# Is Capitalism destined to fail? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2000, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023 "2000-09-21T17:50:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/101 "2000-09-25T16:15:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > \*\*if some people can enjoy under-engineered trash that is their problem. however not EVERYONE knows about planned obsolescence therefore the genius economists that NEVER talk about it are handing us a load of CAVEATE EMPTOR bullsh!t. > > since all of the auto companies are making junk designed to become obsolete, possibly excepting rolls royce, we FREE americans don’t have the FREEDOM to not buy under-engineered junk.\*\* Junk? Again - this is your opinion. My opinion is that there are a lot of rather well-engineered cars out there these days. Certainly more well-engineered than a 10 year old second-hand car of yesteryear. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > as an ECONOMIST can you explain why you guys don’t subtract depreciation of durable goods from the Gross Domestic Product to compute the Net Domestic Product? \*\* Well since my economics is being put to practical use rather than computing meaningless statistics, I personally calculate neither. But the simple answer is that GDP is easy to calculate, NDP is not. Some attempt _is_ made to calculate the NDP but by its very nature the result is subjective. Subjective statistics are a lot harder to use than objective ones. > [@](#): > > \*\* > i have emailed my Economic Wargames essay to more than 300 economists by now and noone has explained it. actually only 1 has actually written a response. another called me a looney. i sent back “you’ll never know how much it pains me to be called a looney by a member of a profession that can’t do grammar school algebra.” i hope he didn’t take it personally. > \*\* I’m sorry Dal - but I’ve read your essay a few times now and I’m not surprised you didn’t get much response. It’s really difficult to get into, goes round in circles, is full of rhetoric that leaves no openings to debate and is ultimately so unstructured that the temptation is to give up after a few lines. I’m not doubting that you have some useful things to say and before you get too hot under the collar let me say that I even agree with most of what you write. But if you want a hard-working Joe to respond to your academic critique then you need to make it easy for them to do so. Make it short, make it punchy and help your reader to help themselves. Otherwise they’re just not going to bother. Damn - I suspect I’ve just made somewhat of an enemy here. Please understand that this is meant in the spirit of constructive criticism and _not_ a personal attack. If nothing else, it’s always enjoyable to read your posts. regards, pan ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/102 "2000-09-25T16:18:50Z")
There is no such thing as ‘planned obsolescence’ as a widely practiced policy. In general, companies strive to make the best quality products they can, within the constraints of the price they need to hit to sell the stuff. There are no free lunches out there. There are no 500 MPG carburetors, or infinite-life light bulbs, or cars that will run for a million miles without service. What you are thinking of as ‘planned obsolescence’ is really the result of a bunch of engineering decisions that trade off longevity for ease of use, weight, cost, raw material use, etc. If you’ve ever used a 5000hr light bulb, you’ll know that the reason they last a long time is because they have a thicker filament. This is great, except that they tend to produce less light for a given amount of power, and the light they do produce is redder and not as pleasant to work under. And sure, cars could be made to last longer, but at a significantly higher price, and possibly with worse gas mileage. Auto Makers build in a much quality as they can, given that they have to sell the car for X dollars. There is a point of diminishing returns where extra durability starts to cost a lot of money and add a lot of weight. Each manufacturer sets a differerent goal level for quality, and the consumer gets to choose. Great. Sweat Shops: Sweat shops are only ‘bad’ from our perspective. From the perspective of the people in the poor countries that have them, they are a great thing. I personally would not like to work in a Nike factory 12 hours a day making shoes for 50 cents an hour. However, if my alternative was to work in an open field under a hot sun 16 hours a day for ten cents an hour, I know which one I’d choose. Unless the sweatshop is in a country practicing slave labor, then the people in them prefer being there to the alternatives. And in fact, these jobs are highly prized, and the waiting lists for jobs in these ‘sweatshops’ is usually very long. The well-meaning do-gooders who try and get these shops shut down just don’t understand. These shops CAN’T pay anywhere close to the same wage as they do in the U.S. They are situated in remote areas, in countries with lousy infrastructures and populations that aren’t particularly well educated. That is a significant disadvantage. To make up for it, they get the labor at a low cost. In return, they often help build the infrastructure in the host country, they increase the standard of living for the people, they often help educate people, and in general they are building conditions that will lead to a general rise in pay for those citizens. In fact, for some of these poor countries they are their ONLY HOPE of a substantially better lifestyle in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/103 "2000-09-25T16:32:45Z")
You know, Marx was proven wrong even during his lifetime, and he knew it. Using the Labor Theory of Value, he claimed that workers would never be paid more than a subsistence wage, and that they would in fact get poorer and poorer as time went on. This was a crucial part of his theory, and the main reason why they would have to rise up in revolution. However, during his lifetime the real wages of factory workers increased by over 40%. This was before organized labor and government wage legislation, BTW. It was a purely market-driven phenomenon. Clearly, the Labor Theory of Value was bunk, and Marx knew it. So what did he do? He changed the game. He declared that while the workers may be earning more, the capitalists were earning EVEN MORE. Therefore, the gap was widening, and the ‘relative poverty’ of the workers was increasing. He claimed that this validated the Labor Theory, when in fact it did no such thing. There is no room in a mathematical formula for a RELATIVE income. Either the workers can buy more stuff or they can’t. How they FEEL about it is irrelevant to the theory. Boy, I did a bit of brush-up reading on Marx in the last few days, and I had forgotten what a lousy human being he was. He ran his family into near poverty with his drinking and partying when he was young, he was a slob, he was verbally abusive and obnoxious, he spent his life being hounded by creditors for his terrible spending habits, and he let his family live in squalor even though he made two or three times the average wage. His kids would go without food while be blew the money on alcohol or books. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/104 "2000-09-25T16:47:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > **I’d just damn the “sensible course” and make myself happy.** That’s right – material things will make you happy. Your net worth is how much you own. And don’t forget exploitation of third world labor is a good thing because otherwise they wouldn’t even have jobs. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > Why do you feel that people have to work in sweatshops as a neccesary consequence of my wanting to go on vacation? I didn’t say that. Obviously people do have to work in sweatshops. Because, who would if they did not have to? > [@](#): > > I’m glad I’m not in the position of a sweatshop worker. Someone apparently has to. People have to work in sweatshops in our economy. By being a part of the economy, you are participating in causing the misery of those who do. > [@](#): > > Do you feel that if I make more money, I have to get the money from somewhere, so it must come out of the labor of the oppressed workers? Perhaps not directly. > [@](#): > > So, the more I make (the more value I create), the less others have? No. It is not true. You are right, this complete non sequitor from your last quote is not true – unless you work at a printing press and actually make money! Nice try at bait and switch though. Then you go on to state a few more facts which has nothing to do with anything: > [@](#): > > In fact, the more I make (the more value I create) the MORE others have. If I create lots of value, I can exchange it for other things of value. So if I create value, then others can exchange the valuable things they create for the valuable things I create. Your point? > [@](#): > > So, the more I create, the more valuable their creations are, since the potential universe of valuable things they can exchange their valuable things for has increased by that small amount. Unless you are making the same things they are, in which case you make what they have made worth less. And as long as baiting and switching is allowed, I might point out that if you make a hundred dollars a day, and they make one dollar a day, your hundred dollars actually makes their one dollar worth less. > [@](#): > > Would the [sweatshop] worker really be happy if the factory they work at closes? What is the alternative? If you and everyone didn’t buy the products the factory made, it would shut down. These people have been making widgets, and consuming some products X. If no one wants the widgets, they stop making them, and still consume some products X. Where’s the loss? ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/105 "2000-09-25T16:58:27Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kabbes \* > **I might point out that if you make a hundred dollars a day, and they make one dollar a day, your hundred dollars actually makes their one dollar worth less.** Huh? ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/106 "2000-09-25T18:15:36Z")
i find it verey interesting that i have encountered people with PhDs in computer science and political science who have no problem with my essay but the economists get bent out of shape. how difficult can it be to find out how many cars are sold at what prices in a given year, then go to the departments of motor vehicles to see how long various models are on the road? found a site that said cars last 12 years 128,000 miles, depreciate 25 to 45% in the 1st year, 7 to 10% the 2nd year, then straight line to 0 over the next 10 years. when the cars were purchased they were added to GDP, but over the next 12 years the depreciation disappears into space. the trouble with economics is that it is so simple. the economists need to make it complicated. i understand about getting emotional about technology. however cars are too simple to get excited about. the P-38 Lightning was flying 400 mph in 1940 and the transistor wasn’t invented until 1948. in 1976 i was working for Pacific Stereo as an audio technician and a new brand called Accuphase was introduced. i started researching it and was quite impressed. i bought a T-101 tuner and E-202 integrated amplifier even tho they were quite expensive for my salary at the time. but i still have them and they still work after more than 20 years. and the construction qualit of stero equipment has only gotten worse since then. so to be on topic i say capitalism will collapse because capitalist economists can’t do grammar school algebra even tho it has evolved into corporate consumerism which uses TV to do psychological manipulation on consumers to encourage dumb emotional buying. i did have an economist say economic wargames was well written and qutite entertaining and then proceeded to make snide remarks about it. didn’t point out a single error in my data or refute any logic tho. Dal ‘one-trick, off-topic’ Timgar ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/107 "2000-09-25T18:20:32Z")
The reason economists probably didn’t like it where physicists did is because physicists are used to working with fairly simple systems where there may be two or three dependent variables at most. Economists have to deal with interactions of thousands of variables. So they tend to look down at people without training in economics who claim to have a ‘simple answer’ or a ‘simple problem’. Nothing’s quite that simple when it comes to economics. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/108 "2000-09-25T18:24:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tretiak \* > **Huh?** That’s basically the flaw in Lemur’s argument. We could just pay everyone a billion dollars a day and his “abstraction” doesn’t fall apart, but you can see the problem with it. Everyone would still work and create value and be able to exchange that thing which they have made for something of value and that would be great. And, he claims, making things of value makes everything more valuable. So pay everyone who works a billion dollars a day then. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/109 "2000-09-25T18:40:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > so to be on topic i say capitalism will collapse because capitalist economists can’t do grammar school algebra even tho it has evolved into corporate consumerism which uses TV to do psychological manipulation on consumers to encourage dumb emotional buying. There’s a book you and **oldscratch** might like if you haven’t already run across it, from Harvard University Press by Greil Marcus entitled Lipstick Traces: a Secret History of the Twentieth Century. You guys probably know of the Paris Commune, modernity, the situationalists, etc. but it makes for interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/110 "2000-09-25T18:55:46Z")
dal tigmar said: > [@](#): > > i find it verey interesting that i have encountered people with PhDs in computer science and political science who have no problem with my essay but the economists get bent out of shape. Y’know, I’ve often said that gravity is just a state of mind, and that if one simply **thinks** hard enough, one can float easily in the air. I find it very interesting that I have encountered people with PhDs in English and Computer Science who have no problem with my idea but the physicists get bent out of shape. Must be a giant Gravity Conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/111 "2000-09-25T19:00:24Z")
> [@](#): > > If you and everyone didn’t buy the products the factory made, it would shut down. > > These people have been making widgets, and consuming some products X. > > If no one wants the widgets, they stop making them, and still consume some products X. > > Where’s the loss? Is this a joke? If they don’t work, they have no money to get products X. They don’t consume them, and are consequently worse off, especially when we’re talking about low income workers for whom the lost products X are food and shelter. That’s a loss. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/112 "2000-09-25T19:14:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > **If they don’t work, they have no money to get products X.** But pricing is set by supply and demand. The supply is already there. If they don’t have the money to buy product X, the price will drop until they do have the money to buy product X. Then they do consume them. No loss. How do you think these people survived before there were sweatshops? I can’t believe anyone would seriously think buying items made in a sweatshop is good for the people who work there. Or even that imperialism is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/113 "2000-09-25T19:18:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > I find it verey interesting that I have encountered people with PhDs in computer science and political science who have no problem with my essay but the economists get bent out of shape. Perhaps that is because computer scientists and political scientists are not trained in economics. I am sure I could write an essay containing zany and impossible theories on computer science that a person schooled only in economics would erroneously find plausible. > [@](#): > > the trouble with economics is that it is so simple. Yeah, right. > [@](#): > > i understand about getting emotional about technology. however cars are too simple to get excited about. the P-38 Lightning was flying 400 mph in 1940 and the transistor wasn’t invented until 1948. Maybe I’m crazy, but I’m pretty sure the P-38 was a fighter plane, not a car. > [@](#): > > so to be on topic i say capitalism will collapse because capitalist economists can’t do grammar school algebra Okay, I’ll bite: I’m a capitalist economist, degree and everything. Give me some grammar school algebra I can’t do and I’ll send you a cheque for $1000(Cdn.) If I can correctly answer “Grammar school algebra” questions, you can send me a cheque for $1000(Cdn.) Please submit documented evidence that each problem submitted qualifies as “Grammar school algebra,” or even high school algebra if you want to challenge me a little. I nominate John Corrado as the moderator of our little bet. I suggest the standard for success be that I must correctly answer 17 out of 20 questions. Care to take me up on it? ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/114 "2000-09-25T19:58:08Z")
the P-38 Lightning was a fighter plane not a car. very good the P-38 was a product of mechanical engineering, it had 2 gasoline piston engines, since it flew at 400 mph the engineers must have known something about aerodynamics in 1940. cars are products of mechanical engineering, they usually have only 1 gasoline piston engine. they roll along the ground so almost any stupid aerodynamic shape will work. lots of room for useless variation. it’s 30 years after the moon landing and we have computers coming out of our ears. one would think mechanical engineers could figure out how to get cars nearly perfect by now. cars purchased by car rental companies get added to GDP. cars purchased by consumers get added to GDP. the rental cars get depreciated and subtracted from GDP to compute NDP. the depreciation of cars purchased by consumers, even tho there are many more, does not get subtracted. how come? grammar school algebra. ``` NDP = GDP - Dcap ======= WRONG! NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon) ======= RIGHT! ``` you can find the essay with commentary in the Economics and Business section at this site: [http://sharingLA.org/cgi-win/LAstub.exe?hub=1&net=GIB](http://sharingLA.org/cgi-win/LAstub.exe?hub=1&net=GIB) Dal Timgar ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/115 "2000-09-25T20:21:42Z")
> [@](#): > > lots of room for useless variation. it’s 30 years after the moon landing and we have computers coming out of our ears. one would think mechanical engineers could figure out how to get cars nearly perfect by now. This may come as a terrible shock to you, but not everybody wants to drive a car that looks just like everbody else’s, any more than they want to live in identical houses or wear identical clothes. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/116 "2000-09-25T23:21:48Z")
> [@](#): > > But pricing is set by supply and demand. The supply is already there. If they don’t have the money to buy product X, the price will drop until they do have the money to buy product X. Then they do consume them. No loss. Man, this is just getting sillier and sillier. You Anti-Capitalists have got to start learning a little bit about economics before you get involved in these debates. Here’s a clue: The supply is NOT fixed. If a product cannot be made for whatever amount you can afford to pay, then it won’t be made. That’s why there are no Ferrari distributors in Cuba or Haiti. If there’s already a supply there but no one can afford to buy it, it will be discounted to the point where it is cheaper to ship it all off somewhere where people WILL buy it, and then it will all go away. I get the feeling you guys think there is something magical about economics. Raise the minimum wage high enough, and everyone will be rich. Get rid of the evil rich capitalists, and we’ll all be better off. Get rid of the sweat shops in the Philippines, and all those sweatshop workers can live lives of leisure instead. No wonder Marx has you hooked. He’s got all the simple answers too. However, some of us live in the real world, where people are paid for the value they add to products, and where products sell for what people are willing to pay (or don’t sell at all if people can’t pay what they cost to make). In the real world, if you arbitrarily set the pay for someone to be more than the value they add, they won’t be hired. In the real world, poor countries have poor people not because of a capitalist conspiracy to keep them all in sweatshops, but because the country doesn’t have the infrastructure needed to make its people more valuable. That means roads, cheap power, cheap transportation, stable governments, low taxes, an educated populace, etc. If you want to make those poor countries richer, you need to help them help themselves. Today’s ‘sweat shops’ are building the infrastructure necessary to allow the workers’ value to go up. Remember I said that in Marx’s time industrial workers saw their wages rise by 40% due to market forces? What do you think those forces were? Competition, rising productivity, improved methods, better training, etc. The same kind of things that can happen today in the 3rd world, IF WE LET IT. If you yank the rug out from under them by forcing all the ‘sweat shops’ to close, they will never become richer. For example, let’s say that it costs Nike $5.00 to ship a pair of running shoes back to the U.S, and the power to run the factory in the Philippines adds another $2.00 per shoe. Also, the roads are bad in the Philippines, and trucks don’t last as long. Periodic power outages cost huge money in lost productivity. The average worker needs more basic education investment by the company before they can start. Corrupt governments demand kickbacks. Unstable politics forces the company to take a risk that it will lose all the assets it built in that country, requiring them to carry added insurance. All these costs add up. Now, let’s say that a pair of Nike shoes sells for $50. That means the wholesale cost is about $25, which means that Nike sells those shoes to the wholesaler for maybe $15. Let’s say Nike makes a profit of $5 per shoe (and it’s almost certainly not that much). That means that the shoe cannot cost more than $10 to make. If a pair takes 1 hour of labor to make, then they can afford to pay an American worker somewhere between $5 and $10 per hour, depending on what their other variable costs are. But the Philippine shoes already have an extra overhead of $7. So the most Nike could pay is $3.00, but if their variable overhead is $2.00 per pair, then Nike can only afford to pay $1 per hour to the Philippine worker. But when the roads are improved in the Philippines, and enough products are made their to enable economies of scale in shipping, then perhaps the overhead of making shoes there will drop to $3.00. Now Nike will not only be able to pay those workers more, it will HAVE to. Because if it doesn’t, other competitors will open factories and draw those employees away with the promise of more money and/or better conditions. If you force Nike to raise the pay of the factory in the Philippinesto the point where it costs more to make shoes there than in the U.S., it will simply shut it down. If you put enough social pressure on Nike that it hurts their sales too much, Nike will shut the factory down. One thing is certain: This will hurt the people of the Philippines. They lose the infrastructure, and they lose what to them is a cushy job. As I said before, what we consider a ‘sweat shop’ might beat the hell out of working in a field all day for 1/3 as much. You may not believe it, but most of these ‘sweat shops’ have huge waiting lists of people who want to work in them. ---
**Author:** ![kesagiri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ba0ec/32.png) [@kesagiri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kesagiri)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/117 "2000-09-25T23:55:59Z")
> [@](#): > > All the commodities have an exchange-value which make them comparable and therefore exchangeable between each other. Ahhh the old dual value theory. Exchange value and use value. I can’t believe people still try to builds something off of this canard. The only reason for this dual approach is to explain the diamond-water paradox. Of course, Marshall’s formulation of supply and demand also neatly explains the paradox and without resorting to this bogus dual approach to value. Regarding the notion of fixed supply: In the very short run supply is fixed. That is over a short enough period of time the supply of any good is fixed at a given amount. However, it is stupid to mistake this very short run phenomenon for a general principle. Regarding Marx: Why did he stop? Marx proposes that capitalism (thesis) is to be met by the workers revolution (anti-thesis) and eventually the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will wither and a new paradise will emerge (synthesis). However, didn’t Marx see this as an on going cycle? Thesis-\>Anti-thesis-\>Synthesis-\>Synthesis becomes the new Thesis and the whole thing starts all over again? So why stop? As for modern day Marxism, try [John E. Roemer](http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&SC=Author&SA=Roemer%2C+John&PID=19592&CNT=25+records+per+screen&HC=17&SEQ=20000925195412&SID=4). He is an economist that actually uses the tools of neoclassical economics and derives Marxist implications. I think you will find it subject to less sloppiness than Marx and Engels (like what moron really thinks the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will wither away?). ---
**Author:** ![kesagiri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ba0ec/32.png) [@kesagiri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kesagiri)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/118 "2000-09-26T00:02:46Z")
> [@](#): > > the depreciation of cars purchased by consumers, even tho there are many more, does not get subtracted. how come? Well unless they changed things, the definition of Gross Domestic Product is the value of final goods and services within a given time frame. Hence the rental cars are not counted. Somebody needs to check their definitions. ---
**Author:** ![kesagiri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ba0ec/32.png) [@kesagiri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kesagiri)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/119 "2000-09-26T00:12:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite: I’m a capitalist economist, degree and everything. Give me some grammar school algebra I can’t do and I’ll send you a cheque for $1000(Cdn.) If I can correctly answer “Grammar school algebra” questions, you can send me a cheque for $1000(Cdn.) Please submit documented evidence that each problem submitted qualifies as “Grammar school algebra,” or even high school algebra if you want to challenge me a little. I nominate John Corrado as the moderator of our little bet. I suggest the standard for success be that I must correctly answer 17 out of 20 questions. I agree. I too am a “capitalist” economist (complete with advanced degrees) and if you provide some high school algebra problem I shall take my best stab at it. ---
**Author:** ![kesagiri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ba0ec/32.png) [@kesagiri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kesagiri)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023/120 "2000-09-26T00:17:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Adam Smith is usually held up as THE LAWGIVER of capitalism, a la Planet of the Apes, but Adam Smith disapproved of joint-stock companies. what we now call corporations. Wow, an impressive display of illogic. An appeal to authority…how droll. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-capitalism-destined-to-fail/34023.md?page=7)