Conservatives I know do have this zero sum mentality. They think the world is dog eat dog and everyone is against you and so you should look after yourself (and the family which they want to have patricharcal lordship over)
They live in a sad and lonely world
Yay another update! Will take a look and dig in!
Thanks for sharing 
I've tried looked into this with the world input output tables. But the time baseline on that is much smaller, but you gain a global view of the economy in exchange for just national views. In fact, using it to calculate labor exploitation is something that can be done, as well as tracing the flow of commodities between nations.
In the world input output tables I've noticed that some nations lack labor data, like China. Idk why. So that may have to be imputed with a reasonable guess for some nations or compiled from other sources.
When working with real input output tables the most important aspect of them is that they are set up differently from the input output tables you find in theory. I will explain in the next paragraoh In addition to the set up, they also have extra tidbits like taxes, tariffs (the most beautiful word in the dictionary, folks) government spending, gross fixed capital investment, etc. Those wouldn't be too hard to handle, though I would need help in understanding some of details if doing it alone.
Now for the world input output tables, the given data isn't your typical input output table A where a~i,j~ is the quantity flow of product i required as input for the production of a unit product of type j. Instead, the data is typically a monetary input output table. For the data, A is in money terms. So a~i,j~ is the money flow of for product i paid to create one "dollar" output of product type j.
You can still use the same equations you find in input output analysis, but one must keep in mind that instead of a vector of quantity flows (q or n) you are dealing with a vector of money flows such as gross or net product for each sector. The labor coefficients (l) or value vectors (v) are also in units of labor per dollar (or whatever currency gets used).
Perhaps not all data is like this, but most of the input output table data i have found has this set up that is slightly different from how input output tables are set up and used in theory
I think it would be cool to have some way of integrating those calculations into a network or the @hexatlas map
I stalled out on that project as life got in the way. But most of the math is worked out. Given the data you can find how much labor one country consumes from another, and how much it gives in return by tracing labor inputs through this input output tables (i.e. a production network)
Also, if you want to find profitability or wage data, one thing you would need to find data on or make assumptions about is productive labor vs unproductive
Some sectors, like finance, insurance etc, are unproductive and simply take away from the surplus without producing any. But even productive sectors that create surplus, like manufacturing, are going to have some fraction of labor inputs that are included in the data but are not actually productive labor. Think management.
Anwar Shaikh and Tomak (spelling?) Actually have a paper and book about how to make these profitability calculations using BLS data. So that is a source. And Basu has a paper with an overview of quantitative methods in Marxism that also overviews it.
To my knowledge, Shaikh's method aggregates data across sectors, but with an input output table the beauty is sectoral analysis.
Whenever things feel too down or Imperialism feels too powerful, I keep in mind the article that 72Trillion posted months ago (and others have shared)
https://reportofanimals.com/2024/11/05/the-demiurge-does-not-exist/
72's post and summary is found here:
https://hexbear.net/post/3937061
Essentially it is an argument against pessimism - feeling as if imperialism is some all powerful 10d chess master demirge who always comes out on top. And for revolutionary optimism grounded in historical materialism and an analysis of the current situation.
There is reason to be optimistic. (Though in the short term I definitely feel you when it comes to doom. Our moment is a sad and painful one.)
Portraying or pointing to the inequalities and abuses of capitalism has to come with the practical solutions to these problems, otherwise it is an exercise in despair – an informed despair, yet despair nonetheless. ... Something missing from documentaries and books like Shadow World is the premise that despite the overwhelming power of the U.S Empire, it is inevitable that it will fall.
and the article goes on in much detail to argue this not from some "everything must come to an end" angle but from an analysis of the real decline of US power and the emergence of alternatives. From the unsustainablility of imperialism itself as a system.
Essentially the author offers a critique of fetishizing power. Treating it as if exists in itself and can perpetuate itself without material limits.
And like others here have argued. I really respect shipwreck and their knowledge. They add a lot to this mega. But I often have this feeling that their focus of analysis treats finance as if it is the end-all be-all power. I believe they've even said that money is the closest thing to magic we've encountered. And I don't know enough to articulate my views, so i can't offer much more than vibes, but I fear that too much of an emphasis on finance and money, without an analysis of production and labor falls risk of fetishizing financial power. Money only has power because if can direct social labor. And it is this labor, i.e the people themselves, where real power lies and real change lies.
The brilliance of a work like Marx’s Capital is that it demonstrates the sheer power of capitalism, its ability to extract immense quantities of wealth and social control, while simultaneously showing the power of labour, the protagonist who will break its chains and bring in the next necessary stage in human development
I try to keep that in mind when others give the impression there's some 10d financial move that people say will secure the next thousand year American Reich.
The demiurge does not exist. Even if its presence is felt.
Our optimism ... is justified by the new world emerging before our eyes. Challenges and contradictions will remain, History never ends, but we should hold dear to the knowledge that it is progressing.
Yeah, don't disturb as they hibernate and get their beauty rest. I was under the impression that Sarracenia doesn't do well indoors as it needs bright light, but I have also heard that if any of the genus could be grown in a bright windowsill it is Sarracenia purpurea - the one you have, right? Even then, I have a northeast facing window so I don't know how luck I would be.
For years I had a Nepenthes growing indoors, but when I moved I decided to give it to my mother-in-law. And lucky her, it actually flowered under her care. And unlucky me, I didn't get to see it!
Yeah and I noticed that the profits don't go toward any class consumption. But I realize that this is fine as it is the scope of this first model - I just wanted to clarify the assumptions that a Sraffian model uses. And I agree, that in computational models one shouldn't assume it - one checks if they emerge. That's the more fascination approach. It would be interesting to see if a future model generates an equalization of profit rates and/or equalization of wage rates if the wage rate is an endogenous variable determined by a labor market.
I have models that I would like to share as well. I don't know if I should post them here or on lemmygrad (a place I don't go to often enough). If you have any suggestions for a community let me know.
In the meantime thanks for the great discussion! I don't have more questions at the moment but I'm looking forward to updates!
Thanks again! And best of luck in your future projects 
Chapter 10 was really depressing. It stokes my hatred for capitalism even more. An interesting contrast to the earlier chapters which were more analytical (though the footnotes always have some good tidbits and passion in them). Curious what chapter 11 will bring
Okay great! This answers my next questions
So you calculate an average wage-rate (price per labor hour)
w=pc/L
and pay out to each worker sector i their eage using this wage-rate
wL~i~
Now we have a price equation that we can represent as
p = wl + pA + π
where the profit of each sector i I'm defining as Profit~i~=π~i~q~i~. I.e. π~i~ is a profit per gross output of a sector.
The above is in a style that is close (but not completelt identical) to a Sraffa-Pasinetti framework. But setting it up that way can allow you to compare with the Sraffian framework that you may find in the literature. In this framework, it is assumed that due to competition of capitals, an equilization of profit rates emerges. A single profit rate r emerges. So π becomes written in terms of the rate of profit, π= r pA, or it is sometimes defined as r (w l + pA) which is more in line with how the classical political economists such as Marx defined the rate of profit.
Also, if we assume the capitalists take their profits and spend it all on commodities such as luxury items, then we will need to introduce a capitalist consumption vector c^K^ and add it to the worker consumption so it is included in the net product. This will increase the gross product, and also increase the labor that workers must provide (i.e. now workers must perform surplus labor to create commodities for capitalists). Ian Wright's contribution is finding a measure of value which incorpotes that surplus labor and is proportional to the price. It is a measure of total labor embodied in a unit of workers' consumed product.
For the model in this post, there is no assumption of equal profit rates, no structual mechansim for enforcing equalizafion of r, so the profit is simply a residual.
If ever interested more in any of the above I'd always be down to talk. I find it fun!
Here are some extra tidbits about the equation. You may or may not find this worthwhile for the purposes of the simulation.
Again, the equation you have is
p = wl + pA + π
We can rewrite it as
p = wv + π(I-A)^-1^
This tells you the difference between the price and the standard labor value in terms of your residual.
Another alternative way to view the original equation is purely in terms of quantity flows, if we note that w=pc/L, then the term wl can be written as
wl = p [(cl) (1/L)]
The term in brackets, [(cl) (1/L)], is actually a consumption matrix, C^(W)^, for the working class. Recall c is a column vector while l is a row vector. It is like the workers' consumption analog to the industrial sectors' input output matrix A.
Element i,j of A tells us how much of product i the sector j requires to produce one unit of gross output in j.
Similarly, element i,j of C^(W)^ tells us how much of product i workers in sector j consume per unit of gross output in sector j.
Some interesting properties of C^(W)^
C^(W)^q = c^(W)^ (for the workers)
pC^(W)^ = wl
So if C^(W)^ is known data, or constructed by a model, you can write the equation
p = wl + pA + π
as
p = pC^(W)^ + pA + π
which can be rewritten as
p = π (I - A^(+)^)^-1^
where A^(+)^ = A + C^(W)^
Just Israeli things. Being sociopaths, they know no other way.
My heart goes out to the victims, and I believe there will be justice.
Thanks for the response! Hopefully I'm not overloading you with questions - this is helping me understanding MatLab and answering some other questions I had. I've asked another question too re. the wages for whenever you have the time.
Thanks again!
Can you explain how you are calculating the wages paid out to workers? In words you state:
c. It is assumed that consumers are not going into debt, which means the total money they spend on net consumption comes from the wages (or dividends) paid by industry. Wages are paid by each industry proportionally to their gross labor usage
And in the code you have:
` %Industry to consumer sales (assuming consumers save/lose nothing)
S = o.*P; %Sales to consumers
Y = sum(S); %Total consumer spending = wages paid out
W = L.*Y; %Wages paid out vector by industry
I have a couple of questions about this, but I still start with the calculation of Y (the answer may clarify my remaining questions).
You start with S = o.*P; %Sales to consumers where you are performing an element-wise multiplication of a n x 1 vector of net-products by a n x mag array of prices.
Working under the assumption that the net product is the net consumption of workers, i.e. n = c (also, don’t worry about using a standard notation - there isn’t really much of one. I am using a mix of Ian Wright’s, Pasinetti’s and my own 
) the line S = o.*P; is calculating the below, correct?
Each of these elements, s~i~ = p~i~ c~i~ is the part of sector i’s revenue which it receives from its sales to consumers. (It isn’t the total revenue of the sector, though. That is given earlier by R~i~ = p~i~ q~i~).
Then you are summing along each column (you mentioned that MatLab’s sum function sum’s matrices down the column). For a single instantiation of a price vector, this is results in
Y = p~1~c~1~ + p~2~c~2~ + … = p c
which gives us a global wage bill, i.e. the total expenditure of the working class for the economy. This is an aggregated quantity over the entire economy.
Y is a row-vector, though, in your code since you are testing multiple prices - mag of them in fact. if I have the correct understanding, your Y vector is
Y = [Y^(1)^ Y^(2)^ … Y^(mag)^ ]
where I am using superscripts to designate distinct price instantiations.
But I think I must be misunderstanding something, because if the above is true, then I am not certain how the line
W = L.*Y; %Wages paid out vector by industry
Works out because you couldn’t element-wise multiply a n x 1 array L with a 1 x mag array Y.
My understanding is that your L vector is a n x 1 array of normalized labor-times for each sector.
L = O.*l;
L = L/sum(L); %Normalising gross labor use
So I need your help in understanding the calculation here.
I have more questions, but I will save them for later. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this!
That was a crazy read! Honestly, bless their heart because it takes something special to go out of your way to give away your life savings to a a dude pretending to be the CIA.