â„–3182538[Quote]
>>3182536the most retarded selection of books
â„–3182557[Quote]
>>3182535Wow this is real
â„–3182558[Quote]
>>3182507 (OP)https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/comments/145q8yx/reading_list/the great thing is that a lot of these texts, especially the ones at the start are articles you can read quickly that give you a quick overview of communist ideas without having to go all in to a book like capital that takes a while to read and understand. the first one "principles of communism" can genuinely be read in 5 minutes
â„–3182559[Quote]
>>3182535pidgin languages are just a excuse made up by linguists to why niggers speak so retardedly
â„–3182566[Quote]
>>3182558>>3182536holy crap tank you guys
â„–3182583[Quote]
>>3182574Quan millz mogs that bitch by a mile
â„–3182609[Quote]
>>3182583I forgot they were different people
>>3182600In highschool I had to read a book in which two Mexicans, one of which is a retarded immigrant, fall in love and have sex.
â„–3182632[Quote]
>>3182609Was it a good book?
â„–3182651[Quote]
>>3182648>doesnt even understand what that graph isgeg
â„–3182656[Quote]
Where did you get a pic of me nigger
â„–3182660[Quote]
communist manifesto
â„–3182672[Quote]
>>3182651its just a graph of coorperate wealth accumulation nigga.
â„–3182729[Quote]
>>3182672That's not what it is. This isn't wealth, it's not stock, FRED measurws flows not stocks(wealth), tard, if it was this would not even count as "accumulation" since it's mostly flat
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1KyKc â„–3182748[Quote]
The Authorized Biography of Diddy
Father, Futurist, Fashionista
â„–3182752[Quote]
Revolt of the Masses, Slavery of our Times, Down in Out in London and Paris
O have never read any of these books
â„–3182768[Quote]
>>3182729??? Net value IS wealth subtracted by debt dude.
â„–3182810[Quote]
>>3182768"Net value added" is not "wealth minus debt" – that's "net worth."
Net value added is the yearly income created by firms (wages + profits + depreciation).
It's a flow, not a stock of wealth. FRED doesn't measure stocks, again
â„–3182900[Quote]
>>3182884Nigga what are you talking about, i just showed you you were wrong wrt your "Net value being Net wealth" confusion. It's just the rate of US profit
â„–3182914[Quote]
>>3182557yeah thats genuinely how some african countries talk
â„–3182927[Quote]
>>3182884bro is just typing esl
â„–3182929[Quote]
>>3182900arent you trying to debunk tho?
â„–3182932[Quote]
>>3182926marx fails to describe this btw
â„–3182934[Quote]
>>3182932Fails to describe what exactly?
â„–3182946[Quote]
>>3182934the tendency for the rate of profit to fall
â„–3182948[Quote]
>>3182936not really if youre a marxist
â„–3182953[Quote]
>>3182946What do you mean he fails to describe? The tendency for the rate of profit to fall originates from Marx and Marxian economics as something he described and predicted
â„–3182964[Quote]
>>3182953It originates from adam smith actually and he did not predict it but observed it.
marx's explanation for TRPF is flawed:
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/crisis-theory-the-law-of-the-tendency-of-the-profit-rate-to-fall-and-marxs-studies-in-the-1870s/If you disagree I would like to see your response to this article that contains a quite simple and convincing argument in my opinion
â„–3182968[Quote]
>>3182926No "Most FRED graphs" don't show this lol wtf.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cShhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W273RE1A156NBEAThat one is literally rop=s/(v+c) formula and as you can see there is no fall for 100 years. Here's one from ever before that for the US
Epic Michael Roberts(retard) graph bro (for the UK) You can read this(by a socialist btw):
https://unlearnecon.medium.com/the-astonishingly-poor-empirics-of-the-tendency-of-the-rate-of-profit-to-fall-a9d062d0dc64Notice how in the 19th century there is no fall for example?
>>3182929Debunk what?
â„–3182976[Quote]
>>3182968It doesnt matter because marxists will say this is due to imperialism or whatever
The theory itself doesnt make sense
â„–3182995[Quote]
>>3182976It's largely unfalsifiable. The thing is, there is no long term fall in the profit rate in the most advanced(most automation and labor saving technology, continuing to be implemented too) economy in the world and they have to cope with that
â„–3183004[Quote]
>>3182985Your first two graphs literally show no fall and this is just eyeballing charts. My graph is literally rop=s/(v+c), there is NO fall there
â„–3183005[Quote]
>>3182985you posted an article which contradicts you having this opinion though
â„–3183007[Quote]
Kek the person who did the calculations for FRED defends and BELIEVES in the rate of profit's tendency to fall
https://nicolasdvillarreal.substack.com/p/the-tendency-for-the-rate-of-profit â„–3183011[Quote]
>>3182997Idc about this, adress why there is no fall of profit in the rop=s/(v+c) graph
â„–3183023[Quote]
>>3183011You were the one who brought up the Unlearning Economic's article. Literally all of your graphs are calculations from someone who strongly defends the TPRF and believes it is empircally valid and explains historical crisises.
â„–3183026[Quote]
>>3182997I would like to see your response to
>>3182964 as this argument is also in the unlearningecon article and is addressed in this video as far as I can tell
â„–3183027[Quote]
>>3183007I showed you the theory doesn't even stand up to scrutiny, the main ideas are wrong, like constant rising OCC ratio
>>3182984Why is there no fa in the rop=s/(v+c) graph, again
â„–3183038[Quote]
>>3183027He (as in the person who made and calculated that graph) literally explains it in this article kek
https://nicolasdvillarreal.substack.com/p/the-tendency-for-the-rate-of-profitHe's not using capital stock at all in this formula, depreciation is used here. Marx didn't mean total capital stock
â„–3183064[Quote]
>>3183038>He's not using capital stock at all in this formula, depreciation is used here. Marx didn't mean total capital stock obviously, that would be like accumulated assets, he eas talking about rate of profit (rop=s/(v+c))
Depreciation is used because this is FLOW, not stock, obviously, this is profit per year minus wages + constant capital i.e wages getting reduced due to implementation of labor saving technology
â„–3183069[Quote]
>>3183038>>3183064Also this fred graph is not even in this article bro
â„–3183078[Quote]
>>3182968>Debunk what?You're just showing a graph that supposedly btfos all the author's ideas on class exploitation dude.
>Also this fred graph is not even in this article brosame shape doe
â„–3183100[Quote]
>>3183069He was behind all of the calculations for rate of profit on the FRED website, it attributes him as the author. He made all of them.
>>3183064>>3183028>>3183027I don't get why this graph is supposed to be a gotcha when it does show a decreasing rate of profit, the start of the graph is where the great depression is and it does show that from WW2 to 1990 there is a measurable decrease and consistent decrease in the rate of profit, and that the author (Villarreal) states that the countervailing tendency was the rise of neoliberalism, which squeezed more surplus value. Also this is just one graph, why not show them averaged together?
â„–3183134[Quote]
>>3183100>He was behind all of the calculations for rate of profit on the FRED website, it attributes him as the author. He made all of them.Not in the article, again. I got this graph from somewhere else just from my experience lole.
There is no fall, look at the straight line, it's at the same spot, idk how this is difficult to understand. I showed you one for the US from even before this and there is no fall before the spike since WW2
â„–3183175[Quote]
>>3183156WW2 came after the Great Depression, a period of unnaturally low profitability. You can't discount WW2 as an anomaly but then use the Great Depression as a baseline
â„–3183183[Quote]
>>3183134Again, he was behind the FRED graphs you posted. I don't know how hard it is to explain that I'm not talking about the article. Your own sources disagree with how you interpret and understand the data.
â„–3183198[Quote]
Burp