you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 108 points 2 years ago (8 children)

The same person can be a customer at Walmart, a worker at Walmart, and a shareholder/owner at Walmart. Class as a Marxist concept maybe made sense when you could only be a worker or an owner. But it doesn’t work in a world where you can seamlessly switch between categories, or be all of them at the same time.

Marxists when the Walmart greeter shows them his penny stocks (he is bourgeois now) walter-breakdown

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    The same person can be a customer at Walmart, a worker at Walmart, and a shareholder/owner at Walmart.

    You laugh but this is literally the foundational model of microeconomics: dynamic stochastic general equilibrium that they have been teaching to every econ students for the past few decades.

    The economists around the world advising their governments have all been indoctrinated to some degree of this neoclassical belief.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Am I dumb or is it supposed to read like wank?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm pretty sure all modern liberal "economics" is supposed to read like wank by design

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago

    As a literal former Walmart greeter who got a few thousand in the Employee Stock Program, fuck this guy (and double fuck Walmart)

    Getting fired by Walmart and making their Wikipedia page for it is the crowning achievement of my career.

  • source
  • parent