General Discussion

tama

(9,137 posts)

75. Is MF for "Mutual Fund" or...?

Reply to Starry Messenger (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:34 PM

Dec 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Paul Krugman rediscovers Marxism--what's next? Fire? The wheel? [View all] Starry Messenger Dec 2012 OP

Indeed, Ma'am: The Flash Of the Obvious Is Blinding.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #1

This from a guy who once said-- Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #3

'And it has really uncomfortable implications' leftstreet Dec 2012 #2

I've been morbidly giggling about this article for days. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #4

This little glitch (I refuse to call it a problem) is easily solved by a move to employee owned 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #5

I don't know if it is easily solved? Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #6

That is...drumroll... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7

Not quite, you would still have competing enterprises and markets. DireStrike Dec 2012 #14

You should read Marx, just saying. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #32

Any particular works/sections? DireStrike Dec 2012 #43

Well, Das Kapital is a few volumes nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44

Honestly, Capital is too heavy for most people. DireStrike Dec 2012 #50

People won't take a stab at the Wealth nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51

Marx agrees, as long as "living wage" means "exactly the cost of life and reproduction". DireStrike Dec 2012 #58

Socialism is not limited to Marxism, but a much wider concept tama Dec 2012 #74

Kind of like Christopher Columbus "discovering" America or something... limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #8

Krugs is happy to accept the boom and bust, wealth and misery, as long as Keynes is there byeya Dec 2012 #10

I agree with you, I think this is probably a temporary wobble in his world-view. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #11

Yes, he was stunned by the ignorance and wobbled but he's still all capitalism all the time but with byeya Dec 2012 #15

I agree with all that--plus the Red Scare which was really aimed at killing labor. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #16

To regain clout, labor somehow(and will need many allies) needs to rid the nation of 14(b); byeya Dec 2012 #17

If Rick Snyder signs... pbrower2a Dec 2012 #30

We can only hope......... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #68

Krugman won't lead any charge - TBF Dec 2012 #54

Mwahaha! Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #59

The myth that all capitalism needs is a pinch of reform and a dash of regulation is very useful entanglement Dec 2012 #47

He knows who butters his bread. Like all but the tiniest fringe of rich people, they don't Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #45

Uncle Whiskers made a lot of mistakes but he got it right when it counted! byeya Dec 2012 #9

Seriously! lol Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #13

I think Krugman's point doesn't support Marxism at all. gulliver Dec 2012 #12

In my opinion, making Marxism a forbidden word when used in a positive context, stems byeya Dec 2012 #18

That's how I feel too. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #19

I'm old. I have never seen the ruling class so brazen about their intent to grab all they can from byeya Dec 2012 #20

Thank you for all of that byeya. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #24

Is MF for "Mutual Fund" or...? tama Dec 2012 #75

You can add to that the collosal betrayal of socialism by Stalin n/t entanglement Dec 2012 #48

Du rec. Nt xchrom Dec 2012 #21

Since manufacturing is a small percent of workforce, automated manufacturing has a modest effect FarCenter Dec 2012 #22

We're already living with that to a certain extent. Make a phone call and you get byeya Dec 2012 #23

My favorite example is the self-service gas station FarCenter Dec 2012 #25

That and the automated check out lines at the grocery store. limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #28

Good point. First agriculture employed most workers in the US, then manufacturing. pampango Dec 2012 #33

or maybe it will leave 10% providing specialized services and most of the rest as a dispossessed HiPointDem Dec 2012 #35

Not sure of your point. If manufacturing does not provide 10%, 20%, 30% of the jobs, we are doomed? pampango Dec 2012 #36

lawn-mowing is a service. it doesn't provide an income that can support a family, generally HiPointDem Dec 2012 #38

The two are only casually related Spike89 Dec 2012 #52

no, most entertainers make nowhere near enough to support 100 families. most entertainers HiPointDem Dec 2012 #53

You are right, it was hyperbole, but the point is jobs change Spike89 Dec 2012 #55

yes, jobs change. that fact is basically irrelevant to the direction of the distribution of wealth HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56

No, actually I agree. only casually related Spike89 Dec 2012 #57

i think the mix of production v. service actually does matter, though. production produces new HiPointDem Dec 2012 #62

Ah, that is where we differ Spike89 Dec 2012 #63

You're not understanding me. I'm talking about international trade. You can't trade lawnmowing HiPointDem Dec 2012 #64

Actually, they do cover the bills Spike89 Dec 2012 #65

service exports weren't covering hard goods imports last time i checked the trade figures. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #66

Because we don't track it correctly Spike89 Dec 2012 #67

wtf are you talking about? we track the *cash flow* & that's what matters. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #71

Socialism means most fundamentally tama Dec 2012 #77

i will be happy to cheer on the reduction of work hours when it appears it's going to come with HiPointDem Dec 2012 #78

That's already happened to a huge extent, look at McDonalds. joshcryer Dec 2012 #70

Fossile capitalism tama Dec 2012 #76

So he will discover Climate Change and become an Anarcho Primitivist NoOneMan Dec 2012 #26

Hey now, the anarchs may be primitivists, but they're not monkeys. JackRiddler Dec 2012 #27

haha. whoops NoOneMan Dec 2012 #29

Yes we are tama Dec 2012 #79

Actually, I Thought Everyone Had Been Complaining About On the Road Dec 2012 #31

yes, paul, it has uncomfortable implications. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #34

An 18th century economic system controlled by a 9th century class system ruling over Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #37

Ouch. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #39

'A 9th century class system' - that would be Feudalism, yes? Or did coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #40

No, I meant 9th century, but it is merely a convenient period from western European history. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #41

+1 Hissyspit Dec 2012 #42

Do robots manufacture robots? mmonk Dec 2012 #46

Since you asked...yes nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #49

The rational part of me is scared... white_wolf Dec 2012 #61

Yeah and Krugman isn't the only one. In the last few years......... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #60

This is why I dropped economics in school. It doesn't allow you to see the patently obvious. joshcryer Dec 2012 #69

Econ was a required gen ed course for me and it really made no sense. white_wolf Dec 2012 #72

It was for me as well for some reason. I actually quit school entirely. joshcryer Dec 2012 #73