Partial Explaination of the Growing Wealth and Income Gap

Just a link today, to a great short piece.
I think the  productivity gains cited here by Ruccio, combined with a narrative about even the "well off workers" no longer being "well off" explains a lot of what we are seeing today in the US.  Namely, post-recession, post-occupy movement, return to business as usual.  Massive excess on the backs of the American worker and all that. Happy weekend all, two days of cheap processed food and mass produced beer before you head back to being exploited on Monday.  

https://anticap.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/we-allow-our-fellow-americans-to-be-exploited-for-the-benefit-of-corporate-greed-and-unnecessary-wars/

Gambling on Sports, is it Good for the Economy?

In a word, YES, gambling is good for an economy.   It is spending that might not otherwise take place, and since the gambler has already accepted the likelihood of losing the "stake" the propensity to consume on any winnings tends to be very high.
 
In an event such as today's Superbowl there is around 100 million dollars gambled legally at the sports books in Nevada alone.

This doesn't include illegal gambling websites, ridiculous prop bets, or the focus of my brief points here, small (or not so small) wagers between friends.

In betting with 3 different people on tonight's game, though shear luck, I won 6 beers to be purchased at local establishments and a gift of small monetary value (around $20) to be purchased on ebay.  The important thing for the economy is that none of this money would have been spent without gambling on the American football game.  When we make small wagers with the aim of making an otherwise fairly pointless sporting event slightly more interesting (tolerable) to sit through, we are essentially increasing both our spending (individually and on an aggregate level), and as I will argue, temporarily increasing our propensity to consume.

Without the Superbowl tonight neither myself nor my "victims" would be spending the small amounts of money necessary to pay off / collect on our wagers.  This extra little bit of money spent at local pubs on a Sunday evening (and on ebay tomorrow) multiplied by the millions of people who bet small amounts on the game with their friends just as I did tonight, has to have a large economic impact.  Instead of staying home and cooking dinner tonight millions of people went out, spent money and left tips.  Assuming some kind of multiplier effect, illegal gambling on the Superbowl is a far more effective economic stimulus than much of what is being discussed in Washington these days.

Gambling revenue / economic activity like all economic activity based upon "vice" continues to drive a significant portion of the American economy.  We are a depressed working class (in many ways), who are getting further in debt, watching inequality in our country skyrocket, and for many of us experiencing chronic un or under employment   Drinking, drugs and gambling continue to be part of the solution for millions of self medicating American proletarians.  American's self medicating actions are always there, they are just more obvious during a large scale sporting event.  It is during events like today's Superbowl, the World Series, the Kentucky Derby, etc. just how much we rely upon the little joys that "vices" bring to continue to stick our heads in the sand about the exploitation taking place all around us, and to us, everyday in our capitalist system. 


As a side note.  I really wanted to bet the "prop" for tonight's game that Jay-Z would show up on stage at half time.  Turned out it was Destiny's Child making a special guest appearance with Beyonce instead.  I'm glad my credit card didn't work on the gambling web-site based outside of US territory or I would have lost my wager.  

"Hurry Up and Die"

Toronto's The Globe and Mail had the following story today:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/hurry-up-and-die-japans-finance-minister-tells-nations-elderly/article7643799/
Japan's finance minister has formally told the nation's elderly that living long lives is a source of shame as they are draining the resources of their country. 

This is a problem facing many developed countries, how to pay for increased life expectancy.  We will undoubtedly see increases in retirement ages in more countries, as well as the possible decrease in social security systems, government financed medical care, etc. over the coming decades.  This issues have already become very politically relevant in the US as well as other western countries in the last few years. 

I chose this news story to make my point as it is both somewhat amusing and also very callous.  My point; capitalism is not a system of production that is well designed to protect members of society that are not active in class processes.  If you are not either producing, appropriating/distributing, or ensuring the conditions of existence of the surplus what are you doing for a capitalist society?  Certainly there are non-class processes necessary for capitalist production (politics, culture of consumption, etc.) but do the elderly fill any of these rolls? 

It seems that as our populations age we face three choices:

1. Move away from capitalist dominated methods of production where the interaction of class and non-class around the creation of surplus value is our primary goal, at all costs. Can we find a way to return to a culture in which we value the wisdom and experience of the elderly?  I think it is not likely as the pace of technological change speeds up rather than slows down.  Wisdom and experience around obsolete ideas will have a had time finding a valuable place in society.

2. Find a way for the elderly to contribute to the conditions of existence of exploitation.  Working for merchants such as Wal-Mart for low wages certainly fits this.

3. Put our hands together and pray that our elderly "Hurry Up and Die"  

Now That's What I Call (An Increased Rate Of) Exploitation (Are You Fucking Kidding Me?)

Over that past week or so, all the news about General Motors (GM) has been about how they recorded a RECORD 8 billion dollars in net income for 2011, and hope to be over 10 billion for 2012. 

That is BILLION WITH A B ladies and gentlemen.

As good for GM and their shareholders (not their shareholders who lost everything three years ago of course) as this news is,  (Honestly, this is fantastic for some!)   GM is a symbol of the American heartland, an institution of American capitalism, receiver of one of the largest "Keynesian" (sorry J.M. Keynes, you will always be blamed for the digging holes and refilling them with government money thing)  bailouts in history,  employer of many of my family members past and present, the next major story in the news makes it clear that the revenue increase is nothing but the blood of GM workers. 

What to make of this?

This must mean that the recession is over right?  GM is making a shitload of money for investors as well as the American taxpayer (at least according to every major news outlet). 

Until we get to today's news...
Historically General Motors was a great company to be exploited by (comparatively in terms of standard of living.)  With nothing more than a high school deploma you could earn a decent living and suppport a family.   Part of supporting yourself and your family was being able to retire at a reasonable time (without having to take a job as a greater at Wall Mart to make ends meet).  Right after news breaks of record earnings, today we get this:

A destruction of the pension plan at GM. 
Of course the conservative New York Times frames it as a "change" not a destruction....

Will we see an increase in profits at GM?  Yes........Will it allow the US government to sell the rest of their GM shares at a higher price than otherwise would have been possible?  Yes... Is it just another example of the massive increase in the rate of exploitation in this country?  Of course.
 

GM Profits

Are enormous again.  Over 8 Billion dollars for 2011.
I wonder what has happened to their rate of exploitation at the point of production.  Wait no I don't...  It has gone through the roof.   Read between the lines of a statement like "shed billions of dollars of cost" in any bourgeois article like this one: 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577204982933314566.html

 What happens when S increases and V falls?  S/V increases dramatically.   If the American worker is willing to be exploited at higher and higher rates, giving up the benefits their predecessors obtained there just might be hope for the survival of productive capitalism in this country. 

Is that a good thing?  While that all depends....

Government Motors?

General Motors CEO Daniel Akerson was interviewed on NPR this week.
During the interview the term "Government Motors" was brought up as a term that Ackerson didn't "like".

This is not a new way to critically refer to GM.  See for example this article from The Economist last summer:  Government Motors no more

I found Ackerson's argument really interesting in that it parallels one that I often find myself making.  Ackerson was arguing that "Government Motors" and the negative connotations that come with such a term in American society (inefficient, bureaucratic etc.) are unfounded.  Sure the US government still owns about 25 percent of the common stock of General Motors, but ownership does not matter, to paraphrase Ackerson.  What is important is the relationships at the point of production that determine the directions a company is moving in.  Apparently GM is still a vibrantly innovative capitalist firm (I believe he used the words "leaders in technological development a few times).  Vibrant and innovative, even if the ownership structure is something that those preoccupied with ownership relations would call state capitalism.

It is good to know that the top echelon of management at GM understands that increasing the rate of exploitation in their capitalist production relations is still possible, regardless of the ownership structure.  Maybe there is hope for capitalist exploitation in the American Auto Industry.  Keep buying American! (or in the case of GM "assembled American"!) 

Theft and Exploitation; brief thoughts

To state the obvious:
An employee who steals from a capitalist (be it product or money) is a criminal (has violated criminal law).
A capitalist who extracts surplus value from her employees is just a capitalist. 
Many of us do not see a great deal of difference between these two acts, society as a whole sees a large difference but many Marxists do not.
Even though both acts involve appropriating the property (labor power) of another to further one's own material well being, there is an important distinction beyond the obvious criminal aspects:

A capitalist who finds a way to further exploit labor is rewarded with more SV to appropriate and distribute (and ultimatly more profit), a furthering of the capitalist's own well being.

A worker who becomes increasingly successful in workplace theft certainly gains more as an individual, there is however another result as well.  Workers increasing their rate of theft from the capitalist will result in the capitalist having less SV.  A fall in surplus value for the capitalist may just result in a lowering of profit more likely if the worker is successful enough in their theft it will have some impact on the capitalist's ability to secure the conditions of existence of their enterprise (the most important use for SV for the capitalist), the worker's theft will force the capitalist to take action.
Again holding aside the criminal aspect of worker theft (or assuming the capitalist does not know about the theft, or at least does not know which worker(s) are stealing), the lower SV coming into the corporation will result in the capitalist needing to raise the rate of exploitation to continue to secure existence.  Assuming the firm in question needs a certain level of surplus to continue to operate a worker that is successful in stealing will result in the capitalist needing* to further exploit all workers.  Wages and benefits will be reduced, hours and intensity increased, etc.

This issue is more complex than I am presenting here, but the argument can be made that a capitalist stealing more labor power helps the capitalist, and a worker stealing back some of the surplus that has been taken from them does nothing more than cause the capitalist to further exploit the workers.  On all levels the system is set so that the worker just cannot win at this game.