新年好
其實我是懶得回您了 因為討論就像打球
我好像打了排球給您 您回我一個羽毛球 打不下去 好嗎
若您不反駁以下問題，這是我最後回您的文，
然後請不要再引我們的討論文了 謝謝
真的 您很多用語 我很多是看不懂的 很燒腦的
對您的歷史五段論
我回您的文，您大概是漏看了
abc003 wrote:
共產主義經濟不可能在一國之內建成，否則就必然成為國家資本主義或社會主義
因為一國之內建成的經濟制度還是必須要同外部的資本主義國家競爭，
在資本競爭環境之下只有低成本的經濟體才有優勢生存下來
若是如此，我是對共產主義經濟能否達到 “歷史五段論”中的第五階段，感到非常悲觀,原因很簡單：
按Game Theory，這是典型的Prisoner's Dilemma,
雖然每個人知道“合作-Marxism”會使所有人有最大收益，
但若是只有我“合作-Marxism” + 別人“背叛-Capitalism”，我的損失會最大。
反若是我“背叛”，我的損失不是最大/可能還有收益。
所以，若我是理性的人，假設別人也是理性的，而且能有自由選擇，我會選“背叛-Capitalism”
說明白一點，
"第五階段"是不可能的。
"第五階段"是不可能的。
"第五階段"是不可能的。
請反駁 以上"第五階段"是不可能的論述
abc003 wrote:
還有你說貼的那篇連結只是一篇不入流的右派份子在批判馬克思主義
但是它本身並不能在學術上駁倒馬克思主義的理論
而絕大多數人連什麼是共產主義經濟和馬克斯主義都不了解
這個“不入流的右派份子”
是老共中央級的單位， 董德刚 -- 中央党校哲学教研部副主任
http://theory.people.com.cn/GB/49150/49152/7220743.html
董德剛說，
勞動價值論也有缺陷，這是我的認識。什麼缺陷呢？主要有這樣幾條：
第一，它否定了資產、資本在價值形成當中的作用，這是不完全符合實際的。
第二個缺陷，勞動價值論認為自然資源是沒有價值的，因為它不包含人類的抽象勞動。
第三個缺陷，勞動價值論比較強調的是操作性勞動，特別是體力勞動，而對經營管理勞動，特別是經營勞動這種高度複雜的勞動是有所忽視的」
Marx在他理論基礎上有很嚴重的錯誤，“不完全符合实际的”
請反駁 以上董德剛的論述
說明白一點，
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>馬克思經濟學的基本原理和公設就是所有價值都是由勞動創造出來的
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>利潤只是一種剩餘價值
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>是什麼所謂利潤就是投入的總資本為分母除以M剩餘價值的比率
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>那麼最後這20單位給資本家是無償佔有和剝削的剩餘價值M 利潤P=剩餘價值M
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>問題在於資本家壟斷了生產資料 因此勞動者本身不能獲得他自己生產出來的全部價值
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>所以生產資料本身也是由勞動力創造的並非是資本自我增值的結果
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>這就是馬克思的勞動價值論的轉型問題
我不知道您在講什麼
》》因此後來數學家才發展出來TSSI的一元分期理論體系
我不知道您在講什麼
》》這也是馬克思的利潤率公式
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
》》再回到馬克思的利潤率公式什麼叫做利潤率?
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
》》利潤就天然會傾向於降低 因為剝削率增加的速度從來就沒有比資本有機構成上升的更快
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的
>>參考這個
>>the monetary expression of labor time
>>the monetary expression of labor time MELT 以勞動價值衡量的貨幣表達
Marx理論基礎是錯誤的 剩餘價值理論究竟錯在哪裡？ 看不出有其中的關聯，請指教。
爭議點在這 --
abc003 wrote:
事實上，與其說資本家在僱傭生產中獲得的高額利潤是靠資本家才能、風險承擔和創新，通過「經商」、交換而來，不如說是依靠其獨有的原始資本積累而來更確切。
資本主義： 高額利潤100%是靠資本家才能。。。。
Marx 認為： 利潤 100%是勞工所創造
您不覺得現代社會透過制度，已將利潤設是在兩者之間嗎？
像最低工資，勞動保險，健保，更還要有利潤解決外部成本（環保）。。。。
現今社會，利潤已經不是資本家所獨佔的，
至於是否達到您的要求，您可以去投票，去組黨。。。按民主制度走
但在另一邊，從古至今所有共產國家都是極權主義，完全掌握媒體，是聽不到我這種反革命言論的，要是我不同意如何分配，能如何呢？
again, 100%利潤歸勞工, <== 董德剛說 有很嚴重的錯誤，“不完全符合实际的”
這引到另一個重點：利潤分配
有很多人想住台北天龍，因為有捷運，密集公車，醫院，中央機關,公司行號....等等，生活/工作方便，
若台灣現在是共產主義，誰能夠住台北天龍？在需求遠大於供給下，是根據什麼排序，誰可以先選房子？
根據出生背景（紅五類，黑五類）？根據身高體重？根據誰念abc003語錄念的最好？
請講講看，在您的理想世界裡，怎麼解決分配？
請講講看，在您的理想世界裡，怎麼解決分配？
“根據什麼排序” -- 是一個重點，對任一個系統都是個難題，
但老共那裡，最後都會說，由全體人民決定。
決定什麼？ 像薪資，老師的薪資，教授的薪資，工人的的薪資。。。
所有人的薪資 全”由全體人民決定“
樓主，您若是在台灣長大的，就知道議會中是不可能達成這樣的決議。。。。。
"由全體人民決定"每種行業的薪資，只能騙騙沒有經過民主過程洗禮的人
所以， 若是您的答案是 "由全體人民決定"，我會是很失望的
各取所需 -- 只有在書上有（看看我們的健保，假農)
自利， 誘因， 理性選擇 -- 是人性
abc003 wrote:
你敢說這35億人口沒有聰明和努力的嗎?(因為他生在窮國在努力也沒用註定被資本所奴役)
接下來一個問題是，若現在全世界是所謂的”第五階段“， 台灣人民願意跟這些35億人 ”共產“嗎？您願意嗎？我是不願意的
以全世界來看，您知道您是有錢人嗎？
您願意跟這些人共產嗎？
您願意跟這些人共產嗎？
》》按造李嘉圖的級差地租。。。
參考這個
6 Important Criticisms Against the Ricardian Theory of Rent
http://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/6-important-criticisms-against-the-ricardian-theory-of-rent/113880
Ricardian theory of rent has been subjected to severe criticisms by modern writers.
The following are some of the criticisms:
(1) No original and indestructible power of the soil:
Ricardo states that rent is paid to the landlord for the ‘original and indestructible’ power of the soil. But this is not correct. Fertility of land is not original but the result of human effort, it is also destructible.
The fertility of piece of land is reduced by constant cultivation. Fertility can be increased by applying scientific and modern method of cultivation. Therefore, there is nothing called original and indestructible power of the soil.
(2) The order of cultivation is wrong:
The order of cultivation, as mentioned by Ricardo, has been criticised by Carey, an American economist. Carey points out that it is wrong to suppose the cultivation of land goes on the descending order of fertility.
Situation is perhaps more important than fertility so far as order of cultivation is concerned. Experience shows in a new island people cultivate that grade of land first which is nearer the human habitation, with developed means of transport.
(3) Rent also enters price:
It follows from the Ricardian theory that rent does not enter into price. Price of wheat tends to be equal to the cost of production on the marginal land. Marginal land does not pay rent. Hence rent, not being a part of cost, does not determine price. Rent is price- determined and not-price determining.
This point of view has not been accepted by modern writers. The payment that an individual producer or farmer makes for the use of land is included in the cost of production. Thus rent enters into price, if we look at the matter from the angle of an individual producer.
(4) The ‘Scarcity rent’ is ignored by Ricardo:
Ricardo gives an explanation of differential rent but ignores the ‘Scarcity rent’. Scarcity rent results from scarcity of land. Even if all lands were equally fertile, rent would arise due to the inelasticity of supply of land.
(5) No rent land is difficult to find:
According to Ricardo the marginal land is no rent land. In actual life it is very difficult to find a no rent land. Every plot of land has rent. If a land will yield no rent it will not be cultivated at all.
(6) Rent is not paid for the use of land alone:
Rent paid to any factor whose supply is fixed in relation to demand. Any factor of production earns rent if its supply is less elastic in relation to its demand. So rent is not a monopoly of land. Modern economists defined it as transfer earning. Rent therefore, accrues to all the factors of production.
==========
In arguing for free trade, Ricardo formulated the idea of comparative costs, today called “The theory of comparative advantage”, which forms the basis of the claim of neo liberal economists that free trade operates to the advantage of every nation, the capitalistically advanced nations as well as the capitalistically underdeveloped or oppressed nations.
His assumptions that economies were in static equilibrium positions with full employment and that there could not be a trade deficit or a trade surplus were not relevant to the real world.
The Labour theory of value adopted in the model to express the value of goods in terms of labour content has too many limitations and thus is not applicable to the reality.
Moreover, Ricardo's math did not take into account that some countries may be at different levels of development and that this raised the prospect of 'unequal exchange' which might hamper a country's development.
Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. For example, many countries do not produce tropical fruits. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.
The theory assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialization could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods with an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause an industrially based country to starve.
Ricardian theory of rent has also been subjected to severe criticism. In an attempt to demonstrate that Ricardian Rent constitutes value for nothing Ricardo neglected Say’s Law that all savings by-definition-equals investment. Rent, however misplaced, constitutes a prime source of savings and investment for the future.
請反駁 以上李嘉圖的評論
》》》所以說你根本沒研究過歷史五段論啊，沒資格批判
請小心看以上 Criticisms Against the Ricardian Theory of Rent 喲，
不然有人會說您沒研究過 Ricardian的評論，沒資格批判哦
>>你只要看看一些商研所學資本資產定價模型
>>馬克思主經的經濟學相對比較簡單解釋力還更強
我等您的說明很久了
就是您沒能夠回答關於： 如何用 馬克思主經的經濟學 ，來定價資本資產，來定價一家公司的價值 . 而且是說比CAPM還好
我回來了 wrote:
這文章真長。...(恕刪)
是啊 來比長
我也是剪貼王啦。。。 哈哈哈
新年快樂
大家新年快樂
越來越汪
woof woof
