So how do the hardcore leftists explain all the company bankruptcies that occur?

[coloradoatheist]

It's the left that thinks there is an unlimited amount of profit that companies have.

Here we go: unlimited pool of profits canard.

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here we go: unlimited pool of profits canard.

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

Yes, you've foiled us. We all believe that an unlimited pool of profits exists and deny that businesses always run at absolute efficiency never wasting a cent.

 

[coloradoatheist]

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

Yes, you've foiled us. We all believe that an unlimited pool of profits exists and deny that businesses always run at absolute efficiency never wasting a cent.

But the belief is that we add additional costs to business and the only thing will happen is that profits will shrink but everything will go along fine.

 

[ksen]

Here we go: unlimited pool of profits canard.

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

Nobody disagrees with that.

But good point! I guess.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

From Wikipedia:

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is a hypothesis in economics and political economy, most famously expounded by Karl Marx in chapter 13 of Das Kapital, Volume 3. Although no longer accepted in mainstream economics, the existence of such a tendency was more widely accepted in the 19th century.[1]

In his 1857 Grundrisse manuscript, Karl Marx called the tendency of the rate of profit to fall "the most important law of political economy" and sought to give a causal explanation for it, in terms of his theory of capital accumulation.[2] The tendency is already foreshadowed in chapter 25 of Capital, Volume I (on the "general law of capital accumulation"), but in Part 3 of the draft manuscript of Marx's Capital, Volume III, edited posthumously for publication by Friedrich Engels, an extensive analysis is provided of the tendency.[3] Marx regarded the TRPF as proof that capitalist production could not be an everlasting form of production, since, in the end, the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown.[4] However, because Marx never published any finished manuscript on the TRPF himself, because the tendency is hard to prove or disprove theoretically, and because it is hard to test and measure the rate of profit, Marx's TRPF theory has been a topic of controversy for more than a century.

 

[ksen]

Yes, you've foiled us. We all believe that an unlimited pool of profits exists and deny that businesses always run at absolute efficiency never wasting a cent.

But the belief is that we add additional costs to business and the only thing will happen is that profits will shrink but everything will go along fine.

Where did we ever say "additional infinite costs"?

Labor share of GDP has dropped roughly 5% of GDP since around the early 80s. We've, or at least a couple of us, been arguing that labor share ought to go back to its historical 65% in order for economic growth to get back to historical norms as well as to reinvigorate the bottom 90% of workers.

So at most, in a $17 trillion economy we're talking about shifting $850 billion back to wages.

That's hardly "infinite."

 

[coloradoatheist]

But the belief is that we add additional costs to business and the only thing will happen is that profits will shrink but everything will go along fine.

Where did we ever say "additional infinite costs"?

Labor share of GDP has dropped roughly 5% of GDP since around the early 80s. We've, or at least a couple of us, been arguing that labor share ought to go back to its historical 65% in order for economic growth to get back to historical norms as well as to reinvigorate the bottom 90% of workers.

So at most, in a $17 trillion economy we're talking about shifting $850 billion back to wages.

That's hardly "infinite."

The decline started in the early 70s. If you want to make the biggest difference, nuke China or let's start using carrier pigeons for this board.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Corporations have an unlimited pool of profits.

There. Now some can cite that being said by a "leftist" who represents all leftists and they won't be trotting out a strawman.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Corporations have an unlimited pool of profits.

There. Now some can cite that being said by a "leftist" who represents all leftists and they won't be trotting out a strawman.

So when it is argued to increase minimum wage, which increases business costs, the only thing affected will be profits?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

 

[ksen]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

Sure!

Obviously AA had to take on huge loads of debt in order to keep paying ridiculously high wages.

Also, what are some Dov Charney dating tips?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

It's an interesting question because they are american made clothing. So are they losing based on cost or what they are selling?

 

[fromderinside]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

Yes, your example is simple.

No, it doesn't address the OP. That thing starts with a political ad hominem followed false data and argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

Yes, ask Axulus and coloradoatheist if you can start a thread about it where you write that right-wingers all say that companies only go bankrupt because of labor costs.

 

[ksen]

I'd like to get back to the OP.

Anyone want to talk about American Apparel's bankruptcy?

It's an interesting question because they are american made clothing. So are they losing based on cost or what they are selling?

Are those the only two options?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's an interesting question because they are american made clothing. So are they losing based on cost or what they are selling?

Are those the only two options?

Nope. They can have operational issues too. Looking at the company there are a lot of issues and the company will most likely just go away.

 

[ksen]

It's the left that thinks there is an unlimited amount of profit that companies have.

Here we go: unlimited pool of profits canard.

Here we go: unlimited pool of profits canard.

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

That's Axulus point, there isn't an unlimited pool of profits.

Nobody disagrees with that.

But good point! I guess.

But the belief is that we add additional costs to business and the only thing will happen is that profits will shrink but everything will go along fine.

Where did we ever say "additional infinite costs"?

Labor share of GDP has dropped roughly 5% of GDP since around the early 80s. We've, or at least a couple of us, been arguing that labor share ought to go back to its historical 65% in order for economic growth to get back to historical norms as well as to reinvigorate the bottom 90% of workers.

So at most, in a $17 trillion economy we're talking about shifting $850 billion back to wages.

That's hardly "infinite."

This part of the discussion moved here.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unter doesn't like the belief that the structure of current companies are the most efficient.

Is paying Stephen Hemsley over $100 million dollars a year the most efficient way to run a company?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody ever said it was easy to set up schemes to funnel the fruits of labor to the top and steal from workers.

Really? And yet so many average people with no special ability are able to pull it off...

What is hard about it? Can't you just hire a bunch of workers who are worth, say $15 per hour and pay them $10?

I'm not a sociopath so creating capitalist schemes to steal the fruits of labor is to me as immoral as any other kind of theft.

 

[ksen]

Unter doesn't like the belief that the structure of current companies are the most efficient.

Is paying Stephen Hemsley over $100 million dollars a year the most efficient way to run a company?

For Stephen Hemsley it is.