Imperialism is Capitalism

[KrazyHorse]

You don't have to be a monopoly to have monopoly power. To a CEO of a corporation having monopoly power means that you are competitive btw, which is the opposite of the way that most people think of competition. Such corporations have brand name recognition and lots of employees that do not directly make the products that the company produces. In fact, a good portion of workers in the US and Canada are monopoly workers, called that because they do things like market products when is only needed when the firm you work for has monopoly power. The goods are usually built by workers in another country.

WTF are you on about? Is this that theory which divides workers into "productive" and "nonproductive"? The one where brands create monopolies and people are too stupid to switch what company they buy from? Maybe you live in that world, but I don't. I switch brands constantly.

As far as your rent goes why do you even pay rent? Why don't you buy?

Given efficient markets the choice between renting and buying is pretty negligible, unless you deviate significantly from the norm. I'm probably going to be moving in a year or year and a half, so transaction costs are way too high.

Why shouldn't I rent? I'm living in a 3 apartment building which would sell for 900000$ or so. I'm paying 1500$ a month rent. Property taxes probably come to at least 4000$ a year for the whole place, so take off 100$ from my monthly rent. Then take out the water bills and maintenance which I don't pay. Probably down to 1300$ a month on ~300000$ principle. I'm paying ~5% per annum for the use of the asset. A prime rate would be what...6.5%? So my landlord's already behind. His asset has to appreciate to make it worthwhile. Which it does, but in the meanwhile he's bleeding liquid assets into an illiquid investment.

Guess the rent/buy dichotomy doesn't seem like such a clear choice, huh?

[snoopy369]

Brand loyalty definitely exists, and is not necessarily entirely stupid. Many people are loyal to a particular brand because it gives them a consistent experience (even if not the BEST or cheapest experience, it is consistent, which is valuable to some people). You walk into a McD's, you know what the hamburgers will taste like and about whath they will cost, regardless of whether the local greasy spoon might have better burgers or not. Some people are like this, some aren't (some like different things all the time, some like consistency).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You don't have to be a monopoly to have monopoly power. To a CEO of a corporation having monopoly power means that you are competitive btw, which is the opposite of the way that most people think of competition. Such corporations have brand name recognition and lots of employees that do not directly make the products that the company produces. In fact, a good portion of workers in the US and Canada are monopoly workers, called that because they do things like market products when is only needed when the firm you work for has monopoly power. The goods are usually built by workers in another country.

WTF are you on about? Is this that theory which divides workers into "productive" and "nonproductive"?

Unproductive labor is a theory developed by Adam Smith. That's not really it. Monopoly workers are productive in the capitalist/imperialist system because they make it more efficient. Without so many of them the economy wouldn't be able to function because there would be too much unemployment and financial markets wouldn't be as efficient. Monopoly workers also serve as organizers of labor. They either function the say way the capitalists do or the're work substitutes for that of the capitalists.

The one where brands create monopolies and people are too stupid to switch what company they buy from? Maybe you live in that world, but I don't. I switch brands constantly.

It has nothing to do with people's intelligence. The cost of switching brands can be significant. For example, if I've got someone in my office and I've completed their tax return already in order to get their tax return done by another business they would have to leave and start all over. And they don't really know if it would be cheaper or not at the other place. Therefore the business that I work for can charge a higher price just because of that.

As far as your rent goes why do you even pay rent? Why don't you buy?

Given efficient markets the choice between renting and buying is pretty negligible, unless you deviate significantly from the norm. I'm probably going to be moving in a year or year and a half, so transaction costs are way too high.

Why shouldn't I rent? I'm living in a 3 apartment building which would sell for 900000$ or so. I'm paying 1500$ a month rent. Property taxes probably come to at least 4000$ a year for the whole place, so take off 100$ from my monthly rent. Then take out the water bills and maintenance which I don't pay. Probably down to 1300$ a month on ~300000$ principle. I'm paying ~5% per annum for the use of the asset. A prime rate would be what...6.5%? So my landlord's already behind. His asset has to appreciate to make it worthwhile. Which it does, but in the meanwhile he's bleeding liquid assets into an illiquid investment.

Guess the rent/buy dichotomy doesn't seem like such a clear choice, huh?

I'm not saying that buying is always better than renting. What I'm saying is that a landlord can charge an increasing amount for rent as the difficulty or cost increases for the consumer to either buy a house or rent from someone else. That gives them monopoly power.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'm not abandoning Lenin. You just have no understanding of Lenin or Marxism.

Fezzed.

[Kidlicious]

Shut up! You know nothing. You bring no evidence, yet you want to maintain the imperialist system! You should be thrown from a helicopter.

- Commie Fez

[Ecthy]

You provide no clue, yet you want to abandon Leninism. You Trotskyite criminal.

[BeBMan]

I demand it has to be a black helicopter!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
I demand it has to be a black helicopter!

Red and black!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Monopoly workers are productive in the capitalist/imperialist system because they make it more efficient. Without so many of them the economy wouldn't be able to function because there would be too much unemployment and financial markets wouldn't be as efficient. Monopoly workers also serve as organizers of labor. They either function the say way the capitalists do or the're work substitutes for that of the capitalists.

This is silly.

It has nothing to do with people's intelligence. The cost of switching brands can be significant. For example, if I've got someone in my office and I've completed their tax return already in order to get their tax return done by another business they would have to leave and start all over. And they don't really know if it would be cheaper or not at the other place. Therefore the business that I work for can charge a higher price just because of that.

So? There are minor transaction costs everywhere. The size of them limits the how much extra you can charge. Big deal. Transaction costs are not that significant a part of most of what I buy. And the trend is for transaction costs to decrease, not increase.

I'm not saying that buying is always better than renting. What I'm saying is that a landlord can charge an increasing amount for rent as the difficulty or cost increases for the consumer to either buy a house or rent from someone else. That gives them monopoly power.

What the **** are you talking about? THERE ARE MANY LANDLORDS. Competition and entry into the market limit what the landlord can charge.

This is ****ing retarded.

[KrazyHorse]

There is a transaction cost to moving, of course. Namely the cost to rent a truck, the inconvenience of taking a day out of my schedule to actually move, plus a few extra hours to find a place, switch my utilities etc.

Call it 500$ total (mostly nuisance time)

Even if there were NO transaction costs to my landlord and he was able to capture this entire surplus, then how much extra could he charge? I'm staying in Baltimore for, say 1 more year. So, 500$ amortized over a year at some reasonable interest rate. Less than 50$ a month. On a 1500$ a month rent.



Also, you might note that he has transaction costs too. If I move then he needs to find new tenants.

In reality, I've managed to hold him to no rent increases for two straight years. I'm probably getting the better of the deal because he's an old guy and I don't think he relishes dealing with new tenants.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because Stalinism betrayed the movement. Rather than push for revolution when capitalism was on the rocks from 1929 to 1945, it sought to make peace with imperialism and solidify its own position within the imperialist world order. Again in 1970, when both the Chinese and the Soviets cozied up to the U.S., when it was losing everywhere, gave imperialism enough of a breather to pull back, regroup, and go on the offensive.

You don't think that the threat of nuclear war might have had something to do with the desire for 'cosiness'?

Lenin's views about the British Empire (which probably was controlled by capitalists) don't magically mean that the same model applies to all imperialism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
This is silly.

No. It's something that you need to understand. Try harder.

So? There are minor transaction costs everywhere. The size of them limits the how much extra you can charge. Big deal. Transaction costs are not that significant a part of most of what I buy. And the trend is for transaction costs to decrease, not increase.

Transaction costs aren't insignificant. They might be small in some cases, but the size doesn't matter. So long as they are significant it doesn't matter. And this isn't just about transaction costs. There's much more to it. Transaction costs is the issue that you brought up. Transaction costs are just one type of monopoly related cost. Rent is a monopoly cost as I've stated. You have to pay rent simply because you don't one the thing which you need. But of course it doesn't stop there. Most of the products and services that we buy have costs added to the price that don't include transaction costs at all, but that are incurred by the producer to gain monopoly power. There's no way for you to avoid those costs even if you wanted to because there are no producers who do not incure those costs.

And again, this isn't necessarily less efficient. In fact, it's usually more efficient. Perfect competition is not even a possible reality, or anything close to it for that matter. Really, more and more we are discovering how ridiculous those silly neoclassical theories are.

What the **** are you talking about? THERE ARE MANY LANDLORDS. Competition and entry into the market limit what the landlord can charge.

This is ****ing retarded.

Sure there are lot's of landlords, although the number of landlords is shrinking rabidly in many markets today. Like I said, these little guys aren't very good at what they do and they can't compete with the rental companies. In fact, often they choose to just sell out just like your little mom and pop shops on the corner can't compete with Wal-mart.

How many of them there are has nothing to do with it really though. What is significant is the vacancy rate of the local market and the amount of renters compared to the number of vacant apartments. That determines how much rent will be. But then again rent is 100% monopoly cost.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There is a transaction cost to moving, of course. Namely the cost to rent a truck, the inconvenience of taking a day out of my schedule to actually move, plus a few extra hours to find a place, switch my utilities etc.

Call it 500$ total (mostly nuisance time)

Like I said earlier, the amount doesn't really matter. I mean most people really have no idea what the amount it. They don't calculate it. They just know they don't want to have to move so they pay more rent. Most people have the understanding that rents go up everywhere usually. If their rent is increasing everyones is increasing.

Even if there were NO transaction costs to my landlord and he was able to capture this entire surplus, then how much extra could he charge? I'm staying in Baltimore for, say 1 more year. So, 500$ amortized over a year at some reasonable interest rate. Less than 50$ a month. On a 1500$ a month rent.



Also, you might note that he has transaction costs too. If I move then he needs to find new tenants.

In reality, I've managed to hold him to no rent increases for two straight years. I'm probably getting the better of the deal because he's an old guy and I don't think he relishes dealing with new tenants.

These types of things are calculated very precisely by property management companies. That's why rents go up so much faster when these companies start taking over a market. You are renting from an unsophistocated landlord who doesn't know what he's doing. You seem to be able to get a very good deal from him but that's not the normal case. Like I said, renting apartment is getting to be big business more and more.

[KrazyHorse]

Like I said earlier, the amount doesn't really matter. I mean most people really have no idea what the amount it. They don't calculate it. They just know they don't want to have to move so they pay more rent. Most people have the understanding that rents go up everywhere usually. If their rent is increasing everyones is increasing.

So again, your theory is that people are stupid, that sometimes there are costs involved with changing suppliers and therefore suppliers can charge whatever they want.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So again, your theory is that people are stupid, that sometimes there are costs involved with changing suppliers and therefore suppliers can charge whatever they want.

Again. They aren't stupid. They just don't calculate everything. That's kind of weird actually that you do that.