No, this is showing a counterexample, which would render the original theory moot. If we find a planet tomorrow that pushes you away rather than attracting you, then Newton’s theory of gravitation is (probably) no longer a valid model of the real world, or would have to be revised. That is just how science works.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, and sorry for the late response. Mine was just a simple counterexample to show that the tendency doesn’t always apply. You’re right that the c2 I used is wrong, and it should be s1+v1+c1, although that would still not change the result. My example was in the case where one producer wants to compete with another with a lower price, so chooses to trade a lower s for a bigger market share, so I wasn’t really getting into improved productivity, I was just addressing your initial statement of “competition forces prices down”.
In a real economy this chain would be much more complicated with way more steps and even backpropagation of some of the values. If we have a rate of decline of profit for company 1 called R1 and a rate R2, the overall R would only decline if R2 > R1, otherwise it would increase. So to prove a general declining rate of profit you would have to prove that the decline propagates fast enough through the entire chain.
Also, I fail to see how c/v (organic composition of capital) necessarily increases. If prices lower (due to competition, or productivity as you have said), then c will also decrease for the companies using those products (as I have shown in my example) as the cost of machines and input lowers (a computer in 2025 costs way less than the same one in 2000). To prove that c/v increases you would have to prove that dc > dv (derivatives), which is not at all clear since, while they both decrease, they can decrease at varying rates which are not predictable.
“Better get fascism now, rather than next election” is such a dumb take
You didn’t address any of my concerns, nor was I talking about productivity. Let’s try again for the the first one with a simple example:
Company 1 makes a product (let’s say timber) at 50 surplus value. That 50 is a cost for company 2 that uses the product as an input material (it makes wooden chairs). We can calculate the total rate of profit of both companies. Now company 1 is forced to lower the price to 40 because of competition. We calculate the total rate of profit again and the total rate of profit has actually increased.
Thus, it does not follow that lowering prices/profits leads to a decrease in the overall rate of profit
This is definitely achievable. Ireland uses STV (a type of ranked voting) and the average person expresses 3-4 preferences and these end up being deciding factors for lots of candidates, and the general public has a good understanding of how the system works.
Competition forces prices down, and rates of profit with it
This is not true in the general case. If prices for input materials are down, profits rise for the company using them. One company’s profit loss is another’s gain. That is even with the shaky assumption that competition can exist long term in a free market. Imperialism, as defined by Lenin, results in concentration of capital and the removal of competition.
this process can be struggled against by expanding markets or finding new industries
There are counteracting forces for it, but expanding is not one of them. Expanding does not change the rate of profit (profit/capital invested); at most, it changes the total profit.
Well said. It’s a band aid for first-past-the-post voting. Ranked voting already includes multiple rounds, while only doing the physical voting once.
Voting for the lesser evil: this is how to do it, USA.
There is no tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The theory is inconclusive, as is empirical research. If TRPF were true, then growing a company would, in fact, accelerate the process.
Very common to hear this. I’ve heard family that were complaining that male only, illegal immigrants are moving in to steal jobs, when they were exactly in the same situation, just on the other side, some 20 years ago. It honestly shakes my hope in humanity.
Yeah, the EIRE sign is right behind where the picture was taken
This blogger is still going strong today!
What savages would use Paint without AI???
$800 million according to labor theory of value. 0$ million according to subjective theory of value
But… but… who will grow the economy so we can get the first trillionaire? Humanity has never existed with less than 2 billion people. Suggesting that lower than replacement birth rates are possible is eco fascist!!1 /s
If you’re gonna get arrested at least throw acid at these fucking cowards.
If it’s a one time thing, it wouldn’t take very long. Redistribution would have to be a continuous process.
Markets inherently create inequalities. You can also verify this for yourself by playing something like Eco (where all players start with the same wealth) for a like a week and then watching everyone complain about inequality.