Can you point out where I may be off in my economic framework?

[Human Lefts]

And also point me in the right direction?

This is how I understand it:

There is one way to produce wealth which is through labor. Within the US, we measure wealth in money, specifically the dollar. The dollar is an arbitrary unit. Its relative value is dependent on (what number goes here?) divided by the amount of dollars in circulation (tangible and electronic). Aside from relative value, fiat currency has no absolute value. Banks make money off of interest, therefore they accumulate wealth from loaning capital without actually producing anything. The money that is lent out must be repaid plus interest, so the borrower has to accumulate more money than that to pay it back. In this case, the borrower has to make enough to support herself and the lender. In an effort to compete and attack more stockholders, the value of the bank has to increase endlessly. This leads to lending practices that result in economic crashes.

This is addressed by printing more dollars through the Federal Reserve system, outsourcing labor to and taking developing countries' resources (basically wealth) for incredibly cheap, shady lending and restructuring practices through the World Bank and IMF. However, this would also have to occur endlessly, and is just a trick to confuse people into not understanding what is happening.

Where am I off there??


A side question regarding Anarchist vs. Marxist theories. There are oppressors and oppressed. According the Bukharin, the tyranny of God is the most destructive one because it allows for other tyrannies (right?). It allows for irrational thought and as long as we're slaves to a made up entity, we will be slaves in our minds and to others. However, Marx took a different approach where the clergy was considered the opium of the people. This opium make us (proletariat) less likely to revolt against our oppressors (bourgeoisie). So are clergy part of the bourgeoisie?

Thanks for any feedback!

[Blake's Baby]

The clergy aren't 'part of the bourgeoisie' but they are part of the ideological apparatus of capitalism. They don't own companies and employ wage labour for the purposes of expanded reproduction, they don't produce commodities. I think probably, were Bakunin (I presume you mean Bakunin, not Bukharin) alive today he might consider class rather than ideology to be the most important factor. Most Anarchists see class as being the overriding factor in oppression, I'd guess. But ideology and material existence are related, as is consciousness... dialectically related even.

Do you mean '...attack more stockholders'? Or did you mean 'attract'?

'Resources' aren't really 'wealth'. Wealth is value, and value is produced by labour.

As to the rest - I guess so. The number that you're looking for in your equation is the cumulative total of values in the system - that's the real 'wealth' of which dollars are supposed to be an expression.

[Human Lefts]

The clergy aren't 'part of the bourgeoisie' but they are part of the ideological apparatus of capitalism. They don't own companies and employ wage labour for the purposes of expanded reproduction, they don't produce commodities. I think probably, were Bakunin (I presume you mean Bakunin, not Bukharin) alive today he might consider class rather than ideology to be the most important factor. Most Anarchists see class as being the overriding factor in oppression, I'd guess. But ideology and material existence are related, as is consciousness... dialectically related even.

Do you mean '...attack more stockholders'? Or did you mean 'attract'?

'Resources' aren't really 'wealth'. Wealth is value, and value is produced by labour.

As to the rest - I guess so. The number that you're looking for in your equation is the cumulative total of values in the system - that's the real 'wealth' of which dollars are supposed to be an expression.
Thanks for your response!


Yup, meant Bakunin. I make that mistake a lot.

I meant attract.

So resources fall into their own category. Labor used on those resources make wealth. Got it.

Is there another term more commonly used for "cumulative totals of values in the system"? Is it calculated on a regular basis or is it expected to work itself out through the market?

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism doesn't really calculate this total accurately - things like GDP are used instead, but this includes things that aren't necessarly productive. It's done rather roughly via the market - if things are over-valued, or under-valued, that will become increasingly obvious in relation to other commodities or the commodities in other countries.

Let's say, one country totally gets its calculations wrong and starts selling cars at $100 each - very rapidly, 'the market' will notice and all those cars will be bought up really quickly, because they are hopelessly undervalued. The value that the cars represent - several thousand dollars' worth of value - has been under-represented by the monetary value attached to them.

Likewise, if something is over-valued, the opposite can happen - no-one buys $200 sandwiches when they can get $2 sandwiches. Alternatively, if the market can take the high price, sandwiches become a very lucrative thing to get into and the market is flooded with sandwiches. This causes the price to drop, because the producers begin to compete amongst themselves for customers (there are now 20 million sandwich producers all looking for a profit), so they begin cutting prices - eventually, the sandwiches will be on sale for $2 again, because objectively, that's how much they are worth.