Like, how would the numbers on the map I linked change, if real estate weren't included in the calculation?
Yes, for real value, quantitative studies might be impossible.
Rent just means income without work or exchange. If you want to account for real estate, you can't wave rent or ground rent in the Marxist sense, because expected rent during depreciation plays a part in determining the price for things like land, which don't have an inherent value, because no labor is used to produce them.
I was manly interest in the impact on revolutionary potential in the core.
Edit: Oh, sorry, you meant the premise of revolutions, hence no more rent. Yes, of course.
Yes, that's true. The calculation includes real estate "value", or rather prices, which are highly distorted and far removed from value based on labor power. But what would a more Marxist analysis look like and what would it's likely outcome be? Complicated concepts like absolute and differential ground rent from Capital volume three get involved, if you really want to do it thoroughly.
Agree, the labor aristocracy in the west has their material interested intertwined with imperialism and stands to lose from revolution in the periphery. Now just add to the picture: if all the countries, including the west, had communist revolutions, including redistribution, average people in some imperial core countries like the US and Germany would still initially be better of. People in Canada, France and Spain would lose wealth. They would only get freedom, security, peace, fullfilment from end of alienation and survival of the planetary ecosystem, but this is all less immediate and less material.
This is from 2019. As global inequality increases, more and more workers might stand to win wealth from revolution.
Disclaimer: this simple calculation doesn't take into account, how supply chains would shift after revolutions. It basically just looks at the immediate effect of a hypothetical redistribution of wealth. The real impact of global revolutions on workers in the imperial core, as well as the periphery would depend on structures of international solidarity forming. Still, a quantitative perspective like this can be helpful.
Totally agree on dialectical materialism, though there is no such thing as a universally accepted scientific method. I say this as a scientist working in a technical field: science in capitalism is ripe with contradiction.
Yes! Finally someone else who is amazed by this! It's crazy to think, that magnetism can be understood as nothing more than a relativistic phenomenon.
Maybe it's about measurement, but also look closer, the change is not 2006, it's 2007. It's when the financial crisis related to the US real estate bubble hit. Also the x-axis is in percent. So it might just be, that the crash hit the regions harder, whose banks had invested most in the bubble: US and Europe. The apparent rise we see might just be production in the global south staying constant, while falling elsewhere.
Also China started huge investments, but I think most of that was at the end of 2008.
Edit: No, I was wrong. Looks like production shifted from medium skilled south to low skilled south. I have no explanation.
Not an expert, but I think they're a bit like DJ's. Some of those are famous too, right? And the musicians are like tracks, except they don't always keep their tempo, volume and pitch automatically, so the conductor job is more difficult than a DJ's. The conductor fine tunes all of this. Telling the individual musicians when to start and stop, how fast to go, how loud to play. The sheets leave plenty of room for interpretation.
There is a great walking tour about Marx and Engels life in London. The guide even sang the international for us in front of the pub, where the first international met.
Wow, that's really good advice 👍 I'm on boardgame geek and hadn't thought of that.
This would work inverted as well: "Yeah, I'm running a quick vibe check on the data to find out where the noise is coming from."
What everyone says doesn't completely answer the question. Yes it's about selling your data and attention to advertisers. But if it's about the "meta", than there is a twofold strategy about it: first exploiting the network effect (wikipedia link) while growing. And then locking in the market ("keep you in their ecosystem"), thereby locking out competition. It's ironic, but capitalists hate competition (in their own field) so much they would do everything to avoid it.
Their ideal endgame is what Amazon has achieved: becoming so big, they can start selling other capitalists access to their walled in market.
All these platforms could have been made compatible with each other (like federated instances). Without content walled in behind logins, we would be able to put together our own feed with content from all over the Internet and choose our own algorithms to sort it. But then no one could sell your attention or data to advertisers and small creative upstarts would be able compete with big entrenched content providers.