Results 1 to 8 of 8
Unused wealth
I've read somewhere that the fact that wealth is kept in a capitalist society means that it isn't being used even though it can be, and that a socialist economy would solve it, as well as state fractional reserve banking (but not as efficiently) or something along these lines.
Could anybody please refresh my memory and explain this all? Or am I completely confusing everything?
By wealth do you mean surplus resources? I imagine that they are a necessary fall back for when the market responds in an unfavorable way. A socialist, or command economy, eliminating the market could use these resources but that type of economy carries its own disadvantages; shortages, slow growth, less market freedom.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
No, I think there was an example (along these lines) that has been given:
Money is kept until it's used, and it would be better if it would only given when it needs to be used to buy something, so that the money which isn't used would be used by the state on public projects.
Might be confusing stuff here.
I feel my answer covers this well enough, money being close to a resource.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
Is the concept of surplus resources the same as that of the surplus value? If not, could you please redirect me to a page (web page, book page - any page at all) which explains the concept of surplus resources?
It isn't a difficult concept at all and I doubt it has been written about because i was simply meaning that more resources are available than are currently in use or demand.
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
I know, but I'm wondering if it has been pointed out to be an important problem of capitalism or not.
Yes, it has been discussed. Interestingly enough, you will find many (mainstream) who argue that the price signals provided by "the market" serve as an efficient medium for exchange. One must keep in mind that this declaration of efficiency is only deemed so when placed within the dichotomy of Western Capitalism and Soviet Communism; the latter famously had conditions of famine and so on while simultaneously overproducing items such as shoes.
Within Capitalism itself, technological innovations have allowed for more efficient production methods. For example, Fordist models of "Just-in-Case" production have largely been replaced by Japanese models known as "Just-in-Time" production. The former, in part, relied on mass production of basic commodities (like cars) whereas the latter would produce the finished commodity at the time of order.
More to your point however, these relatively recent innovations should not fool one into believing that Capitalism is not a wasteful economic system. It is only such when placed within a false dichotomy. That is, the failure of previous planned economies is not validation for "our" current state. To believe so is to remain stagnant, docile, repressed and on a continued path which celebrates the stunting of human growth - which is exactly where we're at.
