Fundamentals of Marx: Falling Profit Rates (LTRPF)

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Fundamentals of Marx: Falling Profit Rates (LTRPF)

Title	:	Fundamentals of Marx: Falling Profit Rates (LTRPF)
Lasting	:	7.20
Date of publication	:
Views	:	53 rb

Capitalism making good cheaper and cheaper doesn’t sound bad to me If the capitalists profits fall that’s their problem If the means of production is ever seized it’s best to wait until it’s all automated and the capitalists are no longer needed no? At that point they may not even care if there is no longer any profit to be made At least if this theory is true There wasn’t much rebuttal talked about Just one and that was from a Marxist economist
Comment from : werty werrtyson

Great video!
Comment from : Sandro Costa

in monopsony capitalism the falling rate of profit does not control We are in that stage of capitalism and it really makes no sense to consider the falling rate of profit as relevant In fact, the rate of profit is actually growing and the rate of wealth transfer is accelerating Now, under our present conditions, it's imperative we spend time condemning how these monopolistic capitalists are exploiting us instead of looking at Marx from 170 years ago and determining new ways to wrest the burden of these parasites from ourselves with new doctrine that considers our present state of affairs
Comment from : DerekSpeare

Marxists apparently have an aversion to empirical thought If they consulted reality once in a while they would find that the average corporation experiences growth over time, the stock markets rise, and dividends grow How is this possible? Again, Marxists cannot fathom human ingenuity and adaptability occasioned by the profit motive
Comment from : floxy20

Marxists are the Scientologists of the economics
Comment from : Benjamin Llamas

People are always shocked when I tell them Marxism is basically an expansion on the neoclassical tradition Just finished capital vol 1 and am not likely gonna read 2 or 3 tho it seems the most fervent critics of Marx are often people least likely to have read any of his actual work
Comment from : Seth’s Balls

We are focusing on everything bad with capitalism I mean communism tends to dictatorship in every instance of recorded history due to the primal tendency to greed by humansbrbrRemove human greed OR remove the human and communism would work but that contradicts our existence
Comment from : Walk!ng Sθftwarə

I feel as if the flaws of the labour theory of value are showing here Yes, automation does remove value or effort created by a worker, but when it comes to goods which meet our basic needs these will always be in demand The price isn’t completely determined by required labour so long as governments enforce their currency as the primary unit of exchange Even if every necessary input in the process of production is fully automated, essentially making the product “free”, the capitalist has the power to and is incentivized to limit output to level prices out This can be achieved through sufficient monopolization The capitalist is incentivized to maintain profit in this way so that he can purchase products which have not yet been fully automated, or those of which whose prices have also artificially levelled in the same way The capitalist is incentivized to collude in this way with his brethren by the time most processes are automating in order to maintain his “superior” social status brbrThe labour theory of value is flawed in that it aims to totalize the subjective measure of value in a single quantity We treat labour as valuable, but other factors are in play as well, such as scarcity (artificial or not), and their essentiality An orange when we are hungry has value regardless of the labour br of a product
Comment from : Luke R

How lower variable capital leads to lower surplus value ?
Comment from : Faizan Ansari

The rising MASS - David Harvey
Comment from : toto now

Excellent, many thanks This is well worth repeated views on my part…✊
Comment from : Lord Charfield

quoting Popper:br“There is, for example, a trend towards an ‘accumulation of means of production* (as Marx puts it) But we should hardly expect it to persist in a population which is rapidly decreasing; and such a decrease may in turn depend on extra-economic conditions, for example, on chance inventions, or conceivably on the direct physiological (perhaps bio chemical) impact of an industrial environment There are, indeed, countless possible conditions; and in order to be able to examine these possibilities in our search for the true conditions of a trend, we have all the time to try to imagine conditions under which the trend in question would disappear But this is just what the historicist cannot do He firmly believes in his favourite trend, and conditions under which it would disappear are to him unthinkable The poverty of historicism, we might say, is a poverty of imagination The historicist continuously upbraids those who cannot imagine a change in their little worlds; yet it seems that the historicist is himself deficient in imagination, for he cannot imagine a change in the conditions of change”
Comment from : Pedro SantAnna

It seems like the analysis breaks down at high levels of automationbrWhen automation is simple enough, it can be counted as capital As it gets more complicated, it seems like it would be interpreted as a slave I can see replacing a human slave with an advanced robot and there would be no real difference to the capitalistbrAre slaves capable of creating surplus value? As humans it seems like they should, but as beings that are bought and maintained by the capitalist, it seems like they should count as capital
Comment from : Peter Bonucci

Using math to explain imperialism
Comment from : yu wan

Why couldn't one just turn the robots into citizens to exploit?
Comment from : Apsoy Pike

Isn't this just the Race to the Bottom?
Comment from : BurnestThe4th

This idea, or at least the example, would seem to only hold true in a closed system, where (using the video's example) TV's are the only thing that have been or ever will be invented Even if diminishing, as long as there are no material or technological hard ceilings, there can be the potential for profit as new industries are created Lastly, a theoretical model (especially in soft sciences) suggesting something approaches zero does not mean it practically can and will, especially when catained within a larger system, any physicist/engineer can tell you that
Comment from : RafRaf89

So competition causes the falling rate of profit? Since prices may go down through automation, it lowers the price? Or am I thinking about this wrong?
Comment from : Press F To Pay Respects

Sorry, you didn't explain how the decline of labor power in the production process necessarily reduces surplus value Wouldn't it be more profitable to not pay employees? It would have been nice if you stuck with the TV example, I'm having trouble understanding
Comment from : 10z20

the nature of competition leads every capitalist to exploit his/her workers more ( giving them bad wages to increase the amount of capital to invest in machinery ) so there is no freedom under capitalism for the workers to refuse this wage slavery conditions as capitalists tell us describing capitalism system 😂😂😂 brIn the end, competition results are not for the benefits of all humans but for specific ones ( the capitalists ) brcompetition leads to economic crises where we workers pay for that by our taxes when the governments give them loans from our taxes to get basic needs we pay for something we are the reason for brcompetition under capitalism is portrayed in the capitalists arguments to be good as commodities get cheaper but that leads to the destruction of commodities and chaos of production and the need to wage wars to save capitalist system by dinding new markets for the excess commodities no one can buy because of the competition nature the capitalists admire !!!!! brin contrast capitalism is a sucky system full of contradictions , here comes the definition of socialism :brthe public ownership of the means of production ( no exploitation and no inequality) , planning between production units so there will be no chaos of production and so no wars , no economic crises as there is no exploitation leads people not to buy the commodities brthis shows us that the problem of poverty is caused by the distribution of production not the amount of resources as capitalists liars tell us
Comment from : George Soap

Hakim has a really uplifting video on this framing it as capitalism's self destruct mechanism!
Comment from : snigwithasword

This video doesn't really address innovation and the creation of new markets Just because one company no longer requires as many workers, doesn't mean that the workers will no longer have jobs It actually facilitates the creation of new industries Also, bringing down costs will mean that people are able to have more resources This video would be impossible to make if automation had drastically improved the efficiency, lowered the cost and reduced the need for workers in agriculture
Comment from : President Fist

good video But the music is annoying
Comment from : Prasad Doctor

You neglect to mention the benefit of lower prices is TO THE CONSUMER It is also called CONSTRUCTIVE DESTRUCTION, which gives us CONSTANT ADVANCES in societal living to the average consumer This is why the west(capitalist countries) have the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE WORLD Thanks for the explanation!
Comment from : Alvin Credit

Please add subtitles comrade!!!
Comment from : Horrendousaurus

Awesome channel!!! Thank you for existing
Comment from : Pedro Henrique Dadalt de Queiroz

This is the best accidental debunking of the labor theory of value, EVER!brComplete automation doesn't eliminate profit, therefore labor theory of value is baseless
Comment from : 3jacen

Looks like innovation increases production, lowers cost, increases availability, which floods market and necessitates further innovation There is not a perfection of automation of anything except theoretically This video does not deal with the praxeological inevitability of a flooded market at all, and it presumes all persons who could purchase a product would and that they would continue to do so to the point that perfect automation would eventually be realized A new better product would supplant the previous Also Inputs would need to be dealt with in a finite world of finite resources
Comment from : Benjamin

I don’t understand why increasing constant capital decreases surplus value
Comment from : TheDentist27

This is ridiculous The reason capitalists automate is because automation is cheaper than labor and it creates more value than labor by itself The profits would rise, not fall
Comment from : ArtisticLayman

this video was outstanding in clearly explaining these concepts
Comment from : Sorosh Wein

Capitalism is fucked
Comment from : Haruto Sunaa

This is a logical fallacy, because it uses the labour theory of value, which is in itself, a logical fallacybrbrPlease stop blinding yourself!
Comment from : 人間

if this were true, we would all still live in the forest
Comment from : 人間

So you're clearly doubting this law, call it a mere "argument", even though it's one of the fundamental laws of Marxist political economy
Comment from : Maurice Cornforth123

This looks to me more like a demonstration of the failure of the labor theory of value The capitalist, thinking only in terms of money, understands that he gets paid not by maximizing hours of unpaid labor, but by maintaining the gap between gross income and total costs How those costs are divided between employing capital equipment and employing workers doesn't change the bottom line What am I missing?
Comment from : gliftordraken

2:53 "the lower the surplus value" I didn't understand that comment Can someone please explain
Comment from : Yourenotthebossofmeyoutube

Marx is confusing profit with interest
Comment from : Mike R

Based and marx pilled
Comment from : Snate

Background music is creating noice , we are listening political economy, this is not film please remove music , request
Comment from : Kamalpreet Singh

Commenting for the good of communism I-i mean, algorithm
Comment from : Gustavo Martins

When Karl Marx does analysis it is for the survival of society When an economist does analysis it is for the survival of businesses
Comment from : Cristian Gerardi nobility house member

This is overproduction in an elastic market In an inelastic company, the business leadership could simply slow production and still pay workers The majority of the market is elastic anyway
Comment from : Cristian Gerardi nobility house member

It's like marxism is for people who only have unrealistic ideals about economics and knows nothing about real world economics
Comment from : A R

Surplus value goes to capitalist because he rent out the worker his means of production So surplus value is just a price for using means of production I don't see any explotation here I don't get it
Comment from : Akira Nozomi

Great video I would agree with the TRPF But I don't believe capitalism will ever formally self destruct It constantly reforms the mode of productions during a crisis Hence the massive social and political changes in the laws of accumulation that occur under a crisis But that's just me rambling
Comment from : JT

does this account for an increase in the quality of the commodity, as in competition would not just push the capitalists to automate but also to have an increase in quality compared to their competitors?
Comment from : Kai Mullens

So what really happened is alternated machinery made things so cheap and competition pushed investment in new technology so effectively that there is so much spare wealth we can afford to pay the poor not to work at all The poorest man in a capitalist country, not working and just on benefits, in the present time will lead a life quality far far far superior to that of a factory working 12 hour days in atrocious conditions with no worker rights in the 1800's when Marx made his predictions
Comment from : Road Runner

So here we are 200 years later and Marx has been proven, beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt, to be objectively incorrect So why do people still go on about him like he was some genius?
Comment from : Road Runner

great stuff
Comment from : obuyWw

Great Video ! Does anyone know the name of the music ?
Comment from : ImanBudi

I believe that I'm struggling a little with the concept of technologization and how the implementation of automation affects surplus (mostly according to the graph)brIf machines are introduced that can replicate the labor-power of a worker (as we see today in various manufacturing industries) wouldn't there be not only a lack of need to pay wages but also a slight increase in the constant capital (upkeep of automation machines) which would result in significantly more surplus value (unless the upkeep is similar to the wages that would have to be paid for such a task)? brI'm sorry if my terminology isn't entirely correct but I hope that I can get my question across
Comment from : Blitzz

Where can I order a phony television?brbr[Ps - keep up the good work Your channel deserves way more views]
Comment from : Hareesh Nair

So basically,brbrbrAs production becomes more efficient across the board, socially necessary labour time shrinks and even though you are creating more products, they sell for the same price as fewer products before? brbrbrSo you produce more but your ratio of profit to commodities produced falls? Eg A factory in 1950 producing 10 TVs makes the same money as a company producing 1,000 TVs in 2020, because the profit margin of each TV has shrunk, the factory just produces more of them?brbrbrDid I get this right?
Comment from : iamGLAD

Great Video Comrade!brbrThank you for educating the people onto the profit and the value onto capitalism that exploits the proletariat You make very great videos Keep up the good work my friend
Comment from : Socialist Lynx

Absolutely fantastic style I love all of the clear graphics, the succinct explanations and your small introduction to the contemporary discussion surrounding the theory Keep it up!
Comment from : Dod

I don't get it, if something is entirely produced by a machine and has no variable capital, why can't the firm sell it at a profit? If the machine produces something at $1 and the firm can find a buyer at $125 why can't they get profit there?
Comment from : Ly

fantastic content
Comment from : Blake Herbert

algorithm
Comment from : Keryck»Totebag

I am so happy to see someone putting forward unmediated marxist theory as there is more to the Marxist tradition than just MLs and anarchists
Comment from : steven tea

Fantastic video No other videos have taught me so much as this fundamentals of marx series has And im including crash course in this Fascinating I love it I cant wait to learn even more about marx This is such a fantastic concise way that really explains new things even to those of us who are "marx adjacent" aka surrounded by marxists but who may not have read him ourselves
Comment from : Kafka