I can understand how effective demand is more critical than simply demand, as in, people with the ability to afford commodities are more influential than those who can’t. Supply is also not the full picture, since any supply will also need skilled labor to transform it into something valuable.
I was wondering if anyone had any good literature on this. I really like the part in Capital Vol 1 where Marx discusses how capital doesn’t treat labor the same as other commodities and will increase its labor supply faster than demand, forcing people to work more even as productivity increases.
I don’t think marxism necessarily disagrees with supply/demand?
you’re right, but liberals seem to believe supply and demand is the source of all value
But you are selling them on different framework, so why argue with something you don’t disagree with. Just riddle liberals this: if shares of company are equitably owned by all workforce, company can’t produce profit (it may call it that, but it isn’t), they may increase or decrease only their salaries. Now say price of the good they produce increased, they still won’t make any profit. (It’s kinda weird argument semantically due to how profit exists in language).
Now say this firm is owned by trump (cause libs, choose bill gates for chuds), price of good increased. Trump received that money. How did that happen? Price changes are between two cases all else being equal.
Where did trump profit come from? From the market? But if worker owned means of production he wouldn’t receive it. It came from exploitation. That’s marxist framework, market can do whatever
