Just Whose "class Warefare" Is It?

[geko]

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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]

We are all consumers. We all long for happiness.

 

THAT is indeed a "harmony of interest."

 

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.