Price-capping according to Marxists

[Questionable]

Obviously our ultimate goal is the resolution of the contradiction between exchange and use-value; however, as a temporary solution in times of crisis such as Hurricane Sandy, is price-capping an effective solution?

I heard that certain states affected by the hurricane were capping the prices of commodities such as fuel in order to insure that consumers had access to these things. Naturally neoliberal economists threw a fit about this, saying that it would lead to shortages, but what is the alternative? Without price-capping the high demand for fuel would have surely gone through the roof and people wouldn't have been able to afford it in a time of economic disaster, thus creating artificial shortages.

So, temporary it may be, is price-capping an acceptable practice from a Marxian viewpoint?

[Desy]

I think marxians would have a price cap. I'm just not sure how marxian economics deal with supply and demand yet, but a goods price is based on the labor put in. And also F neoliberal economists. They should all go to the gulag and tell us how neo-liberalism is still good for mankind.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think marxians would have a price cap. I'm just not sure how marxian economics deal with supply and demand yet, but a goods price is based on the labor put in. And also F neoliberal economists. They should all go to the gulag and tell us how neo-liberalism is still good for mankind.

Please refrain from empty threats of violence such as the emboldened.

I've approved your post but consider this a verbal warning. This is a sub-forum in Theory, for making points of theory, it is NOT about putting anyone in the gulag.

[Desy]

Sorry about that. But that is not a threat. Or an empty threat of violence. Also, I never said to put them In there or make them work there.. It was just a satire expression of how neo-liberalism theory forces horrid work conditions- like the gulag. Should I have said neoliberal economist should go look at the working conditions of the child labor factories? So I'll re say my point on this thread:

I think Marxists would have a price-cap, because a lot of the prices is determined by labor. But im not to sure how marxian economics adds in supply and demand yet. Also, those neoliberal economists are wrong in everyway with their point of view. They should go to a child labor factory, not work there or have anything bad happen to them, but to take a look at what will happen even more with their theory. And when they return from that peaceful trip they can try to tell us how neo-liberalism is still good for mankind.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ah right, I see what you were saying.

I'm personally not sure that child labour really equates to price caps. As sad as child labour is, and as much of a moral issue it is, it is an issue that is historical and contemporary, and has faced every developed and developing capitalist nation hitherto.

I don't have hugely strong feelings on pricing caps, other than that they should not be implemented in the labour market (i.e wage restraint via an incomes policy). It's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Direct cash transfers, subsidies and the lowering of direct and indirect taxation on the poorest are probably more effective policies within a capitalist framework, in times when economies are functioning below capacity.

[cyu]

This is a sub-forum in Theory, for making points of theory

Well, one might argue that the use of violence and gulags are valid theoretical ideas open to discussion. After all, the Bush and Obama regimes both discuss the use of torture, murder, and indefinite detention in terms of legal options that may be used by their regimes.

Of course, as an anarchist I would have to say I not particularly fond of gulags, but still I would say it's open to theoretical discussion - though it might be off-topic for some threads ;)


is price-capping an acceptable practice from a Marxian viewpoint?

From the anarchist viewpoint, I would go a step further and refer to Goldman's quote "If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread" - as well as her invocation of a Roman Catholic Cardinal: "Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor’s bread."

While it would be great if bleeding hearts from around the country came to your aid, "wait" is not something I would recommend anybody do. If someone is attempting to murder you, you are justified in killing them and it would not be considered murder. This is the same justification for taking things that you need to survive, "property" claims be damned.

As far as what effect this line of thinking would have on general economic production, see http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/if-they-do-not-give-you-work-or-bread-gcybcajus7dp-10/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, one might argue that the use of violence and gulags are valid theoretical ideas open to discussion. After all, the Bush and Obama regimes both discuss the use of torture, murder, and indefinite detention in terms of legal options that may be used by their regimes.

Of course, as an anarchist I would have to say I not particularly fond of gulags, but still I would say it's open to theoretical discussion - though it might be off-topic for some threads ;)



Valid ideas open to discussion, but not to be encouraged in the manner that the post did, particular in a thread about price capping. That is the end of it.

[Desy]

Valid ideas open to discussion, but not to be encouraged in the manner that the post did, particular in a thread about price capping. That is the end of it.

Again didn't encourge it. And neo-liberalism, price capping, and horrid work conditions do belong in the same thread. One theory from no price capping is free market trade - or what neo liberalist economists want. Gulag, forced work camps, child labor factories, child labor fields, the damn death star. It's called an example, and if it makes you squirm a little because I said a " naughty word" well im sorry. We will change gulag to " rainbow party for carebears"

Rainbow party for carebears have horrible work conditions, and in my opinion and point to this theory is; neo-liberalism would inevitably creat rainbow party for carebears.

[Clarion]

Price controls do cause shortages because they prevent supply increasing to meet increased demand.


But im not to sure how marxian economics adds in supply and demand yet. Also, those neoliberal economists are wrong in everyway with their point of view.

How can you claim they are wrong when you don't even understand supply and demand?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Again didn't encourge it. And neo-liberalism, price capping, and horrid work conditions do belong in the same thread. One theory from no price capping is free market trade - or what neo liberalist economists want. Gulag, forced work camps, child labor factories, child labor fields, the damn death star. It's called an example, and if it makes you squirm a little because I said a " naughty word" well im sorry. We will change gulag to " rainbow party for carebears"

Rainbow party for carebears have horrible work conditions, and in my opinion and point to this theory is; neo-liberalism would inevitably creat rainbow party for carebears.

Again, i've approved your post, but don't try to make an issue out of this. I don't mind heated debate in here, but just accept that the post you were verbally warned for was unclear and its connotations unacceptable.

We don't need attitude in here, let's stay on topic. I consider this the end of the issue. If you want to take this up further, then please PM me. I don't want anything more related to the issue of your previous post being verbally warned in this thread.

[Questionable]

Price controls do cause shortages because they prevent supply increasing to meet increased demand.

So what should the Marxist position be here? If demand increases, price increases as well, so people are going to face artificial shortages anyway.

[Clarion]

It's a choice between a bad situation (an extra financial burden on people but most people still able to buy the commodities they need) and a worse one (very few people being able to buy those commdities.

We can't wish or decree away the laws of supply and demand, they're inexcapable in a system of commodity production.

One thing that could work would be calling on the government to buy up what is needed and then provide it at the original price (or cheaper/free) to those who need it. Of course, such a position assumes that you have no problem calling on the state to act and that you have no problem redistributing wealth from the relatively better off workers to the poorer ones.

If you have objections to either of the above (as I do) then the best solution is workers' solidarity: workers organisations and ad hoc grassroots community help groups stepping out to help those in need.

[Desy]

Price controls do cause shortages because they prevent supply increasing to meet increased demand.



How can you claim they are wrong when you don't even understand supply and demand?

You do know marx and smith take different approaches on supply demand. And I'm not finished with das kapital, and instead of just talking out my ass; I said I don't understand marx take on supply and demand. YET.

[Clarion]

The issue isn't your ignorance, it's the fact that you seem to feel you have the right to claim that other economists are wrong in spite of your self-admitted ignorance on the subject.

[Desy]

I understand supply and demand as its practiced in the mutated state of capitalism today, so I admit and also need help on understading marxian economics with supply and demand effect on price capping. What I do know is what's going on right now, fighting for neo-liberalism, is wrong. And yes not knowing every economic theory I can say neo-liberalism is bad.

Not knowing all economic theory, while giving criticism to the failing economic theory is not ignorance on the subject, comrade, it is ignorance to the solution. So, please help me im all ears. OP and I have been waiting for a real answer. But the rainbow party of carebears and expressing anti neo-liberalism on the price cap question has got in the way.

[CyM]

I will try to answer the question. Supply and demand are real tendencies in the capitalist market that can't simply be ignored. So long as production is done for private profit and not for human need, price controls will only lead to a strike of capital, hoarding and an illegal black market.

One only needs to look to Venezuela to see that.

We don't condemn price controls in Venezuela, but we know they do not work. The only way to reduce prices is to invest in better productive capacity and of course to remove the profit motive.

Only a nationalized, planned economy under workers' control can reign in the market price mechanism and gradually work towards its disappearance.

[cyu]

You know what else causes shortages? Preventing the poor from seizing the means of production. Of course, capitalist-controlled media would never say this on the air, so they stick to things that only make capitalists look good.

If you need more housing for the poor, seize the stuff currently being used to produce mansions for the rich. If capitalists send their minions to attack you, fighting back would only be self-defense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Leaving aside the non-discussion in this thread of price floors (particularly labour-related ones), I will say that price capping is acceptable, but ironically more in a post-commodity society than under commodity relations.

Clearing prices are needed either up or down. Price caps or ceilings are handy for when certain products need to be cleared immediately.