Why is America trading with a communistic country?

[4years]

Usual shit you hear in threads like this. Not particularly surprising he doesn't have a high opinion of the left when he doesn't even understand the basics like the labor theory of value.

The labour theory of value is flawed for the simple reason that there are four factors of production, not one.

The labour theory of value accounts for all the factors of production. Simply put, it is Constant Capital + Variable Capital + Surplus Value. I assume the four factors of production you refer to are the four that have made their way into economic textbooks in recent times: labour, land, capital, and entrepreneurship (correct me if I am wrong). These are all accounted for by the LTV; land (the accumulated wealth required to acquire and use it that is, because natural resources themselves don't hold economic value only use-value) and capital (which most current economic textbooks misdefine) would fall under constant capital, labour (again referring to the wages paid to labour) under variable capital, and the profit of the entrepreneur under surplus value (the initial investment and investments needed to maintain the enterprise are back under constant capital).

[4years]

Or at least act more rationally: No more scaring the Japanese with missile testing, sign an actual treaty, point some of the artillery elsewhere or stop throwing a fit every time the US wants to move some troops out of range, no more threatening to nuke the US mainland.

Combine a "medicine and food for good behavior" program with a government in Pyongyang that has historically played tit-for-tat with Washington and a Chinese government that is eager to get nuclear weapons out of North Korean hands and make the DPRK stop saber rattling without destabilizing the regime. I think there is a good chance of getting several concessions, plus I suspect that a North Korean people fend and given medical care curtesy of the western world will be less inclined to buy into anti-US propaganda and a people fend and given decent medical care in general will be more willing to question the government.

I really doubt the regime would be informing the populace where the extra food is coming from.

Which wouldn't really matter if concessions were extracted from the regime for food in the first place. My only reference to the population knowing that America and feeding them was that if they did the regime would have a harder time with the anti-US propaganda, and that was part of a broader point that well fed people with decent medical care will be more inclined to question the regime regardless of where the food and medical care comes from.

[Genivaria]

Seeing as how they've been accepting the aid we've been sending and calling it 'tribute to the Dear Leader' and continuing being cunts I fail to see how this will change anything.

Kim Jong-Un: "Lololol we're trollin' America into giving us tribute again!"

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

[4years]

Kim Jong-Un: "Lololol we're trollin' America into giving us tribute again!"

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

True, but aid has palace especially since North adores has little to offer in open trade, as you noted, and has huge humanitarian crises.

[Novislavia]

China along with several other countries are Communistic. The major (if only) country we trade often with is China.
My question is, why are we trading with them? After WWII we, along with the other allied nations, try to stop communism and help form more Capitalistic countries. Do you agree that we should technically be trading with them, or do you support it, or is it unrealiliatic to stop? Questions, comments, concerns and prayers all welcome here

My vote is "no but in certain cases yes"

Lol what?

China is a faux communist authoritarian state capitalist run country.

Hm. I wouldn't say China is capitalist. True that private enterprise has increased recently, by a lot actually (I think it surpasses public enterprise now), but the government still keeps things in check. Oil prices are kept at a reasonable rate and when food started costing too much in 2010ish, the government shut that right the fuck off. They're mixed, but I wouldn't know what the technical classification for them are.

[Luveria]

Kim Jong-Un: "Lololol we're trollin' America into giving us tribute again!"

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

Open trade would pressure them to have more economic reforms.

[AiliailiA]

Kim Jong-Un: "Lololol we're trollin' America into giving us tribute again!"

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

They have meth and dancing girls. I think the US has plenty of both.

[Grand Soviet Union]

Because we need to trade? I mean yeah that's basically it why the hell would we just not trade with people because of ideology? Makes no fucking sense.

tell that to Washington so maybe they'd kill off that stupid embargo on Cuba

[Genivaria]

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

True, but aid has palace especially since North adores has little to offer in open trade, as you noted, and has huge humanitarian crises.

Coal is there only real export.
But if we showed an unofficial 'favoritism' to them, we'll buy their coal at higher prices, sell them seeds and tech at lower ones, give them access to more trade goods and create more prosperity in the region.
Just a thought I had.

[Keronians]

The labour theory of value is flawed for the simple reason that there are four factors of production, not one.

The labour theory of value accounts for all the factors of production. Simply put, it is Constant Capital + Variable Capital + Surplus Value. I assume the four factors of production you refer to are the four that have made their way into economic textbooks in recent times: labour, land, capital, and entrepreneurship (correct me if I am wrong). These are all accounted for by the LTV; land (the accumulated wealth required to acquire and use it that is, because natural resources themselves don't hold economic value only use-value) and capital (which most current economic textbooks misdefine) would fall under constant capital, labour (again referring to the wages paid to labour) under variable capital, and the profit of the entrepreneur under surplus value (the initial investment and investments needed to maintain the enterprise are back under constant capital).

And that, my friend, is where we disagree. Land itself has economic value, simply due to the fact that it is scarce. While I understand why you say "use-value" (as land must be processed into a finished product), I find that this should be largely irrelevant.

How do textbooks misdefine capital?

Entrepreneurship does not usually make its way into the price calculation, as the surplus value, which is again variable, is usually removed, IIRC. I'll be the first to admit that it's been quite some time since I worked with the LTV.

[The Remean Lordship]

All you people need to know is that Communists are People too.

[Genivaria]

I think that open trade would do far more to change things there then simply sending aid.

Open trade would pressure them to have more economic reforms.

And 1 reform leads to more.

[AiliailiA]

Because we need to trade? I mean yeah that's basically it why the hell would we just not trade with people because of ideology? Makes no fucking sense.

tell that to Washington so maybe they'd kill off that stupid embargo on Cuba

Ah yes. Cuba is a much more interesting trade partner. They have cigars, and doctors.

[Benuty]

All you people need to know is that State capitalists masquerading as faux Communists are People too.

Fixed

[Gold state]

Hey, OP. Your poll title makes us sound like monsters, and China is not Communist.

[The Laxus Union]

China isn't communist. Are you kidding me. Study your politics. They are pretty much a single party parliamentary "republic" with a state capitalist economic system kind of. They are shifting towards capitalism ,because the government can't provide and control everything. There isn't enough money to put everything under state ownership and the government has to many other affairs to deal with.

[Liriena]

China is not a communist country.

Learn what communism is first, please.

[Great Britonia]

America says it is so anti-communist, even in Cold war propaganda posters, when it is trading with a communistic government (i didn't mention that China's economy is capitalist) for real?

[4years]

The labour theory of value accounts for all the factors of production. Simply put, it is Constant Capital + Variable Capital + Surplus Value. I assume the four factors of production you refer to are the four that have made their way into economic textbooks in recent times: labour, land, capital, and entrepreneurship (correct me if I am wrong). These are all accounted for by the LTV; land (the accumulated wealth required to acquire and use it that is, because natural resources themselves don't hold economic value only use-value) and capital (which most current economic textbooks misdefine) would fall under constant capital, labour (again referring to the wages paid to labour) under variable capital, and the profit of the entrepreneur under surplus value (the initial investment and investments needed to maintain the enterprise are back under constant capital).

1. And that, my friend, is where we disagree. Land itself has economic value, simply due to the fact that it is scarce. While I understand why you say "use-value" (as land must be processed into a finished product), I find that this should be largely irrelevant.

2. How do textbooks misdefine capital?

3. Entrepreneurship does not usually make its way into the price calculation, as the surplus value, which is again variable, is usually removed, IIRC. I'll be the first to admit that it's been quite some time since I worked with the LTV.

1. Nope, it simply, has use-value. However, scarce the only value unused natural resources have is in the fact that they could be potentially used (use-value) they don't value for just sitting there doing nothing, that is like economics 101. Land has value, in an economic sense, when it is used has a factor of production. Unused land can effect the price of land in use, but that is still accounted for in an altered outlay of accumulated wealth. That expenditure combined with the expenditure for the means of production is constant capital.

2. Many textbooks define capital "as manufactured goods used to make other goods" which is an incredibly shitty definition (mind you I am only going by textbooks I have seen recently). The capital in those goods is the value currently realized in them, not the machines themselves, and is a part of constant capital. Everything else aside, that definition also doesn't include wages paid to labour as capital deity the fact that, for the producer, those wages are capital (variable capital, to be specific).

3. "Profit doesn't make its way into price calculation." Really? Lrn2economics

[United Gojoseon]

I believe communism cannot be evil, but the government who follows it could be.

[Solaray]

China is about as communist as an egg salad sandwich, but yes, we can trade with "communist" countries because they still have a lot to offer in terms of trading. That said, we should trade more with free-market nations, but it all work out in the end.

[4years]

Explain to me how China is communist.

Why, for example, does the State still exist in "communist" China?

1. It's china referred to as "communists china"?
2. And I'm not sure what you mean in the second sentence.

1. No, it is referred to as China or the People's Republic of China.
2. A communist society would abolish the state.

[Keronians]

1. And that, my friend, is where we disagree. Land itself has economic value, simply due to the fact that it is scarce. While I understand why you say "use-value" (as land must be processed into a finished product), I find that this should be largely irrelevant.

2. How do textbooks misdefine capital?

3. Entrepreneurship does not usually make its way into the price calculation, as the surplus value, which is again variable, is usually removed, IIRC. I'll be the first to admit that it's been quite some time since I worked with the LTV.

1. Nope, it simply, has use-value. However, scarce the only value unused natural resources have is in the fact that they could be potentially used (use-value) they don't value for just sitting there doing nothing, that is like economics 101. Land has value, in an economic sense, when it is used has a factor of production. Unused land can effect the price of land in use, but that is still accounted for in an altered outlay of accumulated wealth. That expenditure combined with the expenditure for the means of production is constant capital.

2. Many textbooks define capital "as manufactured goods used to make other goods" which is an incredibly shitty definition (mind you I am only going by textbooks I have seen recently). The capital in those goods is the value currently realized in them, not the machines themselves, and is a part of constant capital. Everything else aside, that definition also doesn't include wages paid to labour as capital deity the fact that, for the producer, those wages are capital (variable capital, to be specific).

3. "Profit doesn't make its way into price calculation." Really? Lrn2economics

1. Land is generally used either as a factor of production, or to generate rent. Either way, it generates value, thus giving it economic value. This is like arguing that human capital does not exist.

2. I see... I haven't seen any textbook define capital that way, but if you say so, then I guess.

3. More like surplus value does not make its way into the calculation of true price as per the LTV. Of course sane theories which work in the real world factor in profit. But we were talking about the LTV, right?

Also, the guy in your flag died before he could "Lrn2economics". I have enough to go by.

[4years]

1. Nope, it simply, has use-value. However, scarce the only value unused natural resources have is in the fact that they could be potentially used (use-value) they don't value for just sitting there doing nothing, that is like economics 101. Land has value, in an economic sense, when it is used has a factor of production. Unused land can effect the price of land in use, but that is still accounted for in an altered outlay of accumulated wealth. That expenditure combined with the expenditure for the means of production is constant capital.

2. Many textbooks define capital "as manufactured goods used to make other goods" which is an incredibly shitty definition (mind you I am only going by textbooks I have seen recently). The capital in those goods is the value currently realized in them, not the machines themselves, and is a part of constant capital. Everything else aside, that definition also doesn't include wages paid to labour as capital deity the fact that, for the producer, those wages are capital (variable capital, to be specific).

3. "Profit doesn't make its way into price calculation." Really? Lrn2economics

1. Land is generally used either as a factor of production, or to generate rent. Either way, it generates value, thus giving it economic value. This is like arguing that human capital does not exist.

2. I see... I haven't seen any textbook define capital that way, but if you say so, then I guess.

3. More like surplus value does not make its way into the calculation of true price as per the LTV. Of course sane theories which work in the real world factor in profit. But we were talking about the LTV, right?

Also, the guy in your flag died before he could "Lrn2economics". I have enough to go by.

1. If land is being used as a factor of production or to generate rent it has economic value, outlays of capital have been made to cause the land have economic value. (And thus be accounted for under constant capital) Human capital doesn't exist except in slave societies, the term you are looking for is human resources which are irrelevant economically expect as the have economic effects, ie. a large group of unemployed people is is meaningless for a value standpoint Exocet as the serve to depress wages and this effect the ratio of necessary to surplus labour done by working people as the unemployed (by definition) aren't producing value.

3. That isn't how the LTV works at all. The LVT factors in profit, as I said right at the beginning it is constant capital + variable capital + surplus value; you seem to confuse the normative police a associated with the LTV if with the LTV itself and then get those policies wrong. The socialist economic policies go with the LTV strive to reassign where the surplus value ends up and to adjust the relationship between variable capital and surplus value (that is necessary and surplus labour time) in favor of the working people.

*cough* http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm *cough*

[George Kaplan]

It's a new world, man.