[charles brough]

geko, on 26 September 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

It's just two opposing groups using force to impose their own interests. It doesn't mean a harmony of interests doesn't exist.

I guess you mean that in all revolutions, the common interest is the welfare of all even though the different classes are focussed on the interests of their own class above that of the other. In other words, everyone should have the same idea of what is good for all but they often do not. Is that why Republicans have a different idea of what is best for the country than do the Democrats? Where would I find "the harmony of interests" that our different economic classes have that they don't agree on? Are you only saying that the different economic classes should but don't exercise a common interest?

Quote

Since money tends towards the higher factors of production quicker than the lower factors of production the higher factors of production receive a higher quantity. If we increase the supply of money we increase the ratio of this difference. You don't get one without the other due to everyone being a consumer so no, asking for inflation and not an increasing divide is contradictory.

I cannot understand what that says. would you clearify it for me?

[Fluxus]

geko, on 26 September 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

Since money tends towards the higher factors of production quicker than the lower factors of production the higher factors of production receive a higher quantity. If we increase the supply of money we increase the ratio of this difference. You don't get one without the other due to everyone being a consumer so no, asking for inflation and not an increasing divide is contradictory.

I'm not aware of any correlation between inflation and income/wealth disparity.

We didn't see a massive jump in inequality in the US during the 70s, and inflation has been low during the recent increase. Most of the increase in the disparity was due to the Bush tax cuts, increases in executive pay, the run-up in stocks and (until recently) home value. See the Business Insider link I posted earlier for a little more detail.

And yes, it's very clear that different socioeconomic groups can clash, sometimes violently, over interests. Marx's analysis of the operations of capital were also rather insightful, especially in the context of the rapidly industrializing world he lived in. The Marxian concepts of the world definitively and teleologically towards an inevitable shift from capitalism to some type of post-capitalist socialism is almost certainly wrong, but doesn't change the fact that especially in an era where capitalists were employing 13 year olds to perform dangerous labor, used Pinkertons to bludgeon workers into line, when workers overthrew entire governments, or when governments used social class as an excuse to commit genocide (e.g. Khmer Rouge), there was clearly something that we could call "class warfare."

The absurdity here is in the idea that clawing back tax breaks for the wealthy is somehow equal to inciting a Bolshevik revolution. It's hyperbolic rhetoric uttered by people with no sense of proportion, and who choose not to adopt rational expressions of their opinions.

[geko]

Marxism is mysticism. Maybe that's a bit harsh but thereabouts. It invents things that don't exist until it speaks.

Quote

I guess you mean that…..everyone should have the same idea…

More than that, everyone does have the same idea. Just because some groups use force to extract rather than service to exchange doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a harmony of interests, it just means some see it as easier to take rather than trade. They want to be required to give up nothing, but rather only to find room for their bounty.

We are all consumers. We all long for happiness.

As for the other questions you'd have to classify what a class is... and to be honest i'm not sure if i want to get involved in a debate on classes.

Quote

I cannot understand what that says. would you clearify it

That's actually pretty succinct and i'm not sure if i'm going to be able to word it differently whilst keeping it short, although it should have been "…everyone consuming through the exchange of money", rather than just "..being a consumer", but anyway let's see.

Money works its way to the top of the tree due to those at the top of the tree being the providers of things that those lower down the tree want, i.e. people get rich.

New money goes to those higher up the tree first due to them being the ones who are seen as having the more sound ideas of what to do with the new money, i.e. investors want their investments to make money.

Those invested in have more money to work with, so more money, that wasn't there before, will be used to buy things. The increase in ability to buy means there is a higher demand and therefore, alas, prices rise.

Consumers require the use of the higher factors of production (and the highest factors everyone requires), so everyone throws money at them. The higher factors of production receive the new money in exchange first (due to investment), so they increase the price of their goods first. The higher factors of production continually receive more money because consumers continually requires their services, and not only continually require, but increasingly continuing to require, because everyone is gaining more money.

The increased prices filter down over time from the higher to the lower, i.e. from those more distant to consumption to those closer to consumption. By the time the lowest in the tree receive any increase in money (and it is only ever some of the money), all factors have seen an increased price, and therefore an increased monetary income, for a prolonged period of time.

Money continually flows in high quantity to those who provide things that other people want. The greater the margins and the greater the satisfied market, the higher the amount of money they get to keep. Labour, generally, is one of the last to receive any increase in money due to the time to filter, and the less sought after the labour the later they receive the increase in money.

'Highest' factor doesn't necessarily mean raw materials, but only those factors of production that are the furthest away from the consumption of the produced good. Microsoft, for example, is a high, and highly sought after, factor…and is actually quite a good example as luck would have it because what is a relatively reasonable assumption to make of someone who is the recipient of a small personal loan? That they will buy a new computer maybe? Even if microsoft doesn't increase the price of their products in spite of what they consume increasing in price, it still receives more money.

Personal loans are of no consequence to the monetary wealth of a private individual because the loan is used for consumption, not production.

There a numerous effects of inflation depending on what amount of the new money goes where, this is one of them… and i guess i should mention that it's one that some contest.

[charles brough]

geko, on 27 September 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

We are all consumers. We all long for happiness.

THAT is indeed a "harmony of interest."

Quote

Money works its way to the top of the tree due to those at the top of the tree being the providers of things that those lower down the tree want, i.e. people get rich.

New money goes to those higher up the tree first due to them being the ones who are seen as having the more sound ideas of what to do with the new money, i.e. investors want their investments to make money.

Those invested in have more money to work with, so more money, that wasn't there before, will be used to buy things. The increase in ability to buy means there is a higher demand and therefore, alas, prices rise.

Consumers require the use of the higher factors of production (and the highest factors everyone requires), so everyone throws money at them. The higher factors of production receive the new money in exchange first (due to investment), so they increase the price of their goods first. The higher factors of production continually receive more money because consumers continually requires their services, and not only continually require, but increasingly continuing to require, because everyone is gaining more money.

The increased prices filter down over time from the higher to the lower, i.e. from those more distant to consumption to those closer to consumption. By the time the lowest in the tree receive any increase in money (and it is only ever some of the money), all factors have seen an increased price, and therefore an increased monetary income, for a prolonged period of time.

Money continually flows in high quantity to those who provide things that other people want. The greater the margins and the greater the satisfied market, the higher the amount of money they get to keep. Labour, generally, is one of the last to receive any increase in money due to the time to filter, and the less sought after the labour the later they receive the increase in money.

'Highest' factor doesn't necessarily mean raw materials, but only those factors of production that are the furthest away from the consumption of the produced good. Microsoft, for example, is a high, and highly sought after, factor…and is actually quite a good example as luck would have it because what is a relatively reasonable assumption to make of someone who is the recipient of a small personal loan? That they will buy a new computer maybe? Even if microsoft doesn't increase the price of their products in spite of what they consume increasing in price, it still receives more money.

Personal loans are of no consequence to the monetary wealth of a private individual because the loan is used for consumption, not production.

There a numerous effects of inflation depending on what amount of the new money goes where, this is one of them… and i guess i should mention that it's one that some contest.

I am sorry but in my case, I cannot follow you. "Higher factors," "throwing money at them," lowest in the tree," and " new money." I am not blaming you because I know how difficul tit is to get this sort of economic understanding across. I had a long and difficult such dialogue in another thread with an economist and it took many difficult posts before we could agree.