Part Jesus, look at all the words
>Eternal growth is only demanded by the current govt+corp+finance complex.
When capital does not grow capital does not exist. That is what happens when a depression occurs. There ceases to be a sufficient expectation of a return on investments, so investors stop investing. Investment resumes in increments as the weaker porkies get culled. Then the cycle begins again. A stoppage of growth is just a depression.
>Why insist on reifying the current mode as some holy eternal law.It isnt.
Things have properties. Growth is a definitive property of capital. M becomes M'. Third-positionists want to have social production without capital, but the engine that moves social production is capital. That does not have to be the case, but when capital is removed from the formula something has to takes its place. Investors do not invest without expectation of a return. What makes investors invest if doing so does not benefit them? My solution: have no investors at all and produce for use.
>Their analysis is sound and sometimes accurate - but their models still assume gold backed ie limited currency
What have they gotten right? I cannot help remembering Greenspan being completely befuddled when the bubbles burst.
>Soviet's best mathematicians couldnt figure it out.
Where does this myth come from? Kantrovich did it in 1939.
>Give me a synopsis of cockshot.
Cockshott cited Kantrovich's arithmetical method based on production outputs and combined it with Dantzig's simplex method to scale it up infinitely. It is all based upon the point that money is not the only scaling objective function out there. I will include the pamphlet in case you are interested. I am not an advocate of central planning, being a leftcom, but Cockshott makes a convincing case for its plausability.
>Give my regards to the lady of the manor squire. I'm hitting the sack.Drunk as a lord. Til the morrow
May your headache be light and your bedroom dark.
>Appreciate the chance for sincere debate like civilised grown ups.
It is both pleasant and unusual to talk with someone here about economics and not have it turn into a memefest two posts in. God, the MLs can cite Lenin back and forth, but once the subject turns to the M-C-M' cycle in Capital
and its relation to the state it's all "anarkiddy" and "imperialist."