this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
110 points (99.1% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15990 readers
2 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some genius takes:

The whole Global North/South split is a pet peeve of mine as a social scientist working in development policy. It's a bunch of outdated garbage from the Cold War that was really just a thinly veiled dogwhistle for 'white/the good Asians' and 'not white'. It doesn't hold up to any rational examination. South Africa was part of the Global North until white rule under Apartheid ended, and now they're in the Global South. southern nations.

Real educated economist chimes in:

Jason Hickel is an anthropologist (read: not economist) and degrowther. Despite having no background and seemingly almost no understanding of economics as a field, he somehow continues to get 'economics' papers published in reputable journals despite their obvious low quality. But to anyone with a cursory understanding of economics, it should be entirely unsurprising that exports from developing nations to developed are more labor intensive than vice-versa. This is not a novel conclusion and is not 'appropriation', but is entirely explained by a concept in economics called comparative advantage.

Another genius owns the article epic style

This paper is a demonstration of why input-output (IO) models are bad for economic research. IO models were used by the soviet central planners to allocate resources. IO models are bad for research for the same reason the are bad for planning. The authors look at “embodied labor” (adjusted for human capital), the idea being that any two things produced by an hour of (human capital adjusted) labor must have the same value (btw, this “labor theory of value” goes back to Adam Smith, and was later promulgated by Marx).

Other facts that the authors’ framework will struggle to explain: why is it that the poor countries that most integrated with global trade networks became rich (s korea, Japan, Singapore) or are otherwise growing quickly (china, Panama, Vietnam)? Why is it that countries with severe barriers to trade with the global north struggle to grow (n Korea, India for second half of 20th century)? That’s very hard to explain if trade with the global north is fundamentally exploitative.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aaaaaaadjsf@hexbear.net 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Time for some theory posting to debunk everything redditors say. Let's read Samir Amin's Modern Imperialism, Monopoly Finance Capital, and Marx’s Law of Value, Chapter Four, Accumulation on a Global Scale and Imperialist Rent. I'll quote section one in the spoiler section.

1. THE GLOBAL HIERARCHY OF THE PRICES OF LABOR POWER

The world system does not appear to lend itself to formalization in algebraic terms. It is, in fact, made up of segments that appear heterogeneous and even incongruous: groups of capitalist firms producing commodities by means of more or less efficient techniques and employing wage-labor at various rates of real remuneration; zones that seem to be precapitalist, where products, not all of which are marketed, are produced in the setting of various peasant modes, with or without extortion of surplus labor in various forms (ground rent, tribute, and the like); groups of natural resources (minerals), access to which is more or less obstructed, depending on the laws of the states concerned—on whether or not they appropriate the resources. Furthermore, no world economy can be analyzed without considering the states; these exist not only on the plane of political reality but also on the economic plane. The economic exchanges among these states have to balance; there are national monetary systems, some of these are linked with others, and so on.

Any attempt at translating this set of realities into a system of equations seems to be a long shot. Even summing up a system regarded as being close to a pure capitalist mode in a model, whether Marxian (with Department I and Department II expressed in values) or Sraffian, constitutes a simplification that must be surrounded with many precautions.

I do not think, however, that resort to relatively simple schemata must be ruled out. Each of these schemata will possess some value, not merely pedagogic but scientific (even though such value is necessarily limited)—provided that we define precisely what data we are using and realize what these data signify.

Here is an example. One can define a system in which commodities 1…, i…, z are produced, some by means of techniques characterized by material inputs A^c^ and quantities of direct labor L^c^, and others by means of other techniques characterized by inputs A^p^ and quantities L^p^ of labor . This system can be characterized as follows: (a) a single rate of profit r, the only regulator of distribution throughout the system; (b) a single price P^i^ for each product i; (c) two different wage levels W^c^ and W^p^ (W^c^ >W^p^). Certain commodities (l to m) have, under these conditions, a lower price if they are produced with techniques (A^c^ L^c^) , others (n to z) with techniques (A^p^ L^p^) , it being understood that those produced according to the first formula pay the wages W^c^, and the others pay the wages W^p^, and that in every case the capital receives the same reward r.

This system might illustrate (without explaining) the conditions of reproduction (equilibrium between supply and demand and so on) in a model reflecting a certain reality, namely: (a) all products are world commodities (these commodities have only one price—that which is obtained under the conditions that make it the lowest); (b) capital is mobile on the world scale; (c) labor is not mobile, and obtains different rewards at the center and at the periphery. In other words, it is a schematization of the way the production process has been turned into a world process in the imperialist epoch.

A model of this kind can be expressed either in Sraffian terms or in terms of value. It is not a substitute for historical materialism, any more than the schemata in Volume II of Capital are. But it is useful because it makes explicit what seems to be an objective economic law in such a system, and therefore a basis upon which historical materialism can operate.

If we accept the data of the system and try to stay within its framework, we are obliged at the outset to ask three questions. First, why in the peripheral zone do they not combine the techniques (A^c^ L^c^) with the wages W^p^, which would give a higher profit than can be received with the techniques (A^p^ L^p^)? Second, why in this case doesn’t all capital migrate from the center to the periphery? Third, at a given moment, the distribution of techniques being what it is, is the international division of labor that results from it (the center specializing in branches of production l to m, the periphery in n to z) compatible with equilibrium in exchange, since the fractions of products l to m exchanged for products n to z, at prices p^i^, ought to be equal?

Economic theory endeavors to answer these questions, and fails. I have examined the various theories produced to explain the equilibrium of the balances of payments (theories of price effects or exchange effects), have shown the circular character of these arguments (based on the quantity theory of money or on assumptions regarding elasticities of demand that presuppose the result), and have concluded that they amounted to nothing more than an expression of the ideology of universal harmonies. But when economic theory, turning away from these nonsensical notions, speaks of “re-equilibrating” income effects, it hits the nail on the head. By so doing, however, it invites us to ask the real question, which sits outside its own field: how are the structures adjusted to each other—that is, by the effect of what forces does this adjustment take place?(What is involved here are class struggles on the world scale.)

The model illustrates one possible case: the case in which labor is not exploited uniformly—that is, when the rates of surplus-value are unequal. In order to introduce this hypothesis (it is, at this stage, no more than a hypothesis) we need to construct the model in terms of values, rather than directly in price terms.

Unequal exploitation is manifested in unequal exchange. Unequal exploitation (and the unequal exchange that results from it) dictates inequality in the international distribution of labor. It distorts the structure of demand, accelerating self-centered accumulation at the center while hindering dependent, extroverted accumulation in the periphery.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 11 points 11 months ago

Sorry unequal exchange? Is he posting his opinions on anime now?

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 11 months ago

Some dude there is saying that mines in Africa are less efficient than the mines in US so they take more labour for the same output. My dude half the mines in Africa are owned by American and Canadian companies.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›