchasing power, and hence, no selling of commodities in the market.Meaning that it is not impossible per se that profit is impossible for this is generated in production, the problem is that it cannot be manifested, since evwn thought the value is there, the other part serving as a medium for it in exchange, the money wage, is not.

[@davide9598]

@@tormunnvii3317 In that sense, there would need to be productive forces so advanced that they could reproduce themselves. What makes labor the only thing that can create surplus value is that labor can work beyond what it needs to consume in order to sustain itself. I may only need to work 4 hours to made the goods that I need to sustain myself, however I could work 8 hours total. This is a feature unique to labor itself. A machine may appear to "create" value, but it merely gives off some of its value onto other products as it depreciates. This was key for me to understand Marx's labour theory of value and it is mentioned early in Capital, but Shaikh does not seem to mention it. This helps us theories communism economically. In my view, a future communist world will be one in which the minimal amount of labour required in order to allow machines to function and reproduce themselves is so minimal (or at one point non-existant), that we are able to essentially live our lives to the fullest with minimal work. Our work would become so efficient, the accumulation of knowledge and skills advancing our technology, to the point where a few minutes of work could create social surplus that could last us days, weeks, months or even years.

[@johnmeyer768]

@@justmrod Yes and this idea is the basis for Marx's conception of crisis as well as one of his reasons given that capitalism is only a temporary mode of production which something will have to replace it eventually

[@Diamat1917]

51:20 Average car production cost is $ 5,200 - 5,500

[@Diamat1917]

17:30 Neoclassical economists adds average profit rate to the cost (opportunity cost)! It is not daone in real life! Cost= materials + wages + depreciation + opportunity cost

[@Diamat1917]

1:23:25 Sraffa's nonsense of "Production of commodities by means of commodities". Slide prices cannot create aggregate profit

[@johngod35]

"corn doesn't go on strike" lmao

[@SusanSt.James-33]

James Steuart: Two sources of profit.

[@scottkuhn4026]

Only labor makes profit.

[@jsbart96]

@@scottkuhn4026 profit on transfer?

[@8DX]

Thank you for uploading this, general education about the processes that our societies depend on is important, especially if we want to change those processes and improve our societies. Thanks! =8)-DX

[@filip7086]

hmmm surely average variable cost increase as a firm consumes more inputs due to diminishing returns on the production of raw materials.

[@arlindelacruz9639]

FIlip Vestin According to neoclassical theory yes, but it wrong. This fallacy is do to the perfect competition that neoclassical assume industries to under. Towever, real firms rarely operate in the short run, instead idle capacity is used in order to meet growing demand. The major problems that firms face is not rising marginal cost, but rather, expanding and selling while trying to out compete other firms.

[@Diamat1917]

12:40 Speca ships. No exchange whatsoever

[@karlwang672]

Shaikh said that workers work from 9 to 9 in developing countries. alas. It's just reality in “Serica"

[@wiegraf9009]

Interestingly, Japan is a "developing country" by Shaikh's definition of the working day. 9 AM - 9 PM is a normal working day here.

[@jonabirdd]

Is that really true? Certainly it is not true everywhere in japan - maybe as a salaryman - overtime perhaps?

[@wiegraf9009]

Jon Chuang Overtime yes but often unpaid.

[@williamchan1414]

@@wiegraf9009 Culture plays a huge part in economics as well, but its not Shaikh's focus here

[@Guoldisney]

Not in factories. It's mostly low productivity office work imposed by culture not by profitability

[@patrickdemenezes4204]

i love u

[@crocodilegamingtv1178]

I respect Dr. Shaihk's attempt but the connection that ties his theory to his cost curve is just too loose. He makes the case that during the start if the day, output is generally low eventually picking up, as it drops during the end of the working day. I respect the attempt but simply looking at individuals working puts holes in his explanation. For instance, when I worked retail, I had a steady output the whole day, however, I saw people who took pride in there job, and their output never seemed to really let up. On the other hand, I saw people who were genuinely scamming, hardly doing anything, while others relied on the fact that they knew the bosses and worked when ever they felt like. If I wanted to I can describe many other situations which begs the question, how can these different scenarios be aggregated? It has, in my opinion, just as many holes as neo-classical economics.

[@williamchan1414]

I think you are right in your case on a small scale but we are talking about the average here, as a social scientist we must abstract all workers as equally productive so as to make theories.

[@justinlevy274]

Shaihk is using findings from industrial studies where people actually track the productivity of workers over the course of their shift. The point he's making isn't theoretical, it is empirical, it's just what happens. It then has further theoretical implications. It's similar to class in high school. The first few minutes students want to talk and mess around, then they settle in to the lesson, then the last 5 minutes they start watching the clock and checking out.