The falling rate of profit

If you're wondering why low domestic wages kills profits, it is because it makes consumers poor and they can't buy anything.

This graph is irrelevant because after the midterms we'll be seeing 20% year long growth in the stock market according to some fucking graphs that ignore a lot of nuance.

And idiots say that war is bad for business.

Brainlet posts, Keynesianism is completely debunked.

Real Keynesianism was never tried. If anything has been debunked it's monetarism.

This won’t allow capitalism to keep a positive ROP forever. Marketing can only boost sales so far, and eventually you get to a point where sales can only be boosted if workers are given raises. Which cancels out increased profitability for sales. It’ll also cause companies to compete for labor driving down profitability.

bump

Each time the economy improves it is because of Capitalism changes and adapts to the crisis. You could say it is the dialectic of capitalism and crisis. If no solution is found severe poverty would remain an issue until enough people are fed up and start revolting. Some examples of adaptation are outsourcing, Removal of the Gold Standard (and unlimited debt based spending), crushing the power of unions (The Neo-liberal doctrine). The latest was using tax money to stabilize the banking system and make sure investment kept going.
Sadly, economists have no idea how such a complex system is supposed to work, and will keep trying to patch the system with the economic equivalent of duct tape, until the economy actually breaks at some point. Even worse is that the governments can get away with almost anything, no matter how atrocious or incompetent their attempts might be.

Boom, Bust, Boom, Bust … Boom?

or in this case a pop, unless something that invigorates the economy like a world war comes along then the energy of each boom diminishes.

Attached: gXwgX4g.jpg (720x766, 64.42K)

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think marketing increases profitability. What I mean to say is, business executives start thinking of their market as limited to a certain pool of money. Unless they have a compelling reason to suggest they can expand it to some larger group, they think that it can only grow so much. So when there are large companies inhabiting a certain market together, instead of investing into a bunch of capital for greater production or driving down prices they start to act in a way that reduces the chances of either of them doing this, but instead will often opt to spend money on marketing campaigns to try to draw more people to their product, which has similar margins to their competitor.

At the extreme end I guess you could ask the question, can a developed economy maintain a certain equilibrium when in extremely low to zero growth? I think it depends on the context you’re in, but it seems possible. I’d say Japan is the first example I can think of, as a glimpse of this state of affairs becoming nearly taken for granted. If there is going to be a crisis of overproduction, capitalists need to be atomized and hungry for a return that doesn’t exist. They have to feel compelled to continue buying capital goods. But there has been evidence that capitalists are willing to start essentially planning production across firms, formally or informally, to avoid damaging competition like this. However, I think in the past decades some of the European and the American government have shown that they aren’t willing to endure that sort of situation yet, and as long as they believe there is still growth to be had they’ll fight for a higher surplus by crushing workers through cuts to social spending. This could be a mistake that ignites more class antagonisms, but America is impressively class cucked in this regard so it is hard to tell when it will start angering the Republican base.