Nemačka - sve sto želite da znate a ne smete da pitate Filipenka

Јанош Винету wrote:Није тамо политика зајебанција. 
Идеологија се итекако поштује, а Линке уме да буде поприлично ратоборан, организује демонстрације, умеју и да се побију са неонацистима.
Паре су увек потребне, за адвокате и партијску пропагандну машину.

Turul madár wrote:

Јанош Винету wrote:Није тамо политика зајебанција. 
Идеологија се итекако поштује, а Линке уме да буде поприлично ратоборан, организује демонстрације, умеју и да се побију са неонацистима.
Паре су увек потребне, за адвокате и партијску пропагандну машину.

jesu oni ratoroborni, ali i na stabilnih 5% ni makac odatle. 

afd trenutno duplo više. zelena prevara doduše ozbiljno utiče na njihov status.

Talason wrote:bio sam u staroj fabrici, 3000 zaposlenih, 2.000.000 jedinica bele tehnike godišnje

u novoj fabrici je predviđeno da radi 800 ljudi ukupno, 5.000.000 jedinica bele tehnike

ne ide sutrašnjica na ruku radnicima

Talason wrote:Ne opada. Lakše se upravlja neljudima nego ljudima.

What are the similarities and differences between the two outcomes? In both cases, labor will be replaced by capital to an extreme degree,  so in both cases, production will be conducted mostly by robots. Employment will be negligible. In Marx, the ultimate equilibrium would be with r at almost zero, and wage (by assumption in Marx) at the subsistence—with of course a huge “reserve army of the unemployed”. In the Stiglitz case, capitalists will end up with an unchanged r and with pocketing the entire net product. In the Stiglitz equilibrium, that sole remaining worker will have a higher wage, but again, no one else would be employed.

For labor, in either case, there is almost nothing—simply because practically no one will be employed. Quite a negative utopia either way, one could say. But not quite: in the Stiglitz case, you could tax the capitalists and use that income to keep potential workers happy enjoying lots of leisure, watching TV and playing funny games on their laptops. In the Marxist equilibrium, net income will be low although we would live in a world full of complicated machines. So, there would not be much income to redistribute. Your pick?