To my sentence: "The distribution of the products of the activity in a company is a function of the balance of power between the various components of this one.", You answer:
Is this still the case? it does not seem to me or it takes perspective to see it ...
The decline of the working masses, their fragmentation, like those of the employees, the union and political demobilization has reduced the weight of these social categories to very little; Faced with it, the ruling class, although crossed by cleavages, finds itself united and aware of it for the defense of its interests.
The current trend, which shows an ever-widening income disparity never seen before, clearly shows which way the balance of power is leaning.
Further, you note:
From a global point of view it can be interpreted thus, but this would suggest that the profits have increased. However, companies were fighting for their survival. I lived this in the furniture, the French companies were laminated by the Italians. Those who survived had relocated to Asia. We have been deindustrializing the country for 40 years, and the industrialists have lost just as much as the employees if not more.
Isn't that what I wrote? The benefits vanished as the displays progressed.
Regarding financial bubbles, I admit to ignoring in detail the functioning of these masses of money.
However, overall, within financial institutions there are masses of capital which "seek" (if one can say so!) To invest where there can be added value. Any decision being "performative", ie to say that it influences reality, is created a psychological movement which self-amplifies until brutal deflation.
The reason is that the more an investment makes it possible to hope for a substantial gain, the more it is risky: it is therefore indeed the lack of possibility of investments that are both secure and sufficiently remunerative that leads to fault.
I wrote: "... the bypassing of state financial institutions for the benefit of private institutions, which allows it to ransom the northern states ..."
and you answer:
A cause and effect link that is not obvious to me.
I was just alluding to the impossibility for each European state to issue money, but to have to finance its debt through the use of private financial institutions.
The consequences are obviously an increase in credit, but also the impossibility of varying the price of its currency in order to maintain its competitiveness within partners of unequal forces.
Further on, you talk about the fable of "The cicada and the ant"; an illustration is not a reasoning ...
At one point, you talk to
Sen-no-sen on the positive aspects of liberalism.
Beyond the simple evidence on a certain number of points, what seems important to me is that each net gain for a certain population finds its correspondence in very negative aspects in another social, national, geographic, environmental sphere. .
Thus, let us take as an example what we discussed above, the compromise which allowed the rise of the middle class in France after the Second World War resulted, in particular, in greater precariousness in Africa.
Even if the phenomenon is not as intuitively perceptible as the principle of communicating vessels, extractivism was at the base of the period of the "thirty glorious years".
This is the unfortunate principle of liberalism / capitalism: I had not mentioned the slave-cane relationship by chance.
For there to be value creation, someone must be wronged: the slaves or the Chinese workers in their workers' convicts.
French workers / employees are no longer "profitable" when they are more or less correctly paid ...
