[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / asmr / beast / ck / komica / leftpol / vietnam ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: f55efb342c1e63e⋯.png (1.55 MB, 1280x1128, 160:141, communist.png)

 No.90720

>socks are equally valuable to an amputee because it took labor to make them

How can anyone actually believe this?

 No.92707

>>90720

would still keep their stumps warm


 No.92723

They don't think about situations in which the theory would be rendered nonsense. Commies are such npc-tier autistic normans that they only think about the typical cases.


 No.92733

>>90720

At least they could still wear them on their middle legs.


 No.92745

>>92723

Yeah, pretty much. There's two typical responses I know of:

>M-muh mudpies!

As if mocking your views was an argument, but hey, such is discourse with commies.

>Muh socially necessary labor time

They cannot explain why we use this criterion and no other. If labor has inherent value, then I don't see how we can smuggle in utility through the backdoor like that. Just read the first two hundred pages of Marx' Capital to see how he cannot handle value theories at all.


 No.92765

Its "Value" isnt what it personally means to a Individual on a case by case Basis its the determination of the general value of the commodity averaged

Read Paul Cockshott or just watch him

LToV has much more evidence backing it then SaD which is literally just the Feels > Reals of economics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q


 No.92768

>>92745

>>M-muh mudpies!

>As if mocking your views was an argument, but hey, such is discourse with commies.

the Mudpies shit only comes up when a capitalist tries to use it as a (bad) gotcha

<"Dude but what if someone magically wanted to pay more then the average for no reason LMAO XD Marx BTFO"


 No.92769

One Last Point

LTV is talking about the sale value of the commodity not an Individual's "Personal Appreciation/Value" of an object


 No.92771

>>92765

>Its "Value" isnt what it personally means to a Individual on a case by case Basis its the determination of the general value of the commodity averaged

That's stupid. Why should the opinion of some schmuck on the other side of the world affect how much I personally am willing to pay for something?

>>92769

It may surprise you to learn that individuals are the ones who buy and sell commodities, based off of their own personal preferences. If your value theory can't take "personal appreciation" into account it's not a value theory at all.


 No.92773

>>92771

No point in discussing anything ever with someone who subscribes to "class consciousness". Maybe he in particular does not, but that theory alone renders ALL discussion meaningless.


 No.92781

>>92765

>Read Paul Cockshott or just watch him

No lefty has ever summed Cockshott up to me, they just namedrop him and call it a day. I've read enough of him to know he's a heck with no talent in economic or philosophical matters.


 No.92798

>>92781

It's not that long a video, but he doesn't succeed in defending anything anyway. He tries to sidestep criticism and move the discussion elsewhere.

"Any scientific theory has to make predictions that can be put to observational test." That tells you enough about where he's coming from and why he does not do economics. For the amount of math he tries to push he can't pass fundamental logic.


 No.92801

>>92765

>rEaD a BoOk

Read Rothbard or fuck off.


 No.92803

>>92798

that's what the scientific method is though.


 No.92806

>>92803

In strictly denotative terms yes, that's correct. But if I'm thinking of the same video, the guy twists those words to the breaking point, and grossly misapplies them; he takes a method for interpreting physical evidence and uses it to interpret another conceptual theory, and eventually concludes, "well, according to the scientific method I can't SEE subjective value, so it don't real, amirite?"


 No.92809

>>92806

To add, it's pretty simple to debunk this scientism by pointing out that neither math nor philosophy are sciences by definition, even though one is extensively used in it and other served as a basis and the whole scientific method is its creation and incorporates parts of certain worldview in it.


 No.92822

Hey there, another evil commie here.

You are missing the point of what value means in Marxism as well as for Smith, Ricardo.

Value is not an individual's preferable evaluation, it is the value that a capitalist society sets on a product based on the mean time it takes to produce it(necessary labor time) in a certain time-frame. Supply and demand do indeed determine the end price of a product.

Example:

Lets say we have an economy so that a worker produces x amount of shoes in time t. That would put the shoes' value at y.

After a technological development, a new machine is used that doubles the production of shoes, meaning that a worker produces 2x shoes in time t.

That puts the value of shoes at y/2, as the time to produce x shoes is t/2.


 No.92827

>>92822

>Supply and demand do indeed determine the end price of a product

so why is "socially necessary labor" a required component?


 No.92829

>>92827

Value, determined by the necessary labor time is the equilibrium price.

Without it you can't explain why a car is more expensive than a pen.


 No.92853

>>92829

You realized the kind of resource material to produce a car is much more greater than a simple pen. Of course the car is much more expansive. If the amount of labor to produce a single car can be decrease through automation, the engineer would have done it because it is productive. Does that means the engineer lose their wages because he managed to divert his workforce through automation? if yes than what's the point of having technological evolution? This is why communism is such an unfair system to begin with because they are chasing out high skill worker to become slave. At the same time they are building up low skill worker to be abundant and unproductive.


 No.92854

>>92822

>Value is not an individual's preferable evaluation

Except individuals are the only ones who evaluate things, because individuals are the ones who buy and sell.

>it is the value that a capitalist society sets on a product based on the mean time it takes to produce it(necessary labor time) in a certain time-frame

That's retarded. The "mean time" is a red herring and doesn't matter in the slightest, because valuation happens between the individual buyer and individual seller. The fact that the production costs of some other firm on the other side of the world might be greater or less has no bearing on the realities facing a particular consumer and particular producer.

>That would put the shoes' value at y.

Right, because the time and labor taken to produce the shoes are the only thing that determine value. It's not like prices fluctuate over time, it's not like people will pay more or less for something based on purely subjective whims or anything like that, that's just silly! No one ever puts merchandise on sale, no one ever successfully scalps tickets, and wine doesn't get more valuable with the mere passing of time.


 No.92858

>You realized the kind of resource material to produce a car is much more greater than a simple pen.

Or in other words, the necessary labor time to create a car is greater than the one to create a pen.

>If the amount of labor to produce a single car can be decrease through automation, the engineer would have done it because it is productive. Does that means the engineer lose their wages because he managed to divert his workforce through automation?

This is not true, even though the value of a car is decreased with automation, the mean value created by a worker in a certain time remains constant, it is simply "put" into more commodities.

>This is why communism is such an unfair system to begin with because they are chasing out high skill worker to become slave

Highly skilled workers should be paid more actually, taking into account the time needed to learn their skill.

>>92854

>Except individuals are the only ones who evaluate things, because individuals are the ones who buy and sell.

This is so not true. When you go to your local supermarket to buy chocolate, there is no individual setting the price. Also if that was the case, advertisements wouldn't be a thing, as people would buy something because they "value" it.

>That's retarded. The "mean time" is a red herring and doesn't matter in the slightest, because valuation happens between the individual buyer and individual seller. The fact that the production costs of some other firm on the other side of the world might be greater or less has no bearing on the realities facing a particular consumer and particular producer.

Nope.

>Right, because the time and labor taken to produce the shoes are the only thing that determine value. It's not like prices fluctuate over time, it's not like people will pay more or less for something based on purely subjective whims or anything like that, that's just silly! No one ever puts merchandise on sale, no one ever successfully scalps tickets, and wine doesn't get more valuable with the mere passing of time.

Price fluctuation has much more to do with the available buy power of the consumers than the "individual whims".

I love how you keep attacking not only Marx, but Smith and Ricardo by saying that "value is subjective" without understanding what they actually mean by value.


 No.92860

>>92809

Yeah. Also, for a science to be more than history, it requires a certain level of rationality that can't be subsidized for empiricism.


 No.92863

>>92858

>as people would buy something because they "value" it

Advertising agencies spend billions trying to gauge preexisting consumer preferences.

>muh smith and ricardo

Smith, Ricardo, and all of their work predates the discovery of the subjective theory of value. You're specifically making the choice to use an outdated theory that fails to properly explain human action.


 No.92868

>>92863

>Advertising agencies spend billions trying to gauge preexisting consumer preferences.

Exactly, meaning that people are manipulated into buying certain commodities more than others. This goes against your libertarian free will type choice.

>Smith, Ricardo, and all of their work predates the discovery of the subjective theory of value

I'm pretty sure that the word value was also used in the way you use it back then. That means that by saying "value can only be used in the way I deem proper", you treat their understanding as lesser.


 No.92871

File: 59919ff723c9299⋯.jpg (42.16 KB, 600x797, 600:797, 8575858587578587587587.jpg)

>>92858

>the mean value created by a worker in a certain time remains constant

What mean value? The old job is getting replaced by the machine. The engineer now can work less hour and play video games in their free time. Thanks to the automation.


 No.92872

>>92871

This is an example. In reality, it might be beneficial to a company to reduce the number of workers, but this is not the point I'm trying to explain.

Mean value creation remains constant and is not affected by machinery. That means that a shoe that takes half as much time to make, has its value halved as well.


 No.92874

File: 6edb9d2d09a5d14⋯.jpg (102.5 KB, 732x1042, 366:521, gddg.jpg)

>>92872

>That means that a shoe that takes half as much time to make, has its value halved as well.

So it's a value system that does not actually determine any value and has no application whatsoever in any but the most screwed communist mind. The only thing you can say is "subjective views can be influenced so they are not subjective" and pull out this pointless thing. It does not account to anything: not actual value that is subjective, not some factor that determines any of it, you just assign it to things and try to prove it via sophistry.


 No.92875

>>92858

>When you go to your local supermarket to buy chocolate, there is no individual setting the price.

Semantics. It's still individual choice that govern prices and not some class consciousness.

>Nope

Yep. :^)

>Price fluctuation has much more to do with the available buy power of the consumers

Do people suddenly get more purchasing power on Black Friday? Is taxi fare being higher during peak traffic times due to purchasing power? Is wine getting more expensive with age relevant to purchasing power?

>I love how you keep attacking not only Marx, but Smith and Ricardo by saying that "value is subjective"

You…you do realize economic thought advances over time, right? Walras and Menger disproved the LVT and put forward the subjective theory. This is like saying Einstein was "attacking" Newton by highlighting the inadequacies of gravitation theory.

>I'm pretty sure that the word value was also used in the way you use it back then.

>the dictionary definition of value hasn't changed therefore value theory hasn't changed

Imagine being this retarded.

>you treat their understanding as lesser

Yes, because it WAS lesser. They understood value less, and they were wrong. Carl Menger, Thomas Walras, et al understood value more, and were right. Adam Smith used absolute advantage instead of comparative advantage because his understanding was lesser.

>>92872

> That means that a shoe that takes half as much time to make, has its value halved as well.

I like how you can make this statement without a trace of irony and still not realize how inadequate your theory is.


 No.92877

>>92868

>Exactly, meaning that people are manipulated into buying certain commodities more than others

You lost me. If they're spending money to figure out what people already want and then on saying to those people "hey we've got this thing you want and we'll sell it to you" (as I stated and you've accepted), then there's no manipulation.

>you treat their understanding as lesser

Because it is lesser. Their inability to conceive of a theory that would only come around long after they died is no fault of their own and does not diminish their other contributions to the field of economics.


 No.92878

>>92875

>Semantics. It's still individual choice that govern prices and not some class consciousness.

It was never implied that class consciousness determines prices. That would be ridiculous.

Prices are determined by the supply/demand adjustment of value.

>Do people suddenly get more purchasing power on Black Friday?

Sales, is just a method to increase demand, and yes, due to sales, consumers gain more purchasing power.

>Is taxi fare being higher during peak traffic times due to purchasing power?

Services that do not further the production, are not examined in the LTV as they are not productive processes.

>Is wine getting more expensive with age relevant to purchasing power?

I am not an expert on wines, but I'd say it is a combination of scarcity, demand and marketing that makes aged wine more expensive. Also aged wine is a different commodity than an non aged one.

>You…you do realize economic thought advances over time, right? Walras and Menger disproved the LVT and put forward the subjective theory. This is like saying Einstein was "attacking" Newton by highlighting the inadequacies of gravitation theory.

The difference is, Smith, Ricardo and Marx used value in another way than it is commonly used. You, using the individual value as definition doesn't change what they meant. You might as well call it bananas if it makes you feel better.

>I like how you can make this statement without a trace of irony and still not realize how inadequate your theory is.

My statement is backed by reality. When a product is easier to produce, its price goes down. I wonder why would that be.

>>92877

>You lost me. If they're spending money to figure out what people already want and then on saying to those people "hey we've got this thing you want and we'll sell it to you" (as I stated and you've accepted), then there's no manipulation.

Advertisements do not just present you the product, they do so in a way to make you more likely to buy it. The goal of the researchers is not only what the people want, but how do I make them want this.

>Their inability to conceive of a theory that would only come around long after they died is no fault of their own and does not diminish their other contributions to the field of economics.

Your economics boil down to "because people want to", without taking into consideration the circumstances those choices are made in. It wasn't their inability to conceive such a theory that lead them to these conclusions.


 No.92879

>>92878

>I wonder why would that be

The potential supply has increased relative to demand.

>but how do I make them want this

They can't create demand out of thin air.

>It wasn't their inability to conceive such a theory that lead them to these conclusions

They could have, but they didn't.


 No.92883

>>92879

>The potential supply has increased relative to demand.

Yes that is true, but the rise of supply is because of the decrease in value.

>They can't create demand out of thin air.

Sure they can. Fidget spinners anyone?

Modern big business marketing relies on psychology to a certain degree. Why do you think they get models to wear their clothes? Why do some commercials have sexual innuendos? Why do they put their brand names on sports fields? Is all that to present the product?

>They could have, but they didn't.

I think they were trying to get a deeper understanding of the system.


 No.92885

(decrease in value means decrease in necessary labor time)


 No.92886

>>92883

>but the rise of supply is because of the decrease in value

It rises because it's easier to make shoes.

>Fidget spinners

People wanted some stupid toy to fiddle with, and fidget spinners fit that niche.

>I think they were trying to get a deeper understanding of the system

Trying being an important word here.


 No.92888

>>92886

You're not even trying to make arguments..

>It rises because it's easier to make shoes.

Yes, that's what a decrease in value entails.

>People wanted some stupid toy to fiddle with, and fidget spinners fit that niche.

You didn't even answer my questions.

>Trying being an important word here.

That's what scientists do.

You're not even trying to make arguments


 No.92889

>>92803

It would be when you CAN make those tests and gather the data. He has neither.


 No.92890

>>92888

>You're not even trying to make arguments

no u

>Yes, that's what a decrease in value entails

No it isn't. Saying that supply rises because value decreases is putting the cart before the horse.

>You didn't even answer my questions

I debunked your example. There was preexisting demand for that general sort of thing.

>That's what scientists do

And they failed in that respect. They made other important contributions, but not in how we understand value.


 No.92892

>>92890

>No it isn't. Saying that supply rises because value decreases is putting the cart before the horse.

This isn't going anywhere if you keep using another definition of value.

>I debunked your example. There was preexisting demand for that general sort of thing.

You didn't debunk anything. You just stated that there was a demand somehow. You didn't answer to why marketing happens if demand is already there, and why marketing uses manipulative methods to increase demand.

I need you to answer this:

In an economy, cars and pens are produced. Both are at equilibrium. Which one is more expensive and why.


 No.92895

>>92883

<They can't create demand out of thin air.

>Sure they can. Fidget spinners anyone?

> Why do they put their brand names on sports fields

Advertisement is just a medium to attract customers. It doesn't reflect any real numbers of demand from customers. If the company over estimated their potential number of demand, they are basically playing with risk. Company will lose their profit once nobody buys it anymore. This is why you don't over supply things without knowing your potential demand.


 No.92896

>>92895

I don't understand what you mean by "reflect". I never stated that advertisement reflects demand, it increases it.


 No.92897

>>92892

>somehow

I assumed the idea that people want things is a given and does not need to be established.

>You didn't answer to why marketing happens if demand is already there

To (1) figure out what the consumers want and (2) let them know that you can fulfill their demand.

>Which one is more expensive

The car.

>and why

More resources and time are needed to produce it, which increases the minimum price entrepreneurs are willing to sell it for.


 No.92898

File: 16fa52d3a64df8b⋯.png (16.82 KB, 512x512, 1:1, 1507982900505.png)

>>92883

>Fidget spinners anyone?

In communism I can't fidget with some stupid spinner while I'm bored? Hell, will I be able to get anime figurines, if someone decides for me what's useless and what's not?

>Why do you think they get models to wear their clothes?

In communism there won't be cosplayers and cosplay events? Will there be Halloween?

>Why do some commercials have sexual innuendos?

In communism there won't big-tittied dragons with plump thighs and a hunger for shotas? Will there at least be hentai?

>Why do they put their brand names on sports fields?

In communism I won't see Kurisu drinking Dr. Pepper, the drink of intellectuals?

>Is all that to present the product?

I can't get an anime made based on my favourite video games or mangas?

Wow… who needs this shit?


 No.92900

>>92897

>I assumed the idea that people want things is a given and does not need to be established.

"People want things" is such a generic thing to say. If that new yogurt doesn't get advertised, much less people are going to buy it.

>To (1) figure out what the consumers want and (2) let them know that you can fulfill their demand.

(1) is correct, however (2) is lacking.

Commercials don't just let you know of the existence of a product, they are actively made to promote it with whatever methods. If subliminal messages were not outlawed I'm 100% sure they'd be used for everything.

>More resources and time are needed to produce it, which increases the minimum price entrepreneurs are willing to sell it for.

The labor time to create those resources and put them together, along with the damage that the machines required take, is where value is determined.


 No.92901

>>92898

We are not talking about communism


 No.92902

>>92896

>I never stated that advertisement reflects demand, it

>increases it .

No, it doesn't increase it, just because people happened to watch some ads on tv or in the internet, there's no guarantee that the person would buy the product.


 No.92903

>>92902

If that was true no company would ever spend a penny on advertisement.


 No.92904


 No.92905

>>92901

Ok, real communism then.


 No.92909

>>92904

Look, people buy the best product for themselves based from their experienced they had with the product. The better the price and quality of the product, the more likely that customer would buy it, Even the potential customer might be a first time buyer, you have to take competition into the account that sells the same type of things, There's no guarantee that the advertised product will be bought at certain probability based from the number of frequency of advertisement that were shown to the public especially when you have competition around you dong the same thing. Whoever wrote that article in that wiki has to be Keynesian fag who never understand anything about marketing.


 No.92911

>>92909

First of all, there's tons of evidence to show that advertisements increase demand.

Another thing I just found:

"Advertisers are discovering that they need to know the facts which psychology can give about what attracts attention, what sticks in memory, what gives a pleasant impression, what persuades and what leads to a given act, here the act of purchase"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychology-and-advertising/

I agree that people often take into account past experience with certain products, however you first need to buy the product.

This means that people who, due to advertisement buy a mediocre product that does its job and an amazing product that wasn't advertised is not bought, in most cases people will stick to what they know.(I know people who do this personally)


 No.92913

>>92911

>however you first need to buy the product.

Therefore the idea of advertisement is to promote demand, not increase the demand. Both words are two different meaning. You assume people would buy the product right away just because they watched the advertisement on tv or internet for the first time. That's not always the case.


 No.92914

>>92913

Demand is not something metaphysical.

It doesn't exist before the introduction of the product, usually through advertisement.

A company only cares about people's needs if it is profitable.

What advertisements do, is they try to get you to use your money on a certain product, whether that covers a need of yours or not.

Prime example of such is children's toys. When they get the toy, they leave it in a corner and never touch it again.


 No.92915

File: 7c4ab244a3fa26c⋯.png (149.71 KB, 1055x335, 211:67, Screenshot_2018-11-02 soc….png)

>>92914

Will you answer my questions or am I doomed to living in a capitalist dystopia my whole life? Don't make me take this shit to /leftypol/.


 No.92917

>>92915

The answer is I don't know tbh.

It depends on what country it is, the culture, the production base etc.

Different people have different ideas on how socialism should be implemented and an existing socialist country would raise its own questions to be answered by the people in it.


 No.92919

>>92914

Any entrepreneur who start a business already know the demand is there or else he wouldn't dare to start a business. The question lies on how many people interested in buying the product. You can really see this through survay or analysis from non formal conversation about the idea which doesn't cost you to pay for advertisement in the early phase of running the business.


 No.92920

>>92900

>If that new yogurt doesn't get advertised, much less people are going to buy it

Because much fewer people will know it exists.

>where value is determined

So I can spend all day making the most valuable mudpies in the world?

>>92903

>If that was true no company would ever spend a penny on advertisement

There's no guarantee that any given person will go out and buy your widget. But if they happen to need a new widget, they'll know where to go.>>92911

>however you first need to buy the product

If you're even remotely savvy, you'll look for reviews of the product to see if it's of good quality and meets your needs.

>>>92914

>It doesn't exist before the introduction of the product

So people didn't want a method of instantaneous long distance communication before phones were invented? Nobody wanted to get from point A to point B before trains were invented?


 No.92921

>>92919

If there is demand already, then the product he is trying to make is already in the market.


 No.92922

>>92921

Not necessarily, especially in the case of new innovations.


 No.92923

>>92920

>Because much fewer people will know it exists.

So, is it the same to pay professionals to make an advertisement for your product, as making a cheap video about it? The product remains the same in both cases and covers the same needs.

>So I can spend all day making the most valuable mudpies in the world?

Necessary labor time is the mean time it takes a worker to produce a commodity, not the individual time. Taking 4 hours to produce a commodity that is produced in 2 doesn't make it more valueable.

>There's no guarantee that any given person will go out and buy your widget. But if they happen to need a new widget, they'll know where to go.

There are professional psychologists and researchers that make them. Statistically speaking, there totally is guarantee.

>If you're even remotely savvy, you'll look for reviews of the product to see if it's of good quality and meets your needs.

If

>So people didn't want a method of instantaneous long distance communication before phones were invented? Nobody wanted to get from point A to point B before trains were invented?

Need does not equal demand.

Because someone needs something, 1) it doesn't mean he can afford it 2) he might have other priorities 3) he might not know of the commodity.

Also because there is demand for something doesn't mean there's need for it. People buy stuff for all sorts of reasons. You might buy something that you throw away the next moment.


 No.92929

>>92829

>Value, determined by the necessary labor time is the equilibrium price

But we do see this because:

1. "eqilibrium" price does not exist. Prices are dynamic and vary among locales.

2. Supply and demand explain the differences of these locales as well as the average price among them.


 No.92931

>>92878

>Services that do not further the production

Taxi services do service production - mainly coordinating people to further prosecution.


 No.92932

>>92878

>When a product is easier to produce, its price goes down. I wonder why would that be.

It is not easier to produce per se but the increase in supply and decrease in demand of its components (less components required to make the same product compared to a previous technology).


 No.92933

>>92883

>Yes that is true, but the rise of supply is because of the decrease in value.

No, it is due to the decrease in demand for its components


 No.92934

>>92875

No in a generalised sense it is not the individual choice of the store clerk or the person in the store on that occasion as to what the prices of commodities in the store are

The price is predetermined on a mass scale in order to ensure generation of profit

We don't live in a bartering society where the price of good is just determined on the spot between two inidivduals


 No.92935

>>92892

>You just stated that there was a demand somehow. You didn't answer to why marketing happens if demand is already there, and why marketing uses manipulative methods to increase demand.

They cannot create the demand. People have demand for idle, monotonous, and cheap entertainment. Fidget spinner producers communicate via marketing to supply that demand.


 No.92936

>>92900

>The labor time to create those resources and put them together, along with the damage that the machines required take, is where value is determined

No, it is the supply and demand of those resources and capital


 No.92937

>>92923

>Necessary labor time is the mean time it takes a worker to produce a commodity, not the individual time

Using the mean time doesn't get us very far. A handful of outliers can really skew the average for everyone else.

>Statistically speaking, there totally is guarantee

Someone out there is going to go out and buy your product, but you can't pick some person at random, show them an advertisement, and make them want something they didn't want before.

>If

Online shopping is a pretty big thing these days. Every website I've seen based around selling things will have reviews if you literally just scroll down.

>Need does not equal demand

Yes it does.

>it doesn't mean he can afford it

Affording something has nothing to do with demand. I as a consumer can demand a solid gold life sized statue of myself no matter how much it costs or how much money I have.

>he might have other priorities

Consumers can demand more than one thing at once. Going back to the previous example, i could demand something more realistic such as a new keyboard while still wanting that gold statue.

>he might not know of the commodity

Demand has nothing to do with knowledge of specific commodities either. Some tribesman who lives in a jungle and has never even seen modern technology can still want something better than his bow for hunting, and if you showed up and sold him a gun, you'd be fulfilling his demand.

>Also because there is demand for something doesn't mean there's need for it

I'm not talking about need here, I'm talking about demand.


 No.92938

>>92937

>Using the mean time doesn't get us very far. A handful of outliers can really skew the average for everyone else.

There's just too many workers producing every single commodity type for a few outliers to matter, if someone's not doing their job properly they are probably getting fired.

>Someone out there is going to go out and buy your product, but you can't pick some person at random, show them an advertisement, and make them want something they didn't want before.

When we talk about an economy, it doesn't matter what a single individual consumer does. Statistics show that advertisements increase sales.

>Online shopping is a pretty big thing these days. Every website I've seen based around selling things will have reviews if you literally just scroll down.

Ok I'm giving you this point. Still, many purchases are made in the physical.

>Affording something has nothing to do with demand. I as a consumer can demand a solid gold life sized statue of myself no matter how much it costs or how much money I have.

>Consumers can demand more than one thing at once. Going back to the previous example, i could demand something more realistic such as a new keyboard while still wanting that gold statue.

>Consumers can demand more than one thing at once. Going back to the previous example, i could demand something more realistic such as a new keyboard while still wanting that gold statue.

>Demand has nothing to do with knowledge of specific commodities either. Some tribesman who lives in a jungle and has never even seen modern technology can still want something better than his bow for hunting, and if you showed up and sold him a gun, you'd be fulfilling his demand.

You are conflating wants and market demand here. It doesn't matter how much I want a supercomputer, if I don't have the money to buy it, have other priorities or am unaware that it is for sale. Demand is a metric of how much was sold, not wanted.


 No.92940

>>92875

Also

Class consciousness is not the determining factor of prices (Though in some occasions when the level of class consciousness in a society reaches a certain point goverment policy will change to attempt to lessen the impact of it)

Class consciousness is simply the overall awareness of the working class as a whole as to their conditions and the contradictions and faults of the society they live in

Basically it's the amount of people that become socialist / Communist politically


 No.92951

>>92938

>for a few outliers to matter

It adds up, especially over a long chain of production.

>Statistics show that advertisements increase sales

The claim made was that advertisements create demand where there was none before, which is completely ridiculous. They increase sales by making consumers aware of specific products that fulfill their demand.

>Still, many purchases are made in the physical

Still, it's not at all hard to find out what the general public thinks of those goods.

>You are conflating wants and market demand here

because they're the same fucking thing. Demand is just what the consumers want.

>Demand is a metric of how much was sold, not wanted

Wrong.

>>92940

>Basically it's the amount of people that become socialist / Communist politically

A whole new meaning to the phrase "get woke, go broke".


 No.92956

I like how this thread got derailed from LTV to defining supply and demand. I couldn't ask for a better template on imageboard discussions.


 No.92957

>>92956

Supply and demand is an important part of value no matter which theory you follow.


 No.92958

File: 4f13948eb0b8aba⋯.png (91.76 KB, 554x380, 277:190, b-but muh LTV.png)

>>92956

Well, most discussions on the LTV end up as a futile effort to teach commies about why value has to be subjective for anything in economics to work. And since the average commie is pretty ignorant on how economics works as well, any discussion on the LTV necessarily devolves to defining and explaining basic concepts such as supply and demand.


 No.92966

>>92917

>Different people have different ideas on how socialism should be implemented and an existing socialist country would raise its own questions to be answered by the people in it.

But which is the real socialism? What if someone implements some shitty fake version of socialism like they did for the Russians?


 No.93001

>>92951

>It adds up, especially over a long chain of production.

No, people using the same equipment, with the same training, output near the mean in a grand scale. If you are too slow, you are getting fired and people who are way better are few.

>The claim made was that advertisements create demand where there was none before, which is completely ridiculous. They increase sales by making consumers aware of specific products that fulfill their demand.

You 're just playing word games now. Increasing sales and creating demand is exactly the same thing. If not give me a real world example.

As said before, advertisements don't just make a product known, they also make it wanted.

>Still, it's not at all hard to find out what the general public thinks of those goods.

Economically speaking, it doesn't matter what you can do if you don't do it.

>because they're the same fucking thing. Demand is just what the consumers want.

"Demand is the quantity of a good that consumers are willing and able to purchase at various prices during a given period of time." -Wikipedia

You can't make changes in the real word just by thinking. If you don't act on your thoughts they remain just that.

Many people want things they can't afford.There's tons of homeless wanting homes, hungry wanting good etc. This doesn't affect the market.

>Wrong.

Disagreed


 No.93005

>>93001

>Demand is the quantity of a good that consumers are willing and able to purchase at various prices

And at a 0 price, all wants are demanded.

>Increasing sales and creating demand is exactly the same thing

meeting demand != creating demand


 No.93006

>>93001

>people using the same equipment

>with the same training

That's a mighty big if you got there.

>Increasing sales and creating demand is exactly the same thing

Nope.

>advertisements don't just make a product known, they also make it wanted

I can't demand a burger from X restaurant if I don't know it exists, but I can still demand a burger in a more general sense.

>Economically speaking, it doesn't matter what you can do if you don't do it

if someone gets burned in a deal because they're lazy, why should I give a fuck?

>This doesn't affect the market

Potential demand plays a big part in how entrepreneurs and inventors act. If they can innovate and cut costs somewhere, they're rewarded with new customers.

>Disagreed

no u


 No.93007

>>92937

>Affording something has nothing to do with demand. I as a consumer can demand a solid gold life sized statue of myself no matter how much it costs or how much money I have.

>>92951

>Demand is just what the consumers want.

>>93006

>I can't demand a burger from X restaurant if I don't know it exists, but I can still demand a burger in a more general sense.

This is not what economic demand means you idiot. Economic demand is defined as the willingness and ability of consumers to pay for a good. This is measured by looking at actual goods sold / consumed. It's not a measure of a people's psychological desires.


 No.93008

>>93007

>Economic demand is defined as the willingness and ability of consumers to pay for a good.

No, its the willingness and desire:

"Demand is an economic principle referring to a consumer's desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demand.asp


 No.93010

>>92771

< isnt what it personally means to a Individual

> affect how much I personally am

Are you retarded or something?


 No.93022

>>93008

Investopedia's definition is inadequate and not even the most common.

Demand, noun

3a. economics: willingness and ability to purchase a commodity or service

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

"The stronger the desire to obtain or own a particular good, the more likely we are to buy it. Desire and demand are not the same. With desire, we base our willingness to buy something on its intrinsic qualities. However, we base demand on our ability and willingness to act on that desire."

https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/demand-definition-meaning/

>>93010

Yes, he is.


 No.93023

>>93022

>Investopedia's definition is inadequate and not even the most common.

>popularity=correct

This is your brain on communism, folks. And to add insult to injury you're using a layman's dictionary to define technical economic terms in an attempt to shore up an already-weak argument whose basis is nothing more than semantics.


 No.93026

>>93022

>Investopedia's definition is inadequate and not even the most common.

It is the common economic definition. You also ignored the second mirriam-webster definition,:

"the quantity of a commodity or service wanted at a specified price and time"


 No.93028

>>93006

>people using the same equipment

>with the same training

>That's a mighty big if you got there.

In a specific timeframe, there is specific equipment being used in a business. Of course there might be businesses with outraged equipment.

There's a certain productivity boost across all businesses in this specific timeframe.

For someone to do a job, there is a certain knowledge based requirement, that's what I mean with the "same training".

Even if there are somehow people who are 10 times more productive than others, and there is a high number of those people, it doesn't disrupt the theory.

>I can't demand a burger from X restaurant if I don't know it exists, but I can still demand a burger in a more general sense.

What you describe there is want. You wanting a burger isn't a specification of the price you'd pay for one, or if you would at all the next moment.

>if someone gets burned in a deal because they're lazy, why should I give a fuck?

It doesn't matter how many fucks anyone gives, that's how things are. People are mostly emotional actors, not rational ones. People do stupid things all the time and that affects the economy.

>Potential demand plays a big part in how entrepreneurs and inventors act. If they can innovate and cut costs somewhere, they're rewarded with new customers.

Potential demand is not just people wanting things. It is people willing to buy a certain product at a certain price.

I don't disagree that it plays a part in the market, however people change their mind all the time depending on the situation. If Messi advertised mudpies, there would be an instant creation of demand for them.


 No.93030

They don't require the same labour, though. Not sure which one requires more, but it's still a retarded theory, as the cripple has definitely more utility and market value.


 No.93032

>>93028

>In a specific timeframe, there is specific equipment being used in a business

>For someone to do a job, there is a certain knowledge based requirement

Access to that equipment and training will vary greatly across the globe.

>it doesn't disrupt the theory

yes it does. If the average is skewed by outliers (which it will be in the real world), your theory of value becomes even more useless.

>What you describe there is want

It's the same thing as demand.

>People are mostly emotional actors, not rational ones

People do not take decisions they know for a fact will make them worse off. That's what is meant by rational in this context.

>Potential demand is not just people wanting things

Yes it is.

>It is people willing to buy a certain product at a certain price

Lowering the price means more people will be willing to buy your product.

>If Messi advertised mudpies, there would be an instant creation of demand for them

No.


 No.93034

>>93032

>Access to that equipment and training will vary greatly across the globe.

>If the average is skewed by outliers (which it will be in the real world), your theory of value becomes even more useless.

Not really. There's no problem for the theory. Marx never assumed people would have to be near the mean.

>People do not take decisions they know for a fact will make them worse off. That's what is meant by rational in this context.

What does this even mean? What is worse off? Who is the judge of what is worse off?

Economically speaking, many people are worse off after a decision they took.

>Lowering the price means more people will be willing to buy your product.

Yes, but that wasn't what I was talking about..

Can you stop dodging my questions?

Answering "No" doesn't prove anything.

Huge multinational companies pay famous people a LOT of money to advertise their product. I'm pretty sure people knew of potato chips before famous football players started promoting them. There's famous people on instagram getting paid to wear certain clothes/accessories. Therefore this increased the demand for potato chips or else it was an economical suicide. Your position would mean that such actions are economical suicide. Are multinational companies really that naive?


 No.93043

File: b6161d5eaf061c6⋯.png (1.07 MB, 729x4630, 729:4630, Luxuries_You_Can_Buy_With_….png)

Gotta love seeing all the malinvestment from retailers during festive season. The middle class are dying and gradually disappearing but that doesn't matter. Just shove up as many ads into their ass and keeps stockpiling inventories and hopefully they would buy it right? Funny thing that the one who bought it most were the niggers cuz I ain't care mo bills cuz we got EBT cards and shieeeieet.


 No.93044

File: 25aeaec35efb85d⋯.png (729.41 KB, 785x4731, 785:4731, Black_Impact_Consumer_Cate….png)


 No.93048

>>93034

>Marx never assumed people would have to be near the mean

Then in what way is SNLT useful or even accurate?

>Who is the judge of what is worse off

The individual making the decision.

>Economically speaking, many people are worse off after a decision they took

1. Someone might choose less money over personal enjoyment (working a job you like instead of whatever makes the most money)

2. What seems like a good decision based on the information you have isn't always the best thing to do (a rain dance being the classic example here)

>Answering "No" doesn't prove anything

Stop spouting off bullshit.

>Therefore this increased the demand for potato chips or else it was an economical suicide

All I'm saying is that advertisements don't create demand. An ad for lays won't make someone who hates potato chips go out and buy 5 bags.


 No.93055

>>93048

>Then in what way is SNLT useful or even accurate?

The LTV in general is not a tool for use in practical terms. It is used to discern the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. It predicts certain trends like every scientific theory and is testable in the real world. It is not something to be used by a business to set prices for example, but for someone to understand why things work the way they do.

>The individual making the decision.

I don't think you can call people rational actors based on their own understanding, except if you think rationality is subjective and everything is rational as long as an individual believes so. If that's the case, you could stop using the word rational all together as it loses all purpose.

>1. Someone might choose less money over personal enjoyment (working a job you like instead of whatever makes the most money)

We do not live in a utopia. People can only "choose less money" if they are already in a sustainable position. If basic necessities are not fulfilled, it is hardly a choice.

>2. What seems like a good decision based on the information you have isn't always the best thing to do (a rain dance being the classic example here)

I agree

>All I'm saying is that advertisements don't create demand. An ad for lays won't make someone who hates potato chips go out and buy 5 bags.

You're just restating your position.

You keep treating individuals as a static block of preexisting demands ready to be realized, unaffected by whatever goes on around them, never growing or altering their mind. If demand is not created, where does it come from? Why do companies spend all that money on advertisement? Why do some people buy more, while others save their money?

Just to be clear, I don't say that all demand is created by advertisements. People are affected by their social surroundings and their biology. People will naturally tend to buy food to cover their need. What type of food they buy is subject to change. If it seems "cool" to go eat at a chinese restaurant, more people will go there instead of somewhere else.


 No.93056

>>93055

>It is used to discern the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production

It doesn't do a very good job.

>It predicts certain trends like every scientific theory and is testable in the real world

Garbage in, garbage out.

>but for someone to understand why things work the way they do

And you can't even do that with inaccurate numbers.

>I don't think you can call people rational actors based on their own understanding

Someone not knowing something doesn't make them irrational, just ignorant.

>If basic necessities are not fulfilled, it is hardly a choice

more and more people are coming out of extreme poverty and getting that decision every day.

>You're just restating your position

You're completely failing to disprove it.

>If demand is not created, where does it come from

From the desires of consumers.

>Why do some people buy more, while others save their money

Consumers saving their money says to entrepreneurs that the goods currently on the market are not meeting demand.

>Just to be clear, I don't say that all demand is created by advertisements

Congrats on having a double digit IQ instead of single digit.

>If it seems "cool" to go eat at a chinese restaurant, more people will go there instead of somewhere else

And no amount of advertising or endorsements will make someone who hates chinese food go to one of these restuarants.


 No.93057

File: 5fd76eb39b5bb25⋯.jpg (237.28 KB, 1012x723, 1012:723, sheev_stopped_reading_ther….jpg)

>evil capitalists hypnotize the poor oppressed workers into buying things through advertisements


 No.93059

>>93056

>It doesn't do a very good job.

I don't think you understand what its job is.

Value of a commodity is derived from the necessary labor time(mean time to produce it) in a certain time frame. The price of that product closely follows its value(price at equilibrium) and is lower or higher depending on the supply and demand.(You can think of price as orbiting around value)

Smith observed that the price of a commodity is closely related to the labor time it takes society to produce it and he made this theory.

>And you can't even do that with inaccurate numbers.

I don't follow. How can something defined a certain way be inaccurate? If someone tried to get the actual numbers of the socially necessary labor time and failed, that would be inaccurate.

>more and more people are coming out of extreme poverty and getting that decision every day.

This is another discussion altogether so I'm not gonna answer.

>You're completely failing to disprove it.

You're just making a statement tho. I gave real world examples of how advertisements are used. You are the one completely failing to disprove my statement.

>From the desires of consumers.

Sure, but desires are not static and can be manipulated.

>Consumers saving their money says to entrepreneurs that the goods currently on the market are not meeting demand.

Maybe, in some cases. People also might be saving their money for any number of different reasons. The point I was making is that desires change and advertisement is a way to do that.

>And no amount of advertising or endorsements will make someone who hates chinese food go to one of these restuarants.

You state that as if love/hate is black and white and static. Let's make another example. I know a person who disliked pokemon and had never seen the show or played the games. All that changed when pokemon go was created and it got hype. Suddenly everyone and his mother was playing it and so was he. After the trend passed, he stopped and resumed his normal stance.

>>93057

Capitalists are not evil in general and anyone stating that is not a Marxist. The problem with capitalism is not greed or morality, it is its features, that inevitably worsen humanity as a whole. It is the driving force behind most of today's social issues such as mass immigration, racism, imperialistic wars, poverty etc.

Successful advertisement is necessary for the continuation of a big business, as the constant increase of demand along with expansion of production and technology is vital to its existence.


 No.93062

>>93055

>It is used to discern the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production.

How so? Doesn't STV already describe this?

>I don't think you can call people rational actors based on their own understanding

Rationality deals with reasoning. Decisions can be made in accordance to reasoning even though it is faulty.

>People can only "choose less money" if they are already in a sustainable position

The vast majority of first-worlders meet this criterion.

>If demand is not created, where does it come from?

Demand can be created but not from advertisements, Ads communicate to the potential customer of the supply of the commodity. It is the supply, in this situation, that creates demand.


 No.93064

>>93059

>Value of a commodity is derived from the necessary labor time(mean time to produce it) in a certain time frame. The price of that product closely follows its value(price at equilibrium) and is lower or higher depending on the supply and demand.(You can think of price as orbiting around value)

The mining, processing, and exploration of diamonds and other related gems require roughly the sane labor time but diamonds fetch a considerably higher price. Processed commodities require less labor time to produce than the sum of their raw resources, yet fetch substantially higher prices.

>If someone tried to get the actual numbers of the socially necessary labor time and failed, that would be inaccurate.

I think he may be referring to the lack of precision in Cockshott's central planning model, mainly the high standard deviation. But I do not know.

>It is the driving force behind most of today's social issues such as mass immigration, racism, imperialistic wars, poverty etc.

And how do you separate other factors that contribute to this, specifically state intervention?


 No.93066

>>93062

>How so? Doesn't STV already describe this?

I don't think it does, no. The problem I see with STV is that it suggests that capitalism is market transactions. Supply and demand. This, to me is like putting the cart in front of the horse.

The basic difference between socioeconomic systems, is the way production works and from that, the whole superstructure is made.

Humans have been trading for a very long time, however capitalism has existed since the industrial worker became the main mean of producing things.

The STV fails to address that.

>Rationality deals with reasoning. Decisions can be made in accordance to reasoning even though it is faulty.

Ok, let's use this definition of rationality.

>The vast majority of first-worlders meet this criterion.

The situation in the third world is the direct outcome of a global system, and I don't mean this in a purely negative way. For example India was industrialized because of English colonialism and the East Indies Company. The reason third world countries are the way they are today is because of capital accumulation and concentration.

Also, in the first world there's people doing two jobs, children who are malnourished and people who die on the streets. Work is still 8 hours and pay is low relative to productivity.

>Demand can be created but not from advertisements, Ads communicate to the potential customer of the supply of the commodity. It is the supply, in this situation, that creates demand.

I agree with that second statement but I still hold that advertisement creates demand.

>The mining, processing, and exploration of diamonds and other related gems require roughly the sane labor time but diamonds fetch a considerably higher price. Processed commodities require less labor time to produce than the sum of their raw resources, yet fetch substantially higher prices.

Diamonds are in high demand due to marketing.(Diamonds are a woman's best friend)

The necessary labor time required to produce raw resources, transport them and put them together is included in value.

>I think he may be referring to the lack of precision in Cockshott's central planning model, mainly the high standard deviation. But I do not know.

I'm not that familiar with Cockshott's model. I'll read towards a new socialism in the future for sure but I can't defend a position I don't hold.

>And how do you separate other factors that contribute to this, specifically state intervention?

This is a big topic. States are intertwined with capitalism. Historically, the only way the bourgeoisie were able to hold their property was because of state intervention against strikes, rebels and general behavior against property. The police force was first founded on the basis that using the army to contain such threats was too violent and incited the opposition.

The root of the problem of capitalism, is the need to expand capital, for profit to be maintained. Reaching new markets is vital. That was a progressive force before the 20th century, as railroads were created, feudalism was destroyed and backward nations and cultures needed to become modernized, to be used as both industrial producers and consumers. After that period, the world was all divided between the great powers of the world and a new period started, imperialism. In the imperialism stage, the great powers along with their newly created financial oligarchies(the merging of industrial and merchant capital) had to fight with each other for markets and resources. This lead to events such as the two world wars and the wars the US undertakes even today.


 No.93076

>>93066

>cart before the horse

Not sure how that analogy fits. Supply and demand determines how resources are allocated. It is not the other way around.

> Humans have been trading for a very long time, however capitalism has existed since the industrial worker became the main mean of producing things.

Capitalism has existed since the very first voluntary market transaction between two private actors. The theory of capitalism, however, was not conceptualized until much later.

> The reason third world countries are the way they are today is because of capital accumulation and concentration.

Capital accumulation exists more so in first-world countries than the third-world. You also ignore political and geological factors that contribute to these conditions.

> in the first world there's people doing two jobs, children who are malnourished and people who die on the streets.

Malnourishment occurs less so in countries with more economic freedom.

> Work is still 8 hours and pay is low relative to productivity.

Though work remains the same, the standard of living, real income, and benefits have increased over the decades.

> pay is low relative to productivity.

Real income + benefits have increased relative to worker productivity.

>Diamonds are in high demand due to marketing

Marketing is a factor but only in communicating the supply to the consumer. Without supply of commodities, there would be nothing to market.

> The necessary labor time required to produce raw resources, transport them and put them together is included in value.

You seem to be treating labor time as a fundamental unit as if the supply and demand of capital (skills, technology) and resources are not its determinants.

> Historically, the only way the bourgeoisie were able to hold their property was because of state intervention against strikes, rebels and general behavior against property.

Property rights do not require state interventionism as is evident in polycentric law societies.

> The root of the problem of capitalism, is the need to expand capital, for profit to be maintained.

1. How is this a problem in itself? Expansion of capital lowers the production costs of commodities which benefits the consumer

2. Expansion of capital is not necessity to maintain profit. Repurposing or reduction of capital, shifting bottlenecks, batch optimization, and reduction of process inefficiencies methods that contribute to profit.

> After that period, the world was all divided between the great powers of the world and a new period started, imperialism. In the imperialism stage, the great powers along with their newly created financial oligarchies (the merging of industrial and merchant capital) had to fight with each other for markets and resources. This lead to events such as the two world wars and the wars the US undertakes even today.

I thought we were discussing capitalism and not mercantilism?


 No.93100

>>93076

>Capitalism has existed since the very first voluntary market transaction between two private actors. The theory of capitalism, however, was not conceptualized until much later.

And here lies the problem we have. We have very different concepts in mind when we speak of capitalism. Capitalism for the classical economists is the system that was established after the overthrow of feudalism as the main means to produce, that is the industrial revolution in England, the French revolution and the American revolution.

To define capitalism as voluntary transaction is limiting the scope that you can examine history and the development of the world.

>Capital accumulation exists more so in first-world countries than the third-world. You also ignore political and geological factors that contribute to these conditions.

I agree, that however leads to first world multinational companies using third world labor where it is cheaper. The political situation in these countries is very much connected to the need of multinationals to have access to that cheap labor and resources. Nations that don't succumb to this, are often the next targets of sanctions and wars.

>Malnourishment occurs less so in countries with more economic freedom.

>Though work remains the same, the standard of living, real income, and benefits have increased over the decades.

>Real income + benefits have increased relative to worker productivity.

I get a very different picture from what I've been reading and watching. All across Europe, welfare laws are put down one by one, more in some countries than others. Unemployment has risen and wages either remain the same or drop.

>Marketing is a factor but only in communicating the supply to the consumer. Without supply of commodities, there would be nothing to market.

That's correct.

>You seem to be treating labor time as a fundamental unit as if the supply and demand of capital (skills, technology) and resources are not its determinants.

I do, yes. That is because labor time is what affects both supply and demand. For a business to be competitive, they need to keep their productivity the same or below that of other competing businesses while also paying the workers as low as possible(Third world labor).

That is achieved by 1)labor discipline and scientific management(Taylorism) 2)advancing technology. 1) is limited and can only go so far.

That leaves 2) the need for constant technological advancement.

When a companie's productivity is higher than the competition's, they can produce under the necessary labor time(more commodities/worker) and thus undercut their competitors.

Sooner or later, the competition adopts the new technology, driving the necessary labor time down with it.

>Property rights do not require state interventionism as is evident in polycentric law societies.

I believe they do. Historically, people who owned anything valueable(food, gold, money) were either under some form of a state, or were harassed and killed by bandits and pirates. I haven't heard of such polycentric law societies. What are they?

>1. How is this a problem in itself? Expansion of capital lowers the production costs of commodities which benefits the consumer

It is a problem, when capital can't expand in an already full market, promotes war to gain access to foreign markets. This was alright during the colonial era, as this lead to progress. Today however that the whole world is divided among the great powers, this leads to a needless requirement to maintain wars and subjugate governments.

>2. Expansion of capital is not necessity to maintain profit. Repurposing or reduction of capital, shifting bottlenecks, batch optimization, and reduction of process inefficiencies methods that contribute to profit.

All those things you mention are good for a business, yes. As to why there is a need for expansion to maintain profits is another big topic.

>I thought we were discussing capitalism and not mercantilism?

Mercantilism is not a system, it is an economic policy.


 No.93126

>>92745

>Muh socially necessary labor time

…or in normie-speak, the fact that it has already been selected as valuable by clearance on the free market, WHICH IS AN INHERENT PART OF THE THEORY.

Why, exactly, are you flying an ancap flag and calling free-market selection an inexplicable criterion, exactly? Marx sucks, but Marxist LTV is entirely free-market theory… and there's literally no way to discredit it other than an attack on the free market because of this.

>>90720

IRL, socks are actually more valuable to an amputee because they are used to prevent prosthetic chafing. Just a little heads up.


 No.93127

>>93100

>To define capitalism as voluntary transaction is limiting the scope

That is the whole point. Specificity is preferable to generality. And it is not just voluntary transactions that determine capitalism, as I mentioned before, but the existence of a market economy. Classical economists would agree with me that capitalism involves market economies.

>The political situation in these countries is very much connected to the need of multinationals to have access to that cheap labor and resources

I do not see a problem since this promotes economic growth in these developing countries.

>sanctions and wars.

That is not a problem with capital accumulation but with states.

>All across Europe, welfare laws are put down one by one, more in some countries than others.

I do not know about Europe but I don’t see this at all in the US. Laws tend to accumulate more than they are repealed. Refer to the US federal register as an example.

>Unemployment has risen and wages either remain the same or drop.

Source? Are you referring to general wages and not real income and benefits? IT is possible for wages to remain stagnant yet real income and standard of living to increase.

>That is because labor time is what affects both supply and demand.

It is the other way around. For example, advancements in technology (supply), availability of resources (supply) and consumer feedback (demand) determines how much labor time is required to produce a commodity.

>For a business to be competitive, they need to keep their productivity the same or below that of other competing businesses while also paying the workers as low as possible(Third world labor).

1. Productivity alone is not a determinant for competitivity. There is also output quality, name-brand recognition (or targeting a niche market), and as you mentioned previously marketing.

2. Paying someone as low as possible is not an optimal strategy for businesses, especially since employee turnover is expensive and may attract less skilled workers.

>labor discipline and scientific management(Taylorism) is limited and can only go so far.

Process improvement is not limited. There is always a way of improving workflow especially considering the processes continually change due to shifts in demand and technology.. Otherwise, industrial engineers would not be fully employed.

>Sooner or later, the competition adopts the new technology, driving the necessary labor time down with it.

>Historically, people who owned anything valueable(food, gold, money) were either under some form of a state, or were harassed and killed by bandits and pirates.

Luckily these weren’t much of a n issue in polycentric law socieites.

>I haven't heard of such polycentric law societies. What are they?

They are societies that possess competitive law providers (kind of like competitive courts or dispute resolution orgs.). Irish Brehon system and Medieval Iceland are a few examples.

>It is a problem, when capital can't expand in an already full market

If the market is saturated then there is no need to expand capital. Excess capital is allocated somewhere else

>promotes war to gain access to foreign markets.

Capital does not promote wars. States do. If anything, you want private control of capital to avoid the wars that are inevitable when capital is under state control.

>Mercantilism is not a system

It is: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mercantilism.asp


 No.93133

>>93126

>there's literally no way to discredit it other than an attack on the free market because of this

Yes there is


 No.93148

>>93127

>That is the whole point. Specificity is preferable to generality. And it is not just voluntary transactions that determine capitalism, as I mentioned before, but the existence of a market economy. Classical economists would agree with me that capitalism involves market economies.

I don't think anyone denies that capitalism involves markets. However that alone can not be the criterion for capitalism, as markets existed during feudalism and slavery.

Specificity is not preferable to generality, when it gets you "away" from what you're making sense of. For example, you can't understand biology by studying molecules or atoms.

>I do not know about Europe but I don’t see this at all in the US. Laws tend to accumulate more than they are repealed. Refer to the US federal register as an example.

From google search: https://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/productivity-inequality-poverty/

>Source? Are you referring to general wages and not real income and benefits? IT is possible for wages to remain stagnant yet real income and standard of living to increase.

Another google search

https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/22/workers-in-nine-european-countries-earned-less-in-2017-than-2010-

>It is the other way around. For example, advancements in technology (supply), availability of resources (supply) and consumer feedback (demand) determines how much labor time is required to produce a commodity.

I was referring to the necessary labor time(the mean time it takes a worker to produce a certain commodity) which tends to remain about constant in a time that there's no technological development in production of a certain commodity.

>1. Productivity alone is not a determinant for competitivity. There is also output quality, name-brand recognition (or targeting a niche market), and as you mentioned previously marketing.

All those other methods are required but also based on technological growth and scientific analysis. Productivity determines how much you can undercut your competition and still make a profit.

>2. Paying someone as low as possible is not an optimal strategy for businesses, especially since employee turnover is expensive and may attract less skilled workers.

As low as possible is not the same with as low as I like. Depending on the situation you might have to pay better, but it is in your interest to pay as low as possible. Amazon workers could not cover their basic needs with the wage they were getting and still Amazon is a very successful business.

>Process improvement is not limited. There is always a way of improving workflow especially considering the processes continually change due to shifts in demand and technology.. Otherwise, industrial engineers would not be fully employed.

Maybe you have a point here, but still, all this is internal to a business and can be assumed to be maximized for big businesses.

>They are societies that possess competitive law providers (kind of like competitive courts or dispute resolution orgs.). Irish Brehon system and Medieval Iceland are a few examples.

I'll have to look this up, but I think that their low population played a big role on their ability to make that work.

>If the market is saturated then there is no need to expand capital. Excess capital is allocated somewhere else

Ok, so it seems I need to explain the need for the constant expansion of capital.

When you have a limited market, say a single nation, you have a specific pool of worker/consumers. A worker is always paid money with less value than the value of the commodity he produces. So when a worker produces 10 loafs of bread, he can only afford to buy 5.(This includes workers in raw recourse extraction). This is required for there to be any profit. This difference between the value added by the worker through labor and the wage he is paid is what we call surplus value.

By following this logic to its conclusion, you have products on the market that are not bought, meaning companies need to fire workers as their work is not realised in the market and only make losses for the company that pays them. This leads to further inability to buy products and to overproduction crises as the one in 2008.

The only solution for a company is to be able to access other markets by any means. By cooperating with the state, they gain access to foreign markets where they can have low cost production in the third world. The low pay of the workers in the third world, allows those products to be sold at very low prices and thus alleviating the first world workers of some of their buying power problems. This however is a just a larger limited market, meaning that it is not sustainable in the long term and thus leads to the same problems we had at the start.

>It is: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mercantilism.asp

This is a libertarian site. I could also send you a link that says the exact opposite of that but we wouldn't get anywhere.


 No.93149

>>93127

It seems you have a point for the EU wages.


 No.93153

>>93148

>However that alone can not be the criterion for capitalism, as markets existed during feudalism and slavery.

markets exist anywhere humans do, and have been so for a while, even if they were underground or didn't involve money. What makes them a criteria for capitalism is the freedom and lack of control and limitations over them. There's no absolute pure or perfect system and it'll always have other things in it, including socialism(that is based on government intervention) while unable to get rid of markets and capitalism that has still violence and coercion in it, even if it has means to resist them. It's not a "system in a set period of time" or something, it's how free the system is and depending on the factor we determine how capitalist it is. There can be an ancom society that allows maximum economical freedom and we would consider it capitalist because these ancoms are not limiting others' choices. Unfortunately, there are no not-faggot ancoms.

>in a time that there's no technological development in production of a certain commodity

Which is never the case, as main competition revolves not around wages(though it does in these amounts only because of laws like minimum wage and other government intervention) but is about design, quality and price of the product, in which case the price is also determined by not only some shitty "labor time" magic but by available resources, investment, contracts, supply lines, logistics, organisation and only in the last bit around wage of workers that don't even do actual work today, more like maintenance or overseeing.

>All those other methods are required but also based on technological growth and scientific analysis.

Have you ever looked at products you buy, asshat? They have different design, materials, quality and all other stuff that is the direct result of doing actual technological research and engineering them. Truly there are no bounds to leftist stupidity.

>it is in your interest to pay as low as possible

And "possible" includes keeping the worker and not leaving, stimulating his productivity and buying better services.

>still Amazon is a very successful business

because you stupid leftists created conditions that prevent competition from emerging. You whiny faggots were the ones who gave them the monopoly.

>all this is internal to a business and can be assumed to be maximized for big businesses.

And businesses can go with having a part of the market share even if they sell very similar products in a similar region with similar starting resources, which is almost never the case.

> worker is always paid money with less value than the value of the commodity he produces

What he produces has no fixed value, you single digit IQ nigger, you could get all 10 loafs of bread you baked without even paying for resources spent and you'll not sell them for 10th of the price the owner would.

>This is required for there to be any profit

Economics is not a zero-sum game, you doublenigger, which is why people trade things in the first place - because they value the item gained more than the one they are giving. BOTH of them do, otherwise they'd not trade them.

>This is a libertarian site.

And left libertarianism is an oxymoron. You can post all you want and still remain an inbed motherfucking cunt.


 No.93154

>>93153

You seem quite intimidated with all these insults..

Socialism is not state intervention. It is the worker ownership of the means of production along with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Also the economy is a zero sum game in the sense that if you trade a banana with an apple, there's still one banana and one apple. If there is no production, there is no economy.

Distributing resources is just a job requiring specific skills. The person doing that should be paid according to his work. Also you seem to fail to understand that the workers have to be paid under the value of their produce, or there wouldn't be any profit.

Also, if capitalism has existed for all of human society, how exactly does your ideology explain the rise of different socioeconomic systems? Why, if volutary trade is so superior, have there been feudal lords and monarchs, slave masters and kings, business owners that go hand in hand with the state? Marxism can answer all those questions.

Btw I'm not a libertarian and don't really care, but libertarianism's origin is left.


 No.93157

>>93154

>You seem quite intimidated

Keep projecting

>Socialism is not state intervention

It is, no matter how many times you try to disguise it under a different name.

>Also the economy is a zero sum game in the sense that if you trade a banana with an apple, there's still one banana and one apple.

Are you actually retarded or something?

>Distributing resources is just a job requiring specific skills

>Being a welfare parasite is a talent

>The person doing that should be paid according to his work

You should be hanged with all of your kind.

>Also you seem to fail to understand that the workers have to be paid under the value of their produce, or there wouldn't be any profit.

No, you fail to understand that what they produce doesn't have the same value. read the fucking post, you faggot instead of repeating your idiotic claims.

>how exactly does your ideology explain the rise of different socioeconomic systems

Because there are more things than voluntary interaction? because culture and understanding of the world change throughout the time? Because people learn more about world and themselves, along with people using this knowledge to suspend the downfall of their parasitic position? You are just another breed of useful idiots to be wasted like a cheapest resource for a basic whim of the ones you dream of licking boot of.

>Why, if volutary trade is so superior, have there been feudal lords and monarchs, slave masters and kings, business owners that go hand in hand with the state?

Because violent coercion can offer more in shorter period of time for a single individual.

>Marxism can answer all those questions

More like shoehorn its baseless claims into any question.

>libertarianism's origin is left

And it left its origin, even if it presumably was there.


 No.93161

>>93157

>Keep projecting

Are you a phycologist by the way? Or did you just need a "smart" way to answer to criticism?

>It is, no matter how many times you try to disguise it under a different name.

Oh yeah it doesn't matter what the people who actually made the theory define it as. Only what the opposition thinks it is. Btw I am as much against social democracy as free market capitalism. Marxism is not "pro-state" it is anticapitalist as in the socioeconomic system, not just voluntary exchange.

>Being a welfare parasite is a talent

What does welfare have to do with distributing commodities? Distribution doesn't mean "free stuff". It means getting a product from production to the consumer.

>No, you fail to understand that what they produce doesn't have the same value. read the fucking post, you faggot instead of repeating your idiotic claims.

I understand your definition of value, that doesn't change the fact that however many times you trade or how you value the items you receive, there still remain the same products in society. When I eat an apple, that's one less apple someone else can eat. If you don't produce apples you don't get apples.

>Because there are more things than voluntary interaction? because culture and understanding of the world change throughout the time? Because people learn more about world and themselves, along with people using this knowledge to suspend the downfall of their parasitic position?

So, you can not define a system just by using voluntary transaction as the metric. As you just mentioned, there's more things. This doesn't answer to the question of why different socioeconomic systems rose. Why did tribal societies gave rise to slavery? Why did slavery and the slave owners gave rise to feudalism, against their interests?

The answer to these questions is the inability of the productive forces to keep up with the technological progress. A tribal society couldn't keep up with the productivity of a slave owning society, so when the means to own slaves where made available, slave societies overtook tribal ones. The same happened with the rise of capitalism. Industrial production was much more productive than peasants and manufactures. Now the limits of capitalism have been reached. Capitalism still maintains control as it is a very powerful system. It will however sooner or later succumb to its limitations or drive humanity backwards.

>Because violent coercion can offer more in shorter period of time for a single individual.

That is still the case.


 No.93164

>>93161

>criticism

Baseless implications isn't criticism, kiddo.

>Only what the opposition thinks it is

Only non-retards think it is. retards can shut up and fuck off to their containment place until next time they decide to try to starve their people.

>Distribution doesn't mean "free stuff"

If it didn't, you wouldn't be a thieving scum.

>there still remain the same products in society

Doesn't fucking matter.

>If you don't produce apples you don't get apples.

Because production is creating stuff out of thin air, right? Retard.

>So, you can not define a system just by using voluntary transaction as the metric.

You can. Many things change but there's always one thing that determines prosperity to a society and allows it to progress - freedom of an individual.

>This doesn't answer to the question of why different socioeconomic systems rose

They are different in a sense that you had lords and kings before and now you have party or democratic government. Outward appearance changed, base remained the same.

>Now the limits of capitalism have been reached

you keep shilling your own special definition of it, you can stick it up your ass. Nobody's buying your newspeak.

>That is still the case.

And you are traitorous thieving pile of biomass that doesn't care about anything but personal gain or is used by one of these like a brainless idiot you are.


 No.93165

>>93164

The other guys were civil and I respected them for that. You are just a snowflake who doesn't like getting his views criticized.

About me shilling my own special definition, look up how Adam Smith and David Ricardo defined capitalism. Accusing me of "newspeak" while you are the one using a rebranded definition is laughable.


 No.93166

>>93165

>read a book

No argument detected, go fuck yourself with these low effort leftist responses, or better yet, crawl back into the shithole you came from and rot in there.


 No.93169

>>93165

>look up how Adam Smith and David Ricardo defined capitalism

Insisting on using archaic definitions when it's already established that those definitions are out of date and incorrect is exactly you using a snowflake definition, because you're choosing to ignore those aspects of reality that contradict you. To reiterate, it's like you using Newtonian gravitation laws to explain motion on a galactic scale, then going into a spastic fit whenever someone points out that general and special relativity have proven Newton's laws to be inaccurate.


 No.93171

>>93169

I would actually argue that you are the ones using Newtonian physics to explain things out of its scale, as you are so specific that your definition doesn't match reality. To define capitalism as something that if at all has existed it was on a scale of a village is not at all useful to explain why and how we have the situation we do today.

The state is not an entity removed from society, it is a part of it. The state on its own means nothing if there is not a sociopolitical system. It is a tool that those who hold power use to maintain the status quo. Politicians and statesmen take bribes all the time from big corporations, whether it is in the open in the form of funding, or under the table.


 No.93174

File: 7b76e06eaa52790⋯.png (100.37 KB, 374x535, 374:535, juice.png)

>>93171

>n-no u!

>reframes question so it means something completely different


 No.93175

>>93174

>Not answering to my argument

You only called the definition I am using archaic, no question were made to be answered to.


 No.93176

>>93148

>However that alone can not be the criterion for capitalism, as markets existed during feudalism and slavery.

No shit. That is why I mentioned market economies and not the command economies that feudalism had.

>For example, you can't understand biology by studying molecules or atoms.

Actually you can. Biological processes are nothing more than a system chemical interactions. Just extrapolate from there.

>https://thecurrentmoment.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/productivity-inequality-poverty/

This divergence was disproven by Heritage: https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

>https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/22/workers-in-nine-european-countries-earned-less-in-2017-than-2010-

1. 2017 to 2010 does not analyze a multiple decade range so this does not prove a multi-decade trend.

2. It looks at real wages but not total income including benefits.

>I was referring to the necessary labor time which tends to remain about constant in a time that there's no technological development in production of a certain commodity.

But that labor time is dependent on the current technology implemented in production at that time.

>Productivity determines how much you can undercut your competition and still make a profit.

True, but undercutting is somewhat limited by the factors I mentioned. Increasing productivity and price cutting of generic brands won’t have any significant effect on the sales of popular name brands unless they also develop brand recognition.

>As low as possible is not the same with as low as I like

Now you are shifting goalposts. You mentioned “low as possible” and not “low as I like”.

>Amazon workers could not cover their basic needs with the wage they were getting

Source?

>assumed to be maximized for big businesses.

Why make that assumption? Source? Most big businesses I know implement some form of process improvement. Toyota uses TPS and Barnes & Noble uses Lean Six Sigma.

>their low population played a big role on their ability to make that work.

How is population a liability in a decentralized model?

>A worker is always paid money with less value than the value of the commodity he produces. So when a worker produces 10 loafs of bread, he can only afford to buy 5.(This includes workers in raw recourse extraction)

The worker, in a generally competitive market, is paid approximately the value of what he produces once opportunity costs, risks, and the deductions by other workers and capital investors who contributed to the production of that bread.

>By following this logic to its conclusion, you have products on the market that are not bought, meaning companies need to fire workers as their work is not realised in the market and only make losses for the company that pays them. This leads to further inability to buy products and to overproduction crises as the one in 2008.

There would be few excess unsold products in a saturated market mainly because the prices are lowered to remove excess inventory and this price signaling will halt the production process to a manageable level. Any loss of employment would be minimal and temporary except by market crashes or corrections most often than not caused by the state. The crises of 2007 were mostly the cause of state interference into the market and not capital accumulation. If anything, capital accumulation allows business to divert excess capital to other markets. For example, institutions that were issuing subprime loans did not diversify their capital to other markets as they would in a market economy because they had implicit guarantees by the state.

>This however is a just a larger limited market, meaning that it is not sustainable in the long term and thus leads to the same problems we had at the start.

How is market diversification limited? If it is limited, then how would this be unsustainable? Even saturated markets possess sustainability.

>This is a libertarian site. I could also send you a link that says the exact opposite of that but we wouldn't get anywhere

1. Investopedia is an investing and finance site. What makes you think it is libertarian?

2. This is a Guilt by association fallacy. Attack the argument and not the source.


 No.93178

>>93154

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a state because the have a monopoly of force.

>Also you seem to fail to understand that the workers have to be paid under the value of their produce, or there wouldn't be any profit.

Most businesses do not generate a profit. Most go bankrupt but you wouldn't say that the worker is paid over the value of their product.


 No.93188

>>93133

Great, give it a try! I'm pretty sure the answer to every person-of-straw you come up with is "but the free market is magic," though. Go ahead, it will waste a paltry amount of my time for amusement.


 No.93195

>>93176

>No shit. That is why I mentioned market economies and not the command economies that feudalism had.

But you mentioned that capitalism has existed since the first voluntary trade. Why even call it capitalism, if what you're describing is voluntary trade?

>Actually you can. Biological processes are nothing more than a system chemical interactions. Just extrapolate from there.

That's not how it works tho. Sure understanding chemistry is helpful, but you can't go from a scale of atoms and molecules to to the scale of animals. If that was the case, we wouldn't have names or functions for the individual organs and muscles(abstraction), we would just describe their physical actions and chemical reactions.

In general, groups have qualitative differences from the individual. One man can not advance technology or build civilizations. Only the complex societal structures that have been created over the years can produce the geniuses that take us further.

>This divergence was disproven by Heritage: https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

>1. 2017 to 2010 does not analyze a multiple decade range so this does not prove a multi-decade trend.

>2. It looks at real wages but not total income including benefits.

We don't see the distribution of these wages. There sure is a rise on the wages of tech related jobs, but there's still people in other sections that have seen their wages drop and there's still many problems. Unemployment, homelessness, drug use, increase of social alienation etc.

There's ongoing wars by NATO for access to natural resources and new markets.

>But that labor time is dependent on the current technology implemented in production at that time.

That's what I am saying.

>True, but undercutting is somewhat limited by the factors I mentioned. Increasing productivity and price cutting of generic brands won’t have any significant effect on the sales of popular name brands unless they also develop brand recognition.

Sure, marketing is necessary, but increasing productivity is required to increase profits. There's two components here, the rate of surplus value as well as the surplus realization. For the rate of surplus value extraction to increase in the short term, you need to increase productivity. For that surplus to be realized in the market and therefore getting profit, you need marketing.

>Now you are shifting goalposts. You mentioned “low as possible” and not “low as I like”.

I'll rephrase this. Wages need to be as low as possible while taking into consideration the continuation of the business. As low as possible isn't an arbitrary number decided by a person, but by the conditions in the market. For example, the existence of unemployment allows businesses to drive wages of unskilled or low skilled workers down. That's why lots of jobs are exported to third world nations.

>Source?

https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-on-food-stamps-2018-8

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17243026/amazon-warehouse-jobs-worker-conditions-bathroom-breaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies#Treatment_of_workers

>Why make that assumption? Source? Most big businesses I know implement some form of process improvement. Toyota uses TPS and Barnes & Noble uses Lean Six Sigma.

Because we know that profit increasing actions will always be undertaken if possible. Each business actively tries to increase profit and therefore will enact any productivity increasing process it is allowed.

>How is population a liability in a decentralized model?

It is very different for a village of people who know each other to get along and decide they won't use violence against each other, than a city of strangers. Decentralized models are also vulnerable to violence, whether than comes from the inside(a successful businessman or a group of them decide to use their private army to become dictators) or the outside.


 No.93196

>>93176

(cont.)

>The worker, in a generally competitive market, is paid approximately the value of what he produces once opportunity costs, risks, and the deductions by other workers and capital investors who contributed to the production of that bread.

First of all, other workers contributing to the creation of a product doesn't add to the value that a single worker adds. For example, if time t is required to collect wheat, t to create flour with that wheat and another t to create x bread with that flour by a single worker, the necessary labor time to create x bread is 3t. The value contribution of just the bread baker is relative to t, not 3t.

Now, let's say that the other part is true and workers do indeed get paid better. The problem remains that for there to be any profit, the total prices of all commodities in the market need to be higher than the total wages that are paid for there to be profit. The lack of consumption on certain commodities will lead to the firing of excess workers that create the unsold commodities. This in turn leads to the reduction of total wages and leads to crisis.

>There would be few excess unsold products in a saturated market mainly because the prices are lowered to remove excess inventory and this price signaling will halt the production process to a manageable level.

If prices were lowered to match the total wages, there wouldn't be any profit.

>Any loss of employment would be minimal and temporary except by market crashes or corrections most often than not caused by the state. The crises of 2007 were mostly the cause of state interference into the market and not capital accumulation. For example, institutions that were issuing subprime loans did not diversify their capital to other markets as they would in a market economy because they had implicit guarantees by the state.

I'd argue the exact opposite. The state, trying to maintain the status quo plays a balancing act. It tries to both keep capitalists happy, by giving access to foreign markets, investment opportunities and resources though war or diplomacy while simultaneously trying to keep the workers content through social welfare, policing and propaganda. This balancing act, while softening some rough edges, in the end can't hold the process described before, only stall it.

>How is market diversification limited? If it is limited, then how would this be unsustainable? Even saturated markets possess sustainability.

Limited as in unable to expand further. Saturated markets do not possess sustainability as described above.

This is a Guilt by association fallacy. Attack the argument and not the source.

You have a point, I will address the argument.

"Mercantilism was the main economic system of trade utilized from the 16th to 18th century. Thus, European nations took several strides to ensure their nations accumulated as much of this wealth as possible. The goal was to increase a nation's wealth by imposing government regulation that oversaw all of the nation's commercial interests. It was believed national strength could be maximized by limiting imports via tariffs and maximizing exports."

So, mercantilism was not a socioeconomic system, but an economic system of trade. That is, the trade policies that certain countries had. Feudalism and capitalism are socioeconomic systems defined by the ownership of the means of production and thus the owners of real power in each society.


 No.93213

>>93188

Read the fucking thread. It's an out of date theory that doesn't adequately describe value.


 No.93234

>>93195

>But you mentioned that capitalism has existed since the first voluntary trade

I specifically said “first voluntary market transaction”

>Sure understanding chemistry is helpful, but you can't go from a scale of atoms and molecules to to the scale of animals.

You can via hierarchical classification.

>One man can not advance technology or build civilizations. Only the complex societal structures that have been created over the years can produce the geniuses that take us further.

One man can. You can see it in the patent registries. It is small incremental changes that lead to most of our technological improvements.

>We don't see the distribution of these wages

You are still on about wages and not looking at the bigger picture: total compensation. Employers provide benefits that would otherwise have to be paid via wages if they were not provided. Bonuses and compounded interest from 401ks also have to be considered as income.

>but there's still people in other sections that have seen their wages drop and there's still many problems

Perhaps in low-skilled employment but this in no way represents the majority.

>Unemployment, homelessness, drug use, increase of social alienation etc.

How has this anything to do with total compensation? I think we are getting off-topic.

>That's what I am saying.

Then why use labor time as a fundamental factor when supply and demand (both of which labor time depends upon) instead?

>Sure, marketing is necessary, but increasing productivity is required to increase profits

Not necessary as I mentioned before with brand recognition.

>surplus value

Here is what Thomas Sowell has to say regarding surplus labor in “Marxism: Philosophy and Economics.”:

“Once output is seen as a function of numerous inputs, and the inputs are supplied by more than one class of people, the notion that surplus value arises from [the] labor [of the proletariat] becomes plainly arbitrary and unsupported “

In other words, other factors are at play so it is quite an assumption that the excess value is attributed to labor, yet how can this be concluded without isolating the other inputs to production?

> For example, the existence of unemployment allows businesses to drive wages of unskilled or low skilled workers down. That's why lots of jobs are exported to third world nations.

An unemployed or underemployed labor force can drive nominal wages but not real wages since demand likewise decreases in response and the labor market reallocates to suit demand in other markets.

>sources

The existence of food stamps does not prove that basic nutritional requirements are not being met. Bathroom breaks have no correlation with wages unless they are getting incentive pay. If they are receiving incentives, then the standardization takes into account bathroom breaks as required by OSHA. The 3rd article is irrelevant to the topic being discussed: “Amazon workers could not cover their basic needs with the wage they were getting”.


 No.93235

…continued

>>93195

>Because we know that profit increasing actions will always be undertaken if possible

This fails to prove your assertion that big businesses already maximized their process improvement.

>It is very different for a village of people who know each other to get along and decide they won't use violence against each other, than a city of strangers.

Poor analogy. Cities and towns are centralized units. Cities even more so. I am talking about the relations between these units hence decentralized relations.

>Decentralized models are also vulnerable to violence, whether than comes from the inside(a successful businessman or a group of them decide to use their private army to become dictators) or the outside

There are vulnerabilities but less so than centralized models. A decentralized model has more diversification in case of a single-point failure (hence why investments are safer in a diversified portfolio). They are also more innovative and less susceptible to diseconomies of scale.

>First of all, other workers contributing to the creation of a product doesn't add to the value that a single worker adds.

They do. It is called a positive feedback loop. Suppose the worker can produce bread in t working alone, but can produce the equivalent amount of bread in 0.75t in a factory because there is better equipment (more capital) and expertise that can be passed down from more senior workers and vice versa.

>The lack of consumption on certain commodities will lead to the firing of excess workers that create the unsold commodities. This in turn leads to the reduction of total wages and leads to crisis.

>If prices were lowered to match the total wages, there wouldn't be any profit.

Yes, this shows the effect of price signaling the reallocation of resources from a stagnant market to developing markets.

>The state, trying to maintain the status quo plays a balancing act. It tries to both keep capitalists happy, by giving access to foreign markets, investment opportunities and resources though war or diplomacy while simultaneously trying to keep the workers content through social welfare, policing and propaganda. This balancing act, while softening some rough edges, in the end can't hold the process described before, only stall it.

How is this arguing the exact opposite? Where does this contradict my above statement?

>Limited as in unable to expand further. Saturated markets do not possess sustainability as described above.

Market diversification is limitless because there is no discernible limit in demand. A limited market does not mean that it does not possess sustainability.

> mercantilism was not a socioeconomic system

I do not see the difference. Socioeconomic systems are concerned with the relationship between social and economic factors. Social factors can be derived from trade relations. What would you categorize the system during this era? It was certainly not capitalistic since it possessed a command economy and it was not feudalistic since it lacked manoralism


 No.93242

>>93213

>I'm not actually going to PRESENT any of these ultra-l33t arguments which I swear by assertion mean I win.

Well okay then. Probably a sign you should have skipped posting.


 No.93244

>>93234

>You can via hierarchical classification.

To do that, you need to fully understand the individual pieces fully in regard to their functions and relations to the others and then build up from there, something more easier said than done when the pieces are complex human beings.

>One man can. You can see it in the patent registries. It is small incremental changes that lead to most of our technological improvements.

Those men are the products of the conditions they grew in, including education, human interaction and the environment created by society. Without society everyone would be savage apes, eating roots and insects. Without slaves, there wouldn't be ancient greek philosophers. Without society, there wouldn't be any technological progress.

>You are still on about wages and not looking at the bigger picture: total compensation. Employers provide benefits that would otherwise have to be paid via wages if they were not provided. Bonuses and compounded interest from 401ks also have to be considered as income.

I withdraw from this point, as I don't think it's getting anywhere.

>Perhaps in low-skilled employment but this in no way represents the majority.

It represents a huge portion of the population. I know you focus on first world countries but third world countries and their production is required for the first world nations to continue with their current stratification.

How has this anything to do with total compensation? I think we are getting off-topic.

I don't say this has to do with compensation, but with capitalism as a system.

>Then why use labor time as a fundamental factor when supply and demand (both of which labor time depends upon) instead?

Are you talking about necessary labor time here? If so, it is not dependent on supply and demand, it is the other way around.

>“Once output is seen as a function of numerous inputs, and the inputs are supplied by more than one class of people, the notion that surplus value arises from [the] labor [of the proletariat] becomes plainly arbitrary and unsupported “

The input is not necessarily supplied by more than one class. Every action taken to produce a commodity is labor, whether that is the infrastructure(created by labor), hammering rivets or a CEO's job. A capitalist is just the owner and if he holds any position of command, it is still labor. Buying machinery or shares and taking the risk is not a productive process.

>An unemployed or underemployed labor force can drive nominal wages but not real wages since demand likewise decreases in response and the labor market reallocates to suit demand in other markets.

What you describe only works in idealized situations. Realistically, a worker won't stop working in a company that pays less if he is able to get hired in a better paying job. If there is a substantial unemployed population that has the same or better skill, quitting your job potentially means unemployment.

>The existence of food stamps does not prove that basic nutritional requirements are not being met. Bathroom breaks have no correlation with wages unless they are getting incentive pay. If they are receiving incentives, then the standardization takes into account bathroom breaks as required by OSHA. The 3rd article is irrelevant to the topic being discussed: “Amazon workers could not cover their basic needs with the wage they were getting”.

For someone to get food stamps, they have to be 130% or below of the poverty line. I don't have data on the specific wages they were getting, but they were low for sure. Considering that people didn't go to the bathroom to not get their pay reduced says a lot.


 No.93245

>>93235

(cont.)

>This fails to prove your assertion that big businesses already maximized their process improvement.

I never said that big businesses already maximized their process. What I said was

"can be assumed to be maximized for big businesses" meaning actively maximized according to the current tech.

>Poor analogy. Cities and towns are centralized units. Cities even more so. I am talking about the relations between these units hence decentralized relations.

How is this even going to happen without violence? Even if you manage to to get people to agree and that's a big if, you'd run into all sorts of problems. The first that comes to mind is transportation of goods and fulfillment of needs, services etc. What about the ecological cost? To spread humans around, each with a house to himself and roads connecting everyone would require huge destruction of natural environments and habitats. What about things that affect everyone like pollution? Will someone be able to dump all their nuclear waste somewhere because they own the place? Will someone be able to make as much noise as they like at any time? Will someone be able to kill endangered species?

>There are vulnerabilities but less so than centralized models. A decentralized model has more diversification in case of a single-point failure (hence why investments are safer in a diversified portfolio). They are also more innovative and less susceptible to diseconomies of scale.

How so? A decentralized model is still affected by the coal production of the specific coal producing section.

You could just look at how an economic crisis spreads between nations and scale it down to decentralized models.

>They do. It is called a positive feedback loop. Suppose the worker can produce bread in t working alone, but can produce the equivalent amount of bread in 0.75t in a factory because there is better equipment (more capital) and expertise that can be passed down from more senior workers and vice versa.

What you describe there is certainly correct, however that decreases the value of the product. A product that takes 0.75 t is less valuable than one produced in t. The mean value produced by a set number of workers remains constant in a set amount of time. If productivity is increased, that means that each product has reduced necessary labor time and has less value. It wouldn't make sense if a tv produced in a society with x productivity to be more expensive than in a society with 2x productivity.

>Yes, this shows the effect of price signaling the reallocation of resources from a stagnant market to developing markets.

Yes, but what if those developing markets don't accept foreign investment? Its war time.

>How is this arguing the exact opposite? Where does this contradict my above statement?

>>93196

>The crises of 2007 were mostly the cause of state interference into the market and not capital accumulation

<This balancing act, while softening some rough edges, in the end can't hold the process described before, only stall it.

Meaning that the state tries to balance out the inherent antagonisms of capitalism and thus delaying the crises. It tries to restore some of the diminishing buying power of the consumers to keep market transactions going and thus keeping the system semi stable. It can only delay crises and not stop them, as preventing crises would mean ending capitalism itself.

>Market diversification is limitless because there is no discernible limit in demand. A limited market does not mean that it does not possess sustainability.

I described the process that reduces demand. Demand is dependent on wages. It doesn't matter how much your new innovation is wanted if people don't have the money to afford it.

>I do not see the difference. Socioeconomic systems are concerned with the relationship between social and economic factors. Social factors can be derived from trade relations. What would you categorize the system during this era? It was certainly not capitalistic since it possessed a command economy and it was not feudalistic since it lacked manoralism

It was the transition from feudalism and the birth point of capitalism referred to by the classical economists as previous or primitive accumulation.

"We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point." -Karl Marx


 No.93246

>>93242

>I'm not going to pay attention to the thread I'm shitting up with my commie faggotry

The only one who shouldn't be here is you.


 No.93248

>>92822

Still needs a subjective part: What constitutes a specific good (in which units are interchangable). For example, both the value and the price people will pay for a certain gun in Norway is greater than in the U.S, other things being equal. Similarly, people may value (almost) and pay equally for two similar (but undeniably different) products if they percieve those products to have the same utility (such as boomers would with tech products), while the value and price among people who differentiate between the two may be different. These two qualities (situation, such as time or space, and utility, such as performance or aesthetics) can be nuanced down to the individual good/service, and the categorization of all products are evidently determined subjectively, and you can therefore only speak of multiple units of a product when they are subjectively (and necessarily not objectively) equal.


 No.93256

>>93246

I don't have to claim the prior argumentation, and in fact it's actually quite likely that they've been doing it wrong and spouting bullshit.

Meanwhile, assuming it's a constant thread, you made a VERY bold claim. You failed to put up shit besides raw assertion and deflection. You have voided your proposition by forefiture.


 No.93263

>>93256

I'll gladly reiterate this. LTV says things are worth the labor that goes in, but more labor doesn't equal more value. So you add in socially necessary labor time, which doesn't give you a good idea of how much time most people would need to put into a given commodity. This throws off calculations, leaving you with no idea what the proper cost of things is.


 No.93265

>>

>I'll gladly reiterate this. LTV says things are worth the

<average

>labor that goes in

<to products which have already attained free-market clearance.

There ya go, that's the actual theory - i.e., "the free market is magic!"

It helps to think of it as a "labor theory of cost." Value is discovered by the free market in the theory, while in a competitive market, labor, as the only input whatsoever (it's all SOMEONE'S work) is what costs fall to. A competitive market pits input costs (labor) against end utility ("social necessity," i.e., free-market clearance as selected by the end consumer)

tl;dr : the free market is magic. Next?


 No.93277

File: 5826ce9fde39ea7⋯.png (478.96 KB, 466x466, 1:1, Screenshot_146.png)

>>93265

>production costs only involve one input

I guess that I can just produce anything using only labor and my imagination using your theory. Just ignore the capital and resources.


 No.93281

>>93244

>something more easier said than done when the pieces are complex human beings.

True, but we still do not know all these pieces. A protein LHPP was just recently discovered this year.

> Those men are the products of the conditions they grew in, including education, human interaction and the environment created by society.

But each and every man are the ones that contributed to the very existence of these societal structures.

> It represents a huge portion of the population.

If you are referring to the third-world, then foreign enterprises have increased wages by outsourcing employment there.

> I don't say this has to do with compensation, but with capitalism as a system.

How is this a problem with capitalism? You still haven’t ruled out other factors including state intervention.

> Are you talking about necessary labor time here? If so, it is not dependent on supply and demand, it is the other way around.

But you just agreed with me that: “labor time is dependent on the current technology [supply] implemented in production at that time.” You are contradicting yourself.

> A capitalist is just the owner and if he holds any position of command, it is still labor.

Buying machinery or shares and taking the risk is not a productive process.

The capitalist does command by supplying the capital, which they obtained from the product of their own labor. Buying machinery and shares are both examples of supplying capital and without taking risk production would not exist. Risk is an input in production.

> What you describe only works in idealized situations

No, it is in fact a reality. Read Truman Brewley’s “Why Wages Don't Fall During A Recession” and Sticky Wages.

> For someone to get food stamps, they have to be 130% or below of the poverty line

In the US, the poverty line keeps adjusting upwards, thus it does not represent the meeting of basic necessities. The average Amazon fulfillment center wage is $13 per hour, which is well above that for a household of one.


 No.93282

>>93245

> meaning actively maximized according to the current tech.

Both phrases mean they are maximized. Even with the current technological implementation at my warehouse that I work at, which has not changed in 10 years, we continue to implement more and more LSS projects.

> How is this even going to happen without violence?

I not stating that violence will not exist. I am stating that they are less vulnerable than centralized models. Decentralization does not mean “spreading people around”. One method is taking the current layout and subdividing it.

> What about things that affect everyone like pollution? Will someone be able to dump all their nuclear waste somewhere because they own the place?

Any environmental damage to someone else’s’ [property would have to pay compensation.

> How so? A decentralized model is still affected by the coal production of the specific coal producing section.

Can you clarify this statement? Are you referring to coal refineries as the decentralized model? IF so, then using this model, if one refinery were to shutdown or slow production, this will result in other refineries picking up slack in response to the price increase in coal (assuming demand for coal remains the same).

> You could just look at how an economic crisis spreads between nations and scale it down to decentralized models.

Not really. Economic crises are due to states that operate on a centralized model.

> What you describe there is certainly correct, however that decreases the value of the product.

This is where we disagree in the definition of value. Just because less labor is required to produce a commodity does not mean that commodity is less valuable to the consumer. In fact, it would be more valuable if that higher productivity leads to a price decrease, which mean more of that commodity that the consumer can enjoy and with higher quality.

> It wouldn't make sense if a tv produced in a society with x productivity to be more expensive than in a society with 2x productivity.

This does not make sense. Productivity is inversely proportional to production costs, so we should be seeing Society A with more expensive TVs since they have half the production of Society B unless they are purchasing TVs produced by Society B.

> Yes, but what if those developing markets don't accept foreign investment? Its war time.

1. Not all developing markets a foreign

2. Markets do not declare war. States do.

> Meaning that the state tries to balance out the inherent antagonisms of capitalism and thus delaying the crises

1. State interference is not capitalism. States are public entities and operate a command economy unlike private entities and market economies in capitalism.

2. The state caused the crisis by implicit guarantees on subprime loans. That does not sound like balancing to you, does it?

> It can only delay crises and not stop them, as preventing crises would mean ending capitalism itself.

Highly doubtful. Economic crises have occurred it feudalist and socialist societies as well.

> Demand is dependent on wages.

Wages are dependent on demand. Without demand for a commodity, the producer of the commodity will not be able to provide wages to workers.

> It doesn't matter how much your new innovation is wanted if people don't have the money to afford it.

Affordability is not a factor in demand, as I mentioned in the investopedia link. Willingness to purchase a commodity at as certain price does factor in, but this does not limit demand for other commodities.

>Marx

Now where in that statement does Marx specify that Primitive accumulation is a socioeconomic system?


 No.93285

>>93265

>completely missing the point


 No.93288

>>93281

>True, but we still do not know all these pieces. A protein LHPP was just recently discovered this year.

That's what I said. Not fully understanding human beings makes us unable to make an accurate economic model based on the individual. We can however observe mass systemic actions and events and understand the system this way.

>But each and every man are the ones that contributed to the very existence of these societal structures.

Yes, but society exists before the individual and forms the individual based on its current state. If Albert Einstein was born in a third world nation, he wouldn't be a genius(most probably). His body and mind would be the same at birth, but wouldn't develop the same.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." -Karl Marx

>If you are referring to the third-world, then foreign enterprises have increased wages by outsourcing employment there.

This is a complicated one. First of all, a question.

Would you mind if your nation was dominated by foreign capital?

Now to get to the point, when export of capital happens, it happens because the market it is exported to is more suited for exploitation than the current one. This means that there is a higher rate of surplus value extraction potential in that market. This leads to a certain improvement of infrastructure but only as far as it furthers the production process of the businesses of the exporters. The problem is, that the commodities produced can't be absorbed by the local market, as the increased extraction of surplus leaves the workers there with very little buying power and is thus, exported to the first world where the buying power is much greater. This leads to the absurd situation that while a very big percentage of the world's wealth is produced in those backward nations, it is immediately striped from them. This process is also highly damaging to the local businesses, as they are not able to compete with the corporate giants.

>How is this a problem with capitalism? You still haven’t ruled out other factors including state intervention.

As I have tried to convey before, the state's purpose is to maintain the status quo. This simple fact leads the state to cooperate with big businesses. Businesses looking to increase their profits lead them to cooperate with the state to do so.

The only reason they are not the same entity(a bourgeois dictatorship in the modern sense of the word) is because it has been historically and practically proven that the facade of bourgeois democracy can much easier maintain the status quo.

>But you just agreed with me that: “labor time is dependent on the current technology [supply] implemented in production at that time.” You are contradicting yourself.

I guess that is correct based on my current understanding. However you have to keep in mind that technological advancement is a production process itself.

>No, it is in fact a reality. Read Truman Brewley’s “Why Wages Don't Fall During A Recession” and Sticky Wages.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I never stated that the increase of unemployment leads to a reduction of wages. The existence of unemployment is what matters.

>In the US, the poverty line keeps adjusting upwards, thus it does not represent the meeting of basic necessities. The average Amazon fulfillment center wage is $13 per hour, which is well above that for a household of one.

Even if they were meeting their basic necessities, there's still a lot of people in the US who have problems doing so.

https://www.apnews.com/1d31cf4b56e449769ab4cb456237ea1f


 No.93291

(cont.)

>Both phrases mean they are maximized. Even with the current technological implementation at my warehouse that I work at, which has not changed in 10 years, we continue to implement more and more LSS projects.

For something to be maximized isn't the same for it to be at max. Maximization means to increase at a high speed. So when I say they can be assumed to be maximized, it means that they are at the highest point they are able to.

>Decentralization does not mean “spreading people around”. One method is taking the current layout and subdividing it.

So, all you would do is remove the state. That leaves you with a ton of strangers stuck together.

>Any environmental damage to someone else’s’ [property would have to pay compensation.

Who attributes the damages? Also how do you even attribute something of mass scale like climate change or the extinction of animals? Also, who sets the law?

>Can you clarify this statement? Are you referring to coal refineries as the decentralized model? IF so, then using this model, if one refinery were to shutdown or slow production, this will result in other refineries picking up slack in response to the price increase in coal (assuming demand for coal remains the same).

I don't understand why the stopping of certain production would affect a decentralized model. In the model we use, if there is a low supply for something the same thing happens. Also it doesn't happen fast enough for damage to be avoided as it is a response to the signal of the damages taking place.

>This does not make sense. Productivity is inversely proportional to production costs, so we should be seeing Society A with more expensive TVs since they have half the production of Society B unless they are purchasing TVs produced by Society B.

This is exactly the same conclusion I made. Notice how I wrote "It wouldn't make sense if.."

>Not all developing markets a foreign

I guess you mean are. Sure not all developing markets are foreign.

>Markets do not declare war. States do.

Sure, but why do states declare war? Do you see the US state taking over Middle Eastern oil production? The only reason that war happened was because multinationals needed to get in that market. You should read about the East India Company and the Opium wars.

>State interference is not capitalism.

States are public entities and operate a command economy unlike private entities and market economies in capitalism.

The state is not primarily an economical institution and is ahistorical to define it as such. It is an institution that was created to maintain the status quo whether that is through violence or welfare. The welfare state originates with Otto von Bismark, a staunch anticommunist and conservative.

"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without[…]it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ’order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." -Friedrich Engels


 No.93292

(cont.)

>Highly doubtful. Economic crises have occurred it feudalist and socialist societies as well.

Unlike feudalism and the early socialist republics, capitalism's crises are crises of overproduction. That is, due to the huge productivity that capitalism has created and the increasing inability of the market to absorb that production, you get to the point where a crisis occurs.

Feudalism's crises happened due to natural disasters or war most of the time and were mostly contained incidents.

The early socialist crises in the USSR happened for three reasons. 1) The necessary economical focus on industrialization that included export of grain for the protection of the country from foreign threats. 2) Natural disaster, grain yields were greatly reduced due to weather. 3) Big farmers(kulaks) hoarding grain and cattle and in some cases even destroying it to make sure the demand remained high.

>Wages are dependent on demand. Without demand for a commodity, the producer of the commodity will not be able to provide wages to workers.

What you're describing there is how employment works. A lower demand for the product of a company means less employment. The demand in a market is dependent on wages.

>Affordability is not a factor in demand, as I mentioned in the investopedia link. Willingness to purchase a commodity at as certain price does factor in, but this does not limit demand for other commodities.

Sure, but total demand is dependent on wages.

>Now where in that statement does Marx specify that Primitive accumulation is a socioeconomic system?

It isn't, it is the birth point of capitalism which is a socioeconomic system.


 No.93293

>>93292

>business owners are so stupid that they'll waste money shitting out goods people don't want

Even if someone did do that, they'd go out of bankrupt and the equipment they were using would get sold off to someone less retarded.


 No.93300

>>93293

It's not that people don't want the commodities produced but that they can't afford them. In a market, the total price of commodities has to be higher than the total wages paid for there to be profit. That leads to companies who don't get their products bought to fire workers, lowering the wages further. In the long term this leads to crisis.


 No.93301

>>93293

Businesses overproduce all the time. Just take a look at how much food is thrown away every day at supermarkets.


 No.93302

>>93277

>I guess that I can just produce anything using only labor and my imagination

That is correct.

>using your theory.

The theory isn't required. Just a little imagination and work.

>Just ignore the capital

…which was made through labor.

>and resources.

…which were located by labor.

Do you people really think a magic space god just "poofs" things into existence?


 No.93305

>>93301

A lot of food in the first world that gets thrown away is discarded because it doesn't meet with the ridiculously high standards.


 No.93307

>>93305

What does this have to do with anything? There is different demand for higher priced food due to "ridiculously high standards", but by your logic, businesses would lower the supply.


 No.93308

>>93307

You can't wave a magic wand and make all the crops you grow look nice. A large part of it is always going to be misshapen, a weird color, or damaged in transit. None of these factors are something farmers have much control over.


 No.93310

>>93308

This article states that in the UK, supermarkets waste 230 million pounds worth of food annually.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/foodforlondon/what-a-waste-we-launch-a-major-investigation-into-the-scandal-of-wasted-food-a3348306.html

This doesn't happen only with food production, all shorts of commodities are left in the shelves and in the end thrown away.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44968561


 No.93311

>>93310

That's across an entire country of over 60 million people, over the course of a year. Of course it's going to be a big number.


 No.93345

>>93311

That is food wasted only by supermarkets and only in the UK. It doesn't take into account restaurants or other food stores.


 No.93346

>>93345

Literally the "starving children in africa" tier argument.


 No.93347

>>93346

This is not a moral argument, it is an economical one.


 No.93370

>>93347

If it is, then it's just more efficient to keep more food that strictly necessary because paying for additional food will lose you less money than losing customers if you suddenly run out of it. That, or the owner doesn't bother with optimization for some reasons and is fine with spending a bit more. He's still using his money for that and paying for his inefficiency himself without relying on some government gibs, which is why his behavior is completely fine as he can function with only so much inefficiency before he's outcompeted and has to either improve it, sell it or spend his own money to keep this business afloat.


 No.93373

>>93346

Bastiat BTFO.


 No.93380

>>93370

I don't think you've been paying attention to the conversation above. We can all agree that overproducing a little is required for the sustainability of the economy and society, especially when we speak of necessities. The problem that capitalism has, is that the buying power of consumers(wages paid) has to always be lower than the total price of commodities produced for there to be profit. That means that companies will both actively try to gain market shares but also fire excess workers depending on how much of its production doesn't get bought.


 No.93382

>>93380

>the buying power of consumers(wages paid) has to always be lower than the total price of commodities produced for there to be profit

These things are not set in stone and definitely not calculated or planned. A person is going for a job because he earns more money that way that if he'd just try to produce anything himself and the person who offers him the work pays for business expenses like logistics, managing equipment, raw materials, customers, etc., and both the employer and employed are profiting from this agreement. This is possible because of economy of scale so the employer can organize production and reduce its costs, thus making employee's work more valuable and productive. If you're educated enough, you might know this thing is called "synergy", and this is the reason these agreements exist in the first place.

>That means that companies will both actively try to gain market shares but also fire excess workers depending on how much of its production doesn't get bought.

Don't see how you got to this conclusion but companies generally don't fire productive workers that are in high demand, it's mostly simple and less productive jobs like janitor that are easily removed or replaced, and it's usually done because of optimization(remove unneeded expenses) or improvement(find a better worker) and not just because they "produced too much". In case there have been produced too many goods the prices generally drop and some competitors go out of business and it all stabilizes. It all is a lot more severe when government subsidizes certain businesses and keeps them afloatunder the name of preserving jobs, for example, so that the businesses can expand a lot more and when there become so much supply that prices drop beyond the point of sustainability the drop is more severe as there are more goods and so less companies can survive the unproductive days and either shut down or at least pause the production. The crisis also lasts longer because of bigger amount of goods stored so they are consumed slower as well at time of underproduction. Here, when the government or some big players foresee the crisis and try to preserve some goods they are only making things worse by increasing this enormous supply and only delaying the crisis a bit at the cost of the future stability.

Generally, markets stabilize themselves quite well and offer plenty of workplaces even when a single company shuts down due to bigger amount of small businesses, so any of these crisises are small, local and are resolved quite fast instead of painfully snowballing after long stagnation, unless the government messes with incentives or biggest corporations with huge market share trying similar games, though these are uncommon and are not as influential in free market because of abundance of smaller locally organized businesses having greater market share overall.


 No.93383

>>93370

>These things are not set in stone and definitely not calculated or planned

What are you talking about? Businesses know their market shares and produce according to that/try to expand it. Of course it is calculated and planned.

>A person is going for a job because he earns more money that way that if he'd just try to produce anything himself and the person who offers him the work pays for business expenses like logistics, managing equipment, raw materials, customers, etc., and both the employer and employed are profiting from this agreement.

Yes, if the only alternative is to work by yourself, working for a business is to the individual's gain. You are using profit very loosely here. Only businesses can economically gain profits.

You are avoiding my point in your second paragraph. What you are observing in the first world is due to the distortions caused by third world produced commodities entering the first world markets and therefore obfuscating the whole process. Can you describe to me how a theoretical economy would work with 2 competing businesses in a free market with a total workforce of 100 people?


 No.93385

>>93383

>Businesses know their market shares and produce according to that/try to expand it.

But they do not plan or organize their expenses based on some "sum of wages" or some other bullshit.

>Yes, if the only alternative is to work by yourself, working for a business is to the individual's gain.

You could start your company, for or take part in a cooperative or find another job. What other things you want, aside from parasitic gibs?

>You are using profit very loosely here

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit.asp

>Only businesses can economically gain profits.

What a pile of bullshit. Do you go to work because someone said so or because they'll kill you if you don't? Do you know what wage is? How is it not profit from selling your labor? Have you worked a day in your life, because i can't imagine someone saying something this stupid while proving the opposite by is personal example.

>What you are observing in the first world is due to the distortions caused by third world produced commodities entering the first world markets and therefore obfuscating the whole process

What does first/third world have to do with the topic of overproduction? If we're talking about 3rd world having all production located in it then the main reason for it is cheaper workforce, though complete lack of industry is explained by things like minimal wage that simply do not allow any competition and so these businesses are driven out. Again, when the transition occurs when 3rd world markets are opened and it leads to industry based on low quality labor to move there but it is by no means something like "evil capitalists constantly opening business only to close them so that workers lose their jobs". Regulation and control over economy lead to lack of small businesses in the country so when 3rd world comes in place remaining bigger ones are phased out by cheap labor from there so you only have biggest companies that mostly do reselling these goods produced in 3rd world, just like how they do it now.

>Can you describe to me how a theoretical economy would work with 2 competing businesses in a free market with a total workforce of 100 people?

That'd take a long time. What issue do you have with it, so we can work on it instead? How big are these companies compared to their market? Are they selling goods only to their employees? Can there new companies emerge if one goes bankrupt? Can these companies produce goods that have different niche instead of just making exactly the same product? What does "total workforce" mean and why does it matter? Can it change? There's a whole lot issues and you seem to view it all from the standpoint of command economy where you have N people to feed.


 No.93390

>>93385

>But they do not plan or organize their expenses based on some "sum of wages" or some other bullshit.

You totally misunderstood my argument. I never stated that a single business "cares" if you will, about the sum of wages. What my argument is, is that the inability to absorb all of the commodities in the market due to the wages being lower than total price of all commodities produced, leads to the firing of workers in these businesses whose products didn't sell, to improve competitiveness.

>You could start your company, for or take part in a cooperative or find another job. What other things you want, aside from parasitic gibs?

One is indeed parasitism, something that I am against in both its forms, that being welfare and capitalist parasitism.

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat" -V.I. Lenin

>What a pile of bullshit.

First of all, you keep using this word bullshit like it adds anything to the conversation.

Second, the very definition you are using contradicts you. Read it again.

>What does first/third world have to do with the topic of overproduction?

When you have third world commodities available, it increases the buying power of the consumers, therefore obfuscating and delaying the process described above in the first world while it accelerates in the third.

>There's a whole lot issues and you seem to view it all from the standpoint of command economy where you have N people to feed.

No, I really don't. Yet again you seem to be missing my point.

Ok, let's set this up.

Yes the employees are the only ones able to buy their goods. Yes there can be new companies. For this example we will say that niches are included in demand(if you disagree you can say so) so both companies produce the same product using the same technology and we're not taking into account productivity boost for bigger businesses. Also the product must be consumable, meaning it will be constantly re bought if needed and possible. People who are not provided with this product don't die. Total workforce is the available workers in the market that can both work at the companies and buy their products. Let's also say the companies have the ability to buy infrastructure to expand their employees and that there is a maintenance cost.

So, to start up we have to set the constants. A person requires 5 commodity per month. A worker can produce 10 commodities per month. To buy infrastructure for an additional worker, a company needs 50 currency. Each worker's infrastructure requires 5 currency per month.

Let's start with the assumption that all 100 workers are employed. One company has 60 and the other has 40 and the infrastructure to support them. so that's 300 and 200 currency required for maintenance, 600 and 400 commodities produced and 300 and 200 commodities will be sold. We can already see here that both companies are incentivized to fire workers to gain a higher profit.

I have set up a theoretical economy. Can you make an example using these or different numbers of how it would actually work out in the end and produce a stable relationship and profit for the businesses?


 No.93397

File: 294ad38ad27deb9⋯.jpg (73.57 KB, 1080x708, 90:59, 294ad38ad27deb979ec52f15a3….jpg)

>>93390

.What my argument is, is that the inability to absorb all of the commodities in the market due to the wages being lower than total price of all commodities produced, leads to the firing of workers in these businesses whose products didn't sell, to improve competitiveness.

Ok, we'll get to this in "only workers buy your products" part.

>something that I am against in both its forms

Yeah, sure thing, thieving parasite.

>Second, the very definition you are using contradicts you. Read it again.

Just because all expenses of the worker during work are taken care of doesn't mean that he doesn't profit from his job. Even more so, all his wage is his profit, unlike his employer's.

>therefore obfuscating and delaying the process described above in the first world while it accelerates in the third

What processes, crisis of overproduction? How does it accelerate? You're just throwing baseless leftist assumptions like "expanding markets is exploitation".

>Yes the employees are the only ones able to buy their goods.

That's your problem. This is never the case and such assumption is not based on anything but labor theory of value. if this was in any way right there'd never be companies that allow their employees to buy their product for its basic price. There's a whole lot of faulty assumptions with the argument. First, not only workers buy the final goods, as both employers and businesses need either necessities or resources, goods and services. Second, wages are by no means the only source of commodities(unlike a command economy in term of which you're thinking, leftist) and go along with investments(anyone does them forcefully today, they are called retirement) and production like growing vegetables and offering services as self employed person(you often see these with professions like carpenter or painter) or even a simply growing vegetables in the back yard. Third, never was a time when all people were employedeven when some scum forced them to and unemployed people can easily exist simply by spending already earned money even without investment or other source of money, which can be gained in many ways like inheritance, credits or winning a lottery. If that all was not the case, it would be true that there's an economic "class" that lives completely by its own rules and can only exist by tricking poor workers into exploitation. But it's not, just like all marxist theory and therefore goes into the trash. Rightfully so.


 No.93399

>>93397

I'm gonna skip the first four parts of your answer, as I think the meat of our disagreement is in the last part.

>First, not only workers buy the final goods, as both employers and businesses need either necessities or resources, goods and services.

Agreed. However the source of the commodities exchanged between businesses is labor.

>unlike a command economy in term of which you're thinking, leftist

I'm a communist, thank you. Can you please define what you think a command economy is, that you accuse me of thinking with.

>investments

Investments are products of income and not an additional source of it.

>production like growing vegetables and offering services as self employed personor even a simply growing vegetables in the back yard

Labor.

>Third, never was a time when all people were employed.

USSR had 99.9% employment.

>unemployed people can easily exist simply by spending already earned money even without investment or other source of money, which can be gained in many ways like inheritance, credits or winning a lottery.

Inheritance and lottery are just the transfer of already existing value.

Credit cards is an ingenious way to delay the process I described by giving people more buying power. Its a form of private Keynesian economics. The problem remains and dept accumulates, the new generations have to carry that burden.

So from my understanding of your position, you have fallen to the trap of the mystification of money. You speak of money as if it exists purely for individuals' whim. The truth is, money is a commodity that has a specific exchange value. The reason nations don't just go "oh what dept, that's just a number that falls to individuals to interpret" or that there is a semistable relationship between different currencies show us that money has an objective value for society that changes over time due to changes in markets. Money is what it always used to be, a commodity that on itself expresses the values of all other commodities. In a specific timeframe, 1 unit of currency is equal to x units of any other commodity, of course you can buy and sell higher or lower than that but it doesn't change the fact that it would be crazy to ask for someone to buy a simple pen at the price of a simple car.


 No.93403

File: 5e1a09eff316bf8⋯.jpg (611.05 KB, 2000x984, 250:123, d7d5df32a5f6fc1ce5be75f8e0….jpg)

>>93399

>However the source of the commodities exchanged between businesses is labor.

Labor is just another commodity and each worker is his own business that sells it for profit.

>Can you please define what you think a command economy is

Form of economy that operates by limiting financial options of its subjects and forcing them to serve others as a substitute.

>Investments are products of income and not an additional source of it.

Not really, investments are actually the only source of reliable income and are the basis on which all businesses and economies are built. They are actually the reason people can trade their labor for something valuable on its own quite easily.

>Labor.

What

>USSR had 99.9% employment.

Good for them. Great thing it didn't count elderly and killed and jailed others.

>Inheritance and lottery are just the transfer of already existing value.

And it's a viable way to gain money, just like trading or reselling things.

>Credit cards is an ingenious way to delay the process I described by giving people more buying power. Its a form of private Keynesian economics.

Your room temp IQ is showing. Credits are a viable way to gain money and greatly aid in starting businesses, as well as being just another service and the most straightforward investment. "Private Keynsian economics" is an oxymoron and you saying this idiocy just prove illiteracy of leftyshits.

>The problem remains and dept accumulates, the new generations have to carry that burden.

You know how credits work, right? You just pay interest on top of the load you took, nobody else but you and only the fixed amount that was previously stated and at worst you burden your children, not some "future generations" and today you're even protected when you cannot return the money, despite the fact that it's theft and its support damages both the economy and businesses that participate in it, leading to worse services and conditions for customers.

>You speak of money as if it exists purely for individuals' whim

I'm not a marxist to do that. I speak of money as if it already exists and is not just created on business owners' whim, circulating around and serving as medium for trade, consumption and extraction of resources around people.

>The truth is, money is a commodity that has a specific exchange value

No, money is a commodity. That's it, exchange value is subjective and depends on many different factors but ultimately on the individual that exchanges it. Anything of value that is transferable and scarce can be money, some things are just better at it, like gold.

>The reason nations don't just go "oh what dept, that's just a number that falls to individuals to interpret"

What a complete non sequitur. I could say "the reason people defend their relatives is because they have objective obligation to" and it would have just as much substance as this joke of an argument.

>there is a semistable relationship between different currencies

Another non sequitur. "Scarce things that serve as a value medium are transferable therefore it proves that value is objective". Fucking hell.

>show us that money has an objective value for society

What a big pile of horseshit. "Society" is nothing but a sum of individuals and doesn't have some "objective opinion" or "value", do you even know what "objective" means?

>Money is what it always used to be, a commodity that on itself expresses the values of all other commodities

Not really, it's a commodity that is used a a medium. It does not "express values of other commodities" because their value is determined by the market and can only be found out by the market, not by observing the one commodity that you use to trade for others most often.

>In a specific timeframe, 1 unit of currency is equal to x units of any other commodity, of course you can buy and sell higher or lower than that but it doesn't change the fact that it would be crazy to ask for someone to buy a simple pen at the price of a simple car.

Third non sequitur. Currency is worth differently for different persons, in different places and in different situations, it has no "fixed" value, only generally accepted and common at best. You could easily trade a pen for a car to a person who needs it to sign an inheritance 10x as much, it's just such situations don't happen that often. Value is subjective and your strawman examples will never be able to prove otherwise, if only for the reason that they can only appeal to popularity.

You have just been throwing assumptions all over with no arguments to back them up, leaving points you lost and picking new ones with the same low effort response. I'm sick of your shit and this whole discussion has been a waste of time. Go fuck yourself and search another person to not have discussion with.


 No.93404

>>93403

Literally the "hurr durr prices aren't random which is why value is objective", lol.


 No.93408

>>93403

>Muh cringy SJWs

I'm anti idpol in the form it has taken in the modern US society. Idpolers are a bunch of liberals(both "left" and right wing) and fascists.

>Labor is just another commodity and each worker is his own business that sells it for profit.

A business is something specific, an individual can own a business he can't be one. Labor is indeed a commodity but we have different definitions of profit. Strangely I agree with the definition you provided on investopedia.

>Form of economy that operates by limiting financial options of its subjects and forcing them to serve others as a substitute.

That's every economy ever. What? You don't have enough money to do whatever you want? I guess this is a command economy.

>Not really, investments are actually the only source of reliable income and are the basis on which all businesses and economies are built. They are actually the reason people can trade their labor for something valuable on its own quite easily.

Again, you speak of money as this mysterious force that people want, without outlining the source.

>What

All the things you described are labor

>Good for them. Great thing it didn't count elderly and killed and jailed others.

Strawman. Employment only counts for those that society sees as the workforce.

>And it's a viable way to gain money, just like trading or reselling things.

>Muh magic income

Money doesn't grow on trees

>at worst you burden your children, not some "future generations"

<meanwhile private and state dept is skyrocketing everywhere

>Non sequitur

Just calling it that doesn't make you right. You have to explain why.

>What a big pile of horseshit. "Society" is nothing but a sum of individuals and doesn't have some "objective opinion" or "value", do you even know what "objective" means?

Society predates individuals. Every individual action, skill and thought is the product of each society. Objective is that which is not determined by an individual's opinion/though.

>their value is determined by the market

I can agree on that, the problem here is that you think that it is up to each individual preference. Marketing contradicts you.

>Currency is worth differently for different persons

No, with a specific amount of money I can buy the same amount of a commodity my neighbor can.

>in different places and in different situations

Agreed

>You could easily trade a pen for a car to a person who needs it to sign an inheritance 10x as much

Businesses don't depend on such opportunities to make profit, but on the set prices they put on their products.

>they can only appeal to popularity

What? I am in /liberty/ what are you talking about?

Also bourgeois economists hate Marxist economics because it provides a valid critique of the system they depend on.

You seem offended, did I hurt your feelings? Do you not get the satisfaction of owning the easy targets you commonly "destroy with reason and logic"?


 No.93409

>>93404

>Literally the "hurr durr prices aren't random which is why value is objective", lol.

It's not only that they are not random, but semistable. Individuals change their mind all the time on what they want or what they like.

Also, want is not quantifiable and thus can't determine something that is.


 No.93429

>>93408

>Objective is what is not determined by an individual

If you mean that individuals in plural can determinate something, and that becomes objective, you're dead wrong. That's intersubjective, not objective. If every living being believed that there was a snowman on the sun doesn't make it objectively so.


 No.93430

>>93429

Fine, we don't have to call it objective. I would suggest you watch this video by Paul Cockshott, where he presents proof of the LTV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q


 No.93442

>>93430

>they just keep shilling videos of this one fraud


 No.93443

>>93430

>cockshott

lol gay


 No.93444

>>93443

>>93442

How about addressing the points made on the video instead of not making arguments


 No.93445

>>93444

I'm tired of going in circles with someone who will never listen.


 No.93447

>>93445

I could have told you that 160 posts ago, anon, but I give you praise for being a far more patient man than I.


 No.93449

>>93430

By Goodhart's law, it is not permissible to use prices as indicative of individual choice when their manipulation is a policy target.


 No.93454

>>93449

But Marxist economics isn't about indicating individual choice. Can you be more specific?


 No.93455

>>93454

>Marxist economics isn't about indicating individual choice

Which is why Marxian economics always fail. Even your precious classes are made up of individuals, and if your theory cannot explain individual action it cannot explain human action of any sort.


 No.93456

>>93455

This is false. For a scientific theory to be true, it just needs to provide measurable predictions and for those predictions to be true.

For example, if a theory is created about the way ants tend to colonize, it wouldn't be false because it didn't take into account the intentions of individual ants, but only if the measurements provided where false.


 No.93457

>>93302

>That is correct.

It isn't. As mentioned it requires capital.

>…which was made through labor.

Labor requires energy via initial capital input. Labor is not the origin.

>Do you people really think a magic space god just "poofs" things into existence?

Do you think labor spontaneously generates?


 No.93458

>>93301

That is because of legislation that prevents the selling of expired food.


 No.93459

>>93300

> That leads to companies who don't get their products bought to fire workers, lowering the wages further. In the long term this leads to crisis.

A crisis cannot be reached in a competitive market in this instance. Refer to the above posts regarding saturated markets. The price mechanism prevents excessive supply.


 No.93460

>>93458

>That is because of legislation that prevents the selling of expired food.

It's not just food that is overproduced tho. Also, even without the legislation in place, food inevitably rots.

>A crisis cannot be reached in a competitive market in this instance. Refer to the above posts regarding saturated markets. The price mechanism prevents excessive supply.

But how are you making profit then? If you produce x commodities in a society and consumers are able to buy all of it, where does the profit come from?


 No.93462

>>93460

>food inevitably rots.

Not if it is consumed. Consumed goods != waste

>But how are you making profit then?

Profit would be zero, but that does not mean the market enters a crisis. It just remains stagnant.


 No.93463

>>93462

>Profit would be zero, but that does not mean the market enters a crisis. It just remains stagnant.

So, what if a business starts paying their workers less and gets a competitive advantage?


 No.93464

>>93462

What if a company gets a technological advantage and while it increases productivity, undercuts the rest?


 No.93465

>>93463

Highly unlikely as mentioned before with sticky wages. But for such occurrences, the company could lose employees to competitors.

>>93464

Other companies will follow suit. That is the essence of competition.


 No.93467

>>93465

I admit that in an ideal scenario without complications, this could work.

However, in a more realistic scenario, first of all it would be impossible to reach such a state, there would be corruption due to the unrestrained competition and the concentrated capital in successful businesses. Also, we have to consider that if profit is zero, capitalists lose their status and power and are paid according to their work, something that goes against their interest.


 No.93469

>>93467

>However, in a more realistic scenario, first of all it would be impossible to reach such a state,

Efficient market theory says otherwise.

>there would be corruption due to the unrestrained competition and the concentrated capital in successful businesses.

Pure speculation. Public relations and consumer reports in a competitive market act as deterrents against corrupt business practices. Capital accumulation is not the only nor dominant vehicle for competitive advantage.

>Also, we have to consider that if profit is zero, capitalists lose their status and power and are paid according to their work, something that goes against their interest.

We already showed you that capitalists do work by providing capital and taking risk. Capitalists are still capitalists whether profit is realized by the business or not.


 No.93472

>>93469

>Public relations and consumer reports in a competitive market act as deterrents against corrupt business practices.

What about owning the media and the press, and creating false images, not very differently than what happens today. What if you assassinated the competition's leadership? What guarantees that such actions would be spread to the public?

>Capital accumulation is not the only nor dominant vehicle for competitive advantage.

Actually it is, as it provides options that other smaller businesses don't have. Larger businesses are also more productive. Also the non existent copyright laws would mean that any successful product could and would be immediately reproduced by big businesses thus limiting innovation.

>We already showed you that capitalists do work by providing capital and taking risk. Capitalists are still capitalists whether profit is realized by the business or not.

Providing capital is not work. Capital is made of work, whether that is the person's owning it or not. Risk is not productive. If it was the case, monopolies that have an insignificant risk would not make profit.


 No.93473

File: bdf356cf2402921⋯.png (117.52 KB, 1535x419, 1535:419, Scientism_Explained.png)

File: a79ae9c54f7bdc2⋯.png (2.93 MB, 1716x1710, 286:285, scientists_then_vs_scienti….png)

>>93456

If those predictions don't hold to individuals, they aren't exactly true now, are they? You're also wrong on the scientific method, as most nu-intellectuals are. The scientific method is not for the genesis of theories, but for the confirming of them; without a conceptual explanation for why things happen it isn't considered a very good theory. This is why gravity is oft-cited as the "least understood" of the fundamental forces, despite the equations being well-developed and highly predictive, because we know nothing of what goes on under the hood.


 No.93474

>>93473

Before I take the time to answer, I must inform you that Einstein whose quote you're using was a socialist. Would recommend reading his article "Why socialism".


 No.93475

>>93474

I'm aware that Einstein was a socialist, and it has no bearing on my argument–physicists are not economists, and do not know how the economy works, as such one does is not obligated to hear their opinions on the economy. As a former student of the field, I speak from experience.


 No.93476

>>93472

>What about owning the media and the press, and creating false images

There are other competitive media outlets.

>What if you assassinated the competition's leadership?

Reductio ad absurdum. Good luck killing all your competitors.

>What guarantees that such actions would be spread to the public?

Whistleblowers, product tests, proof of compliance, etc.

>Actually it is,

It isn't. Otherwise small businesses would not be able to compete with conglomerates.

>Larger businesses are also more productive

Not always. See milliseconds of scale.

>Also the non existent copyright laws would mean that any successful product could and would be immediately reproduced by big businesses thus limiting innovation.

If that were true, generic brands would not exist. Usually it is the other way around in China where knockoff brands imitate the products of larger corporations that invested research in producing.

>Providing capital is not work. Capital is made of work,

These two statements are contradictory..

Providing work is work itself.

>Risk is not productive.

It is a necessary component in the production process, as I mentioned before.

> If it was the case, monopolies that have an insignificant risk would not make profit.

Monopolies all possess risk. They are reliant on the stability of the state, insurrections, black market. Also, lacking a price mechanism may cause an overestimation of demand and excess supply.


 No.93477

>>93473

On the Hayek quote:

Hayek here, ascribes to humans a metaphysical attribute, a free will not constrained by material reality. His accusation that of inability to isolate variables is very funny as he later goes on to fill in the variables with "human intention" as if that's quantifiable. You should go down this "inability to isolate variables" rabbit hole down to molecules, atoms and quarks to make any scientific theory by his logic.

His remarks on collectivism and history are on the same logic.

The second picture is just an appeal to authority and doesn't really make a point against my ideas. The quote of Einstein contradicts the theme of most of the other quotes. The ones I find particularly bad are Heisenberg's and Bohr's as they are idealistic. Btw there are interpretations of quantum physics other than the Copenhagen one.


 No.93478

>>93288

>We can however observe mass systemic actions and events and understand the system this way.

The knowledge is quite limited though. IT is like trying to apply Newtonian physics to the quantum level.

>society exists before the individual and forms the individual based on its current state.

It is the other way around. Individuals determine society. You are trying to apply a linear cause-and–effect explanation to a feedback loop. This also ignores outliers who do not follow societal cues.

>If Albert Einstein was born in a third world nation, he wouldn't be a genius(most probably).

He would still be a genius. He would just apply it to a different field.

>Would you mind if your nation was dominated by foreign capital?

Yes, if I lived in a developing nation.

>it happens because the market it is exported to is more suited for exploitation than the current one. This means that there is a higher rate of surplus value extraction potential in that market.

I already mentioned Sowell’s work on why Marx’s “surplus value” is speculative and ignores other components. Also, could you provide proof of this “exploitation”?

>The problem is, that the commodities produced can't be absorbed by the local market, as the increased extraction of surplus leaves the workers there with very little buying power

Commodities via a medium of exchange are traded for something of equal or higher value for the exporting nations. Comparative advantage explains how both trading nations become wealthier from these transactions than they would if no transaction took place. Local businesses compete with these corporate giants either reselling through a secondary market, producing inferior albeit more affordable products (substitute goods), or specializing in another market. There are also intermediary businesses that that deal business with this corporations.

>the state's purpose is to maintain the status quo.

The status quo is not capitalism.

>However you have to keep in mind that technological advancement is a production process itself.

And this production process and its labor component are dependent on supply and demand.

>The existence of unemployment is what matters.

The existence of unemployment represents a transition as the labor supply shifts in response to a demand shift. This does not explain outsourcing because outsourcing has existed in periods of low unemployment. Comparative advantage is what explains outsourcing.

> link

> 40 percent of American families struggled to meet at least one of their basic needs last year, including paying for food, health care, housing or utilities.

Even with these highly regulated sectors that supply these necessities, the fact that nearly all these families own luxuries shows us that these issues would be negligible if they prioritized their expense to meet these needs.


 No.93479

>>93291

> For something to be maximized isn't the same for it to be at max.

That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the rate of process improvement increasing. Increasing these projects increases the rate.

>That leaves you with a ton of strangers stuck together.

That leaves a group of strangers engaging in associations and “unstrangering” themselves.

> Who attributes the damages?

Courts or arbitration.

> Also how do you even attribute something of mass scale like climate change or the extinction of animals?

Get rid of the state since this the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions. Private reserves have been used for population control.

> Also, who sets the law?

Usually tradition or common law. Basically rulings from previous decisions.

> In the model we use, if there is a low supply for something the same thing happens.

If supply of coal in one geographic area is low, production picks up slack in other areas.

> The only reason that war happened was because multinationals needed to get in that market. You should read about the East India Company and the Opium wars.

No, the states wanted to enter into those wars to enrich themselves. EIC was a chartered company heavily invested by the state and was a branch of the state in all but name.

> The state is not primarily an economical institution and is ahistorical to define it as such

Regardless whether it is its primary function or not, the fact is the state holds a monopoly of force over a command economy, hence not capitalism.

>Engles quote

>”these classes with conflicting economic interests”

Classes are spooks, my man.


 No.93480

>>93477

You rather missed the point, of either picture, in its entirety. The point is that modern "scientism" and its single-minded obsession with the quantitative that is not grounded in conceptual theory has caused modern science to suffer, as its adherents look no farther than balancing the equation, rather than ensuring that the a priori reasoning behind the equation is sound. This is how we've ended up with entire institutions dedicated to "finding" dark matter, despite it being nothing more than a glorified placeholder variable, or fucking string theory. This relates to economics in that the Austrian school has embraced a priori argumentation, and strives to make sure there is a logical structure to their model, while Keynesians and science-worshipping Marxists have become slaves to the quantitative. By attempting to apply the scientific method to a priori principles you are making the same mistake.


 No.93481

>>93292

> Unlike feudalism and the early socialist republics, capitalism's crises are crises of overproduction

If that were true, stagflation would not exist since overproduction relative to demand would decrease prices. In order for you to be consistent, you would have to admit that stagflation is not a crisis of capitalism. Not to mention that I mentioned earlier that overproduction is highly improbable due to market saturation.

> That is, due to the huge productivity that capitalism has created and the increasing inability of the market to absorb that production,

Market situation means that there is no excess production.

> Big farmers(kulaks) hoarding grain and cattle and in some cases even destroying it to make sure the demand remained high.

Why won’t this kulak myth end?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/5tireh/did_rich_peasants_withhold_grain_during_the/

>A lower demand for the product of a company means less employment. The demand in a market is dependent on wages.

> but total demand is dependent on wages.

Yes, less employment in that market. However, businesses can branch into other markets and employment can shift elsewhere. Wages are determined by the supply and demand of the labor market


 No.93486

>>93473

In Dawkin's defense, he's an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist. His primary field of study is a lot more concrete and a lot less wishy washy than quantum physics.


 No.93489

File: bca91d9100a5840⋯.jpg (55.25 KB, 640x426, 320:213, Human Action.jpg)

>>92765

How can you cry MUH FEELZ N REELZ when economics is literally the science of feels?


 No.93495

>>93489

Because there's more to it than one's feelz.


 No.93496

>>93480

>The point is that modern "scientism" and its single-minded obsession with the quantitative that is not grounded in conceptual theory has caused modern science to suffer, as its adherents look no farther than balancing the equation, rather than ensuring that the a priori reasoning behind the equation is sound.

So, from what I understand what you mean with all this is that every theory has to be subjective. If I didn't understand correctly explain further what the a priori reasoning being sound means.

>Marxists have become slaves to the quantitative.

Not true at all. Marxist theory included such things as use value, which is qualitative. However that doesn't take the place of a variable of course.

>By attempting to apply the scientific method to a priori principles you are making the same mistake.

Which principles are those?


 No.93497

>>93476

>There are other competitive media outlets.

>Reductio ad absurdum. Good luck killing all your competitors.

Yes there can be competitive media, but the most successful businesses will be able to make more attractive media and control more of them. Assassination was just an example, there's a lot of ways to sabotage your competition.

>Whistleblowers, product tests, proof of compliance, etc.

Sure there can be such cases but that doesn't guarantee anything.

>It isn't. Otherwise small businesses would not be able to compete with conglomerates.

They can't in a free market.

>Not always. See milliseconds of scale.

Explain

>If that were true, generic brands would not exist. Usually it is the other way around in China where knockoff brands imitate the products of larger corporations that invested research in producing.

We don't live in a free market so making real world examples doesn't justify your case. Also without copyright laws there is no way to actual maintain a successful brand without dominating the market.

>>Providing capital is not work. Capital is made of work,

So what's wrong with slavery and feudalism?

>It is a necessary component in the production process, as I mentioned before.

You can't make the case that risk is productive tho. High risk doesn't always mean high reward or the opposite. It is an external factor. In a socialist economy you could produce competing products and keep producing the more successful, there is no requirement for risk.

>Monopolies all possess risk. They are reliant on the stability of the state, insurrections, black market. Also, lacking a price mechanism may cause an overestimation of demand and excess supply.

The risk is insignificant compared to competitive situations. That's exactly why trusts formed.


 No.93500

>>93478

>The knowledge is quite limited though. IT is like trying to apply Newtonian physics to the quantum level.

But we don't try to apply it to the quantum level. Marxism doesn't go down to individual scale. It is the subjective theory that is extrapolated to the level of society.

>It is the other way around. Individuals determine society. You are trying to apply a linear cause-and–effect explanation to a feedback loop. This also ignores outliers who do not follow societal cues.

Individuals do indeed determine society, but not as they would like. Individuals are not autonomous, even in an uncivilized condition, humans where interdependent.

>He would still be a genius. He would just apply it to a different field.

No, that's not the case. While he would still possess the potential at birth, he wouldn't be educated in the same way if at all, he wouldn't be able to theorize if he had to work all day and in the end he would end up dying as a normal guy.

>Also, could you provide proof of this “exploitation”?

Sure, let's make an example.

To make things clear, a capitalist is the person who owns capital and nothing else. If the capitalist manages his business or works in it, he is taking on the role of a worker and should be paid accordingly.

So, we have a capitalist with a big business and capital. Due to calculations by the economic team, a new investment is made. Employees manage everything from buying the land, infrastructure and raw resources, hiring workers, transferring products, sales etc. The money that the capitalist gets excluding wages and maintenance are not a fruit of his labor and therefore exploitation.

>Comparative advantage explains how both trading nations become wealthier from these transactions than they would if no transaction took place

This would be the case if each nation was independent(economically). Also how do you explain the working conditions in the third world?

>The status quo is not capitalism.

Why even call your theoretical model capitalism if capitalism is being used as a term long before your theory came about? Also yes, the status quo is not free market capitalism.

>And this production process and its labor component are dependent on supply and demand.

Supply and demand mean nothing without production in the first place.

>The existence of unemployment represents a transition as the labor supply shifts in response to a demand shift. This does not explain outsourcing because outsourcing has existed in periods of low unemployment. Comparative advantage is what explains outsourcing.

Agreed.

>Even with these highly regulated sectors that supply these necessities, the fact that nearly all these families own luxuries shows us that these issues would be negligible if they prioritized their expense to meet these needs.

That might be true for some of them.


 No.93501

>>93479

>That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the rate of process improvement increasing. Increasing these projects increases the rate.

This seems correct

>That leaves a group of strangers engaging in associations and “unstrangering” themselves.

No, not really. Because there is a free market doesn't mean people will associate more with each other.

>Courts or arbitration.

How are such courts monetized? What prevents a big business from "donating" large sums of money to the court? Who enforces the decisions?

>If supply of coal in one geographic area is low, production picks up slack in other areas.

In the meantime coal production is reduced leading to damage in coal dependent sectors.

>No, the states wanted to enter into those wars to enrich themselves. EIC was a chartered company heavily invested by the state and was a branch of the state in all but name.

EIC constantly traded with english companies, whether it was a state or not it benefited them. Also if everything was going fine before, why go to war? Colonization gave competitive advantage to the countries engaged in it and their companies.

>Regardless whether it is its primary function or not, the fact is the state holds a monopoly of force over a command economy, hence not capitalism.

This sounds very similar to the "not true socialism" left you criticize (I'm not one of them). A state can exist without being a welfare state, therefore we can deduce that the welfare function of a state is 1)not a necessary part of it and 2)the welfare state is good at maintaining the status quo.

>Classes are spooks, my man.

Yeah I'm sure there's no difference between a slave and a master or a proletarian and a capitalist. Worker strikes don't happen. The October revolution was just capitalists taking control from other capitalists.


 No.93502

>>93497

>They can't in a free market

Yes they can.

>We don't live in a free market so making real world examples doesn't justify your case

That excuse only works if not being in a free market changes the thing in question.

>Also without copyright laws there is no way to actual maintain a successful brand without dominating the market

As the first person to come out with a product you have a head start.


 No.93506

>>93502

>That excuse only works if not being in a free market changes the thing in question.

But it does change the things in question. In a free market those products would be allowed to be identical to the original and sold everywhere.

>As the first person to come out with a product you have a head start.

Have you ever heard of corporate espionage? Also, it doesn't matter if a small business gets a head start, a big business has the means to propagate their products further and more successfully.


 No.93507

>>93506

>In a free market those products would be allowed to be identical to the original and sold everywhere

If I am not Bob and don't have Bob's permission, I cannot make beer that is identical to Bob's beer and sell it in identical packaging because that's fraud.

>Have you ever heard of corporate espionage

because Taco Bell is totally going to break into your dinky fucking food truck to steal your family recipe for guacamole.

Also, it doesn't matter if a small business gets a head start, a big business has the means to propagate their products further and more successfully

it would still be an uphill battle in areas where the small business operates.


 No.93509

>>93507

>If I am not Bob and don't have Bob's permission, I cannot make beer that is identical to Bob's beer and sell it in identical packaging because that's fraud.

Ok, maybe the packaging changes, but the product remains the same. You could also make similar products alongside the identical ones, like what coca cola company does with their sodas.

>because Taco Bell is totally going to break into your dinky fucking food truck to steal your family recipe for guacamole.

>implying Taco Bell cares about that specific recipe

So, yes if that specific recipe is so successful they could attempt to acquire it or buy them out. Also by small business I don't only mean local but also upcoming competitors.

>it would still be an uphill battle in areas where the small business operates.

Big business has access to better technology, more trained employees, better marketing etc. There could be some small businesses that operate in a small area but they wouldn't pose a threat.


 No.93621

>>92771

>Why should the opinion of some schmuck on the other side of the world affect how much I personally am willing to pay for something?

How does this not always happen? If everyone on Earth thinks a burger costs a dollar, and you initially want to pay a hundred dollars for a burger, you'll probably fucking change your mind once you realize you can buy it for only a dollar.

The only question is why the burger costs a dollar. Is it because it's just everyone's opinion, man? Or is it because the burger objectively took a dollar of materials and labor time to make?


 No.93626

>>93621

>you initially want to pay a hundred dollars for a burger

You initially want a burger, up to the point of willing to pay even 100$ for it. If it costs less it won't make you want it less you lying faggot.

>Is it because it's just everyone's opinion, man? Or is it because the burger objectively took a dollar of materials and labor time to make?

False dichotomy again, you demagogic cunt. A burger costs as much as the seller says and most sellers sell them for a relatively similar because of the competition that drives prices to a point. How close the point will be to their initial cost depends on amount of demand that drives competition forward.


 No.93627

>>93621

>you'll probably fucking change your mind once you realize you can buy it for only a dollar.

>I don't know what consumer surplus is

Don't be at retard. You want a burger, and are willing to pay up to X amount for it, but for obvious reasons will take a lower price for it. If the price increases to $50, a bunch of people will choose not to buy the burger because they don't value it that much, but you and a couple other weirdos would still buy it. If the price increases to $100, you would be the only one willing to pay because you're the only dumb fuck who would give up $100 for a burger. Markets clear at the price where the number of sellers willing to sell and the number of buyers willing to pay is equal.

>Or is it because the burger objectively took a dollar of materials and labor time to make?

Two burgers, one was created in the normal fashion but the other one was cooked buy some old guy with Parkinson's and took twice as long because. Are you willing to pay more for the latter than the former, despite them being identical in all other respects? There are two identical burgers, with identical production costs, one costs $5 and is right next to you, the other you can get for $4.99 but it's fifty miles away, why are people willing to pay more for the closer one despite the other being cheaper? Two identical burgers with identical production costs, you can get one now for $5, or you can get the other one a month from now for $4.99, why are people willing to get the one available now despite the other being cheaper? Maybe it's because prices are reflective of the subjective preferences of those invovled with the transaction and not your retarded declarations.


 No.93628

>>93627

That's not how reality works.

First of all for someone to even be able to buy anything, someone has to sell something on the market. Most people can only sell their labor and thus get a wage.

People don't make those evaluations outside of the marketplace. You can't value a burger at 100$ if you don't know how much income you have and how much other commodities cost. When you enter the market, there's prices already set. So it is the prices and the wages paid that determine the demand, not some metaphysical preference.

Two burgers, one was created in the normal fashion but the other one was cooked buy some old guy with Parkinson's and took twice as long because. Are you willing to pay more for the latter than the former, despite them being identical in all other respects?

No

>There are two identical burgers, with identical production costs, one costs $5 and is right next to you, the other you can get for $4.99 but it's fifty miles away, why are people willing to pay more for the closer one despite the other being cheaper?

Most possibly no, if you live in a first world country, because the value of 0.01$ is very small compared to what a person spends daily.

>Two identical burgers with identical production costs, you can get one now for $5, or you can get the other one a month from now for $4.99, why are people willing to get the one available now despite the other being cheaper?

For the reason stated above.

My point: Your theory obscures the main component of capitalism, production for exchange. The reason people might or might not make a decision is always based on their wage and them selling their labor power, which they are forced to do, to partake in the market and cover their sustenance.


 No.93629

>>90720

>i haven't actually read marxist economics or made any attempt to understand it but here's a strawman

benis tbh


 No.93630

>>93628

>People don't make those evaluations outside of the marketplace.

>preferences don't exist outside the marketplace

>opportunity cost don't real

>scarcity don't real

Imagine being this retarded.


 No.93631

>>93630

>Avoiding the argument while taking potshots without explanations


 No.93636

File: c1f18d5792eedbc⋯.jpg (51.99 KB, 644x598, 14:13, _j6z_RlvzIc.jpg)

>>93631

>argument

You don't have, you just dodge points and throw in empty claims and don't deserve a response with any effort. You're just laughed at.


 No.93642

A problem with supply curves and demand curves is that they are usually not observed at a point in time. What is observed at a point in time is a price-quantity point, a pair of curves (chosen arbitrarily out of thousands possible) can then be drawn through that point. Several price-quantity points can be observed over time, but to interpret these points as revealing underlying fixed curves requires making a ton of assumptions about how the market is connected to the rest of the economy, which is rarely made explicit.

While it is intuitively plausible as a rule of thumb that demand goes up when unit price goes down, the other econ101 standard assumption that production cost per unit rises when quantity produced rises is extremely unrealistic. Per-unit cost usually stays the same or falls when production is increased, the rising costs per unit occur when you are already operating very close to max capacity and then you try to quickly increase that.

The "theory" of supply and demand is used to explain trades after they occurance, it is lacking in predictive power. And it doesn't illuminate anything to say after a trade that the seller was OK with selling for that price and the buyer was OK with paying that (as if that were news to anybody) and then to draw a diagram with curves corresponding to the price-quantity point we already know and pretending to have knowledge of many other such points when it is just speculation about mind states.

>>93008

>>Economic demand is defined as the willingness and ability of consumers to pay for a good.

>No, its the willingness and desire

If you define demand in a way that is independent of the money people have, you move even farther away from anything that could be empirically verified. Just ask any business that does demand forecasts whether ability to pay is part of what constitutes real demand.

In the real world, a business can't rely on having creditors forever no matter what it does. Firms have to cover their costs. Firms can be autarchies in a financial sense, but they are not in the physical sense. They have to get some inputs from others, others rely on their outputs. This interdependence means there are technical/structural constraints to what price ratios of mass-produced items and services can be.


 No.93643

>>93642

>A problem with supply curves and demand curves is that they are usually not observed at a point in time.

They don't need to be observed. It's part visual aid and part thought experiment based in conceptual theory, but of course worshippers of the quantitative wouldn't understand that.

>the other econ101 standard assumption that production cost per unit rises when quantity produced

That's not an econ101 "standard assumption" you tard.

>The "theory" of supply and demand is used to explain trades after they occurance

Wow, it's almost like there's more to the entire school of economics than a single graph you half-remember from high school. Funny how that works.

>If you define demand in a way that is independent of the money people have, you move even farther away from anything that could be empirically verified. Just ask any business that does demand forecasts whether ability to pay is part of what constitutes real demand.

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?


 No.93644

>>93627

>Markets clear at the price where the number of sellers willing to sell and the number of buyers willing to pay is equal.

You probably meant to say they clear at the price where the number of units people are willing to sell and the number of units people are willing to buy is equal.

Can you actually observe this hamburger-market clearing in the real world? You can only make partial observations. If the majority of burgers are rotting away in storage, you figure that's not market clearing. If everything gets sold, you do not observe that this is exactly the quantity people are willing to buy at the price, your knowledge is more fuzzy, namely that their demand at that price is equal to or higher than the quantity they bought. This applies not to a unique clearing price, but a range of prices. Now, a hamburger-chain usually operates in a continuous fashion, they don't start with a full shelf that's never restocked and then disappear when the last thing is taken from the shelf. They have to meet their running costs. So… can the prices just be anything based on individual feelings or not?

>Two burgers, one was created in the normal fashion but the other one was cooked buy some old guy with Parkinson's and took twice as long because. Are you willing to pay more for the latter than the former, despite them being identical in all other respects?

Of course not. The business which employs both guys has to cover its costs. So, mathematically, one fast guy and one slow guy have the productivity as if they were two average guys, and this virtual-abstract-labor-dude cost strongly influences pricing.

>There are two identical burgers, with identical production costs, one costs $5 and is right next to you, the other you can get for $4.99 but it's fifty miles away

Location is part of what the product is, both in Marxist and Neoclassical econ. So these count as two different products. (Same with differences in delivery date.)

>Maybe it's because prices are reflective of the subjective preferences

And yet, you are certain which way the people will decide in these examples without providing a utility x-ray of their minds and you expect the reader to decide the same way based on common sense about how people in general act, which undermines your very point about it being subjective. There are objectively costs involved in obtaining something fifty miles away (like gasoline), and the price difference doesn't cover that.

>>93643

>>the other econ101 standard assumption that production cost per unit rises when quantity produced

>That's not an econ101 "standard assumption" you tard.

Rising marginal production cost, hence rising supply curve. This is standard econ101.


 No.93648

>LTV is wrong because I'm too stupid to figure out what it is

bravo /liberty/


 No.93664

File: 90020aa799658e9⋯.jpeg (200.16 KB, 1040x1058, 520:529, E335738B-1D8E-4ACD-A6E5-1….jpeg)

>>92898

Fuck off, I was actually interested in that debate and you had to go shit it up with your idiotic anecdotes and total non addressal of the commie’s arguements and all those strawmen, just fuck off tbh


 No.93668

File: f3990d12bd5cb20⋯.jpeg (99.65 KB, 638x1000, 319:500, 581CCD18-7B14-4E6E-9414-9….jpeg)

>>92897

You literally just said that for the car example, it is valued higher due to outside objective factors (resources and time, labour being required to extract resources to be used in production, and time being the fucking time it takes for LABOUR to create), instead of subjective factors. You then put the final nail into your own coffin by saying the entrepreneur must impose a minimum price on it, DUE TO the value required to produce it. Price does not always reflect value, and this is where the basis for your entire argument falls apart. Also, it seems pretty obvious that this is an egotistical circlejerk of libertarians just wanting to pwn the commies instead of a debate for mutual edification, so I won’t reply any further.


 No.93670

>>92937

>mean and average are the same

Just pointing out the cerebral giants commies are up against in /liberty/.


 No.93677

>>92898

>>92898

>guys you should read my analysis, this is how the capitalist mode of production works

>durr, well, does this mean communism doesn't have production then, btfo Marx

How much of a fucking brainlet can you possibly be? Marx was too good for this world, he actually thought people wouod understand his groundbreaking critique, but fucking retards like you won't won't even try.


 No.93679

File: 33d695d82561f87⋯.png (38.24 KB, 309x397, 309:397, 1488123452410.png)

>>93677

>in ancap who will build the roads?

>in ancap who will give me a home if I'm homeless?

>in ancap who will enforce the 2-hour work week?

>in ancap who will find me a gf?

>in ancap who will pay for my sex-change?

>in ancap who will help the unemployed and uneducated starving black one-armed Muslim hipsters without any family or loved ones who are also being robbed of their wages by capitalists while having gay unprotected sex while falling out of a helicopter?

>capitalists just don't care!!!

Read a book, retard.


 No.93682

>>93626

>>93627

I can't believe that you're the same fags always whining about fiat. If money is literally just whatever you feel like, then the value of gold is totally subjective too! In contrast, Marx goes on for like a hundred fucking pages about why gold is the ideal commodity to use as currency, because it has labor value in it…


 No.93683

>>93670

>no refutation

>I know, I'll play around with semantics! Those darn ancaps will finally take me seriously now!

>>93682

> then the value of gold is totally subjective too!

And? If you think subjectivity is the root of Austrian objections to fiat money you really have no comprehension of ABCT or monetary theory. At least the NEETSoc spergs make an effort, half-assed as it is, to process arguments.


 No.93685

Ancaps ITT:

>U cant kno nuthin


 No.93686

File: 61313f7b213ddcb⋯.jpg (36.05 KB, 350x209, 350:209, amputeesock.jpg)

>>90720

LIBERTY BTFO


 No.93687

>>93683

Mean and average are not the same thing. Unlike average, mean is not 'thrown off' by outliers. Other than that I have no interest in engaging in a discussion with you. Any refutation of your points, regardless of the logic, the facts, the evidence, you will fight against it. After you're out of memorised arguments for capitalism you will start ridiculing and insulting. I've been through the motions too many times and I know better.


 No.93688

>>93643

>They don't need to be observed. It's part visual aid and part thought experiment based in conceptual theory

How can you tell its true then?

>there's more to the entire school of economics than a single graph

That's what the Marxist side has been arguing, you are the ones referring to supply and demand like its everything there is.

>Reading comprehension

Someone that has no money doesn't affect market demand. To affect demand, someone has to sell their labor power first, thus demand is directly connected to production.


 No.93689

>>92937

>>Need does not equal demand

>Yes it does.

A few sentences later, in the same post:

>>Also because there is demand for something doesn't mean there's need for it

>I'm not talking about need here, I'm talking about demand.

-_-;

How about this definition: Demand is the quantity asked for at a particular price.


 No.93690

>>93688

>That's what the Marxist side has been arguing, you are the ones referring to supply and demand like its everything there is.

It's not all there is, it's just all you need to refute commie retardation. You become economically literate, your get to start seeing other arguments.


 No.93691

>>93690

It is not "just all you need to refute" Marxism, it is the only thing you have against it, and it is false. Everything else in your theory depends on this to be true.


 No.93693

File: 9fe4afc0af9b23a⋯.jpg (41.01 KB, 420x387, 140:129, Smug_Neimoidian.jpg)

>>93687

>come to foreign board

>make the same circular non-arguments as every other /trannypol/ refugee that stumbles in here

>Y U NO SRS ARGUMENTS?!


 No.93694

>>93693

>No arguments left, starts insulting instead


 No.93703

>>93688

>That's what the Marxist side has been arguing

…and the anti-Marxist side. Dude may have sucked, but he's still the go-to guy to make money.


 No.93705

File: 2844a402557a4c6⋯.jpg (8.09 KB, 189x292, 189:292, 2844a402557a4c64f13ddb5ccd….jpg)

>>93668

>stop proving me wrong or you're a circlejerk

>>93670

>mean is not average


 No.93706

>>93689

I need food, I demand food as a consumer. I need water, I demand food as a consumer. I do not need a gaming PC, but I still demand it as a consumer. Need equals demand, but demand does not equal need.


 No.93707

>>93706

Can you define demand?


 No.93708

>>93707

It's already been defined in this thread


 No.93709

>>93708

Well, demand is defined as the will to buy a commodity at a certain price, therefore it's not just need.


 No.93711

>>93670

Do you perhaps mean the mode of a distribution when you say mean?

>>93690

Given that supply and demand are already mentioned in Capital by Karl Marx, who had read the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and who engaged with the writings of over a dozen pro-capitalist writers in his magnum opus, I don't see what makes you think that all you need to do is repeatedly say "muh supply and demand nigguh" to refute communists. The question by Marx wasn't whether supply and demand exists as an adjusting mechanism in states out of balance, it was about what describes the economy in balance. The answer to that is price-ratio relations that allow reproduction, meaning the prices must be compatible with the physical constraints of the process. That these equilibrium prices would be closely related to work costs does not look like a particularly wild statement to me.

>>93706

>Need equals demand, but demand does not equal need.

Does everybody ITT have his own eccentric dictionary? What you are saying looks like this to most people: "N = D is true, but D = N is false." What you probably meant to say is: Need implies demand, but demand does not imply need. But that's still pretty silly. What you can demand in the market is constrained by how much money you got. So, given that, the statement "need implies demand" can only be true if people without money don't need anything. Which is a pretty bizarre statement, so once again you have the option to take a word ("need") and make an entry in your own secret dictionary where words mean whatever you want them to mean (and in your head, you win discussions all the time because your private dictionary turns into lunacy and gibberish what normal people consider believable and even obvious statements)… or you could just say: OK, for a given unit price, demand is the amount potential buyers ask for.


 No.93714

>>92966

Russia implemented socialism, it didn't implement communism


 No.93715

>>93711

>The answer to that is price-ratio relations that allow reproduction, meaning the prices must be compatible with the physical constraints of the process.

>the physical constraints of the process

>would be closely related to work costs

Nice half-truth you got there, production costs are far more than just work and can even exclude it.

>What you can demand in the market is constrained by how much money you got

What you can buy in market is constrained but what you are willing to pay for is not, even if market doesn't offer it. That's literally what this whole thread was about and you still shoehorn your own definition into our arguments you decisive lying bitch.


 No.93716

>>93714

learn reading comprehension you illiterate retard.


 No.93717

>>93715

>What you can buy in market is constrained but what you are willing to pay for is not

Do you mean what somebody is willing to pay is independent of what they can pay? Do you really believe that's a sensible statement?


 No.93721

>>93717

>Do you mean what somebody is willing to pay is independent of what they can pay?

Do not put words in my mouth, faggot. Somebody will pay for something only if this something is more valuable for him than other options and if its cost is affordable. What is valuable and what is not is decided by the demand while how much can be bought is decided by his resources. Willingness to pay does not constitute ability to pay and ability to pay or get anything does not determine one's willingness, only what elements of it are realized and acquired. Nobody can be that stupid to not get this after all this writing so you are only here to shitpost and should fuck off to your rotten shit infested board.


 No.93723

>>93711

>man-hours are a component of some production costs therefore all value is derived from it

You took a lot of words to say something so abjectly stupid. You really are a follower of Marx, you have his skill for brevity.


 No.93725

>>93721

>Somebody will pay for something only if this something is more valuable for him than other options and if its cost is affordable.

Indeed. As was said by the Marxists: >>93007 >>93689 And the Confederacy flag guy disagreed with that.

>Nobody can be that stupid to not get this after all this writing so you are only here to shitpost

But again, the Marxists defined it like you just did. So, are you saying that the Confederacy guy is only here to troll or so stupid that it puts him outside of the human race?

>>93723

It was neither claimed in that post nor by Marx that price is always and everywhere perfectly proportional to labor cost.


 No.93727

>>93709

If you need something, it tends to translate into market demand


 No.93728

>>93711

> What you can demand in the market is constrained by how much money you got

No it isn't. I've already been over this.


 No.93730

>>93727

You really believe people have mental states about what they want that are completely independent of how much money they have, and that these mental state translate into effective(!) demand. Incredible.

Meanwhile in the real world, a man is searching for a flat. His decision is constrained by price. He doesn't form a mental ranking of all the flats in the world. He considers a radius around where his job is, and he doesn't even consider all offered flats within that, but only everything below a certain monthly cost. If he had a higher income, he would include more things in that ranking, probably some of that would be ranked above the flat that's currently 1st place in his mind. He doesn't have a full ranking of flats he deletes too expensive stuff from before making the buying decision, and it would be even more crazy to believe he magically translates that full ranking into effective demand for flat number 1.


 No.93733

>>93730

>a man is searching for a flat

That is demand, you autist. If there wasn't a demand for a flat he wouldn't even think of them. How much mental gymnastics does one have to go through to ignore this obvious fact after being pointed at it so many times.


 No.93734

>>93730

>You really believe people have mental states about what they want that are completely independent of how much money they have

You don't believe this?

>and that these mental state translate into effective(!) demand

If a burger sells for 3 bucks and there are a bunch of people who would like one but could only afford it at 2 bucks or less, the business that can lower the price of their product will be rewarded with new consumers. These potential customers are helping drive innovation.


 No.93736

File: 5473babb0cce08d⋯.jpeg (2.63 MB, 3024x3024, 1:1, 3D7AF3B3-415C-4D59-ADD9-3….jpeg)

Socks are fun


 No.93739

File: 801bda3cf6fba7c⋯.jpg (6.12 KB, 250x242, 125:121, 1443437344907.jpg)

GUYS WE WERE TOTALLY BTFO BY /LEFTYPOL/, THEY EVEN REPOSTED IT OVER THERE

CAPITALISM IS OVER

>>>/leftypol/2721086

>communists don't even know how to link


 No.93740

>>93715

>production costs are far more than just work and can even exclude it.

And guess where the production costs come from… from the amount of work it took to provide the machines, materials, etc.


 No.93741

File: d0513ad3914db86⋯.jpg (10.28 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 1542154573450.jpg)

>>93739

>Marxist destroys Ancaps with logic and reason

How did we fail so epicly, bros?


 No.93747

>>93714

>Russia implemented socialism

…in Feburary.

>>93739

Y'all mostly brought this on yourselves, TBH. When you have to argue a pretend, utterly-nonexistent "other side" because you yourselves believe your arguments have no independent merit…

…well, just look at most of the posts on this board. Or the OP.


 No.93750

>>93705

>mean is average

You haven't even finished grade school maths and bitch about how everyone else is dumb.Is this the power of /liberty/? Absolutely Dunning-kruger.


 No.93753

This post >>93668 totally BTFO's this poster >>92897 but this guy >>93705 who is probably the BTFO'd fag just doesn't get it.

>More resources and time are needed to produce it, which increases the minimum price

is literally what the commies in this thread have been arguing.


 No.93755

>>93734

Or a smart burger salesman will ramp up the price to $15, serve the burger in a brown paper bag, redo the inside of the burger place with salvaged pallets and old metal signs and put a mustache on their logo. Bam! Marketing! Same $3 burger for $15. Capitalism is wonderful, isn't it? :)


 No.93756

File: 004313a35d829db⋯.png (169.31 KB, 500x329, 500:329, the-soyboy-starter-pack-be….png)

File: cd76437f1473da8⋯.png (171.11 KB, 630x384, 105:64, cd76437f1473da8975fce3743a….png)

>>93755

>petty marketing tricks

>useless overpriced garbage.

Isn't that the kind of shit that leftists always fall head over heels for? The reason you actually despise it all so much is because you didn't get enough of daddy's money to afford it yourself, so you envy those who do. This is the main difference between hardcore socialists and the liberals you try to distance yourself from so much.


 No.93761

>>93756

>useless overpriced garbage

>you're just jealous you couldn't afford it

Why would I want to overpay for useless garbage? This just goes on to show that a mental state of permanent cognitive dissonance is the only way one can be a right-winger/capitalist/classical liberal/ancap/whatever-you-snowflakes-want-to-call-yourself-next. Every time a label gets a negative connotation you hide behind another one.


 No.93766

>>93755

A "the free market is not a magic efficient hand" argument? Or did the persun-of-sales do $12 worth of labor, which will be worth any other $12 of labor once the free market redirects labor to its most profitable expenditure?

There is NO attack that is not an attack on the free market.


 No.93768

>>93755

I don't really know what point you're trying to make other than perhaps making fun of trendy restaurants and the people who go to them.

Either way it is not the same burger clearly even if the physical characteristics are the same. A meal eaten in a pleasant environment is not the same as a meal eaten in an unpleasant environment even if the meal is the same.


 No.93771

>>90720

It would probably keep their stumps warm, I'm sure that's the reason.


 No.93774

>>93733

I suggest you read again that post you "replied" to.

>>93734

>If a burger sells for 3 bucks and there are a bunch of people who would like one but could only afford it at 2 bucks or less, the business that can lower the price…

The position you are rambling against is that people aren't born with a static and complete wish list in their heads that is independent of how much money they'll ever have in any situation. You misinterpret that as the belief the scope of one's thought terminating exactly at how much money they have in their pocket, so what you say is not an actual counter-example.


 No.93777

File: 265d824879f82ea⋯.jpg (317.84 KB, 714x960, 119:160, 2a30d77818d76bb76c04de4575….jpg)

>>93761

>Why would I want to overpay for useless garbage?

You tell me, bruh, why do modern leftists have a fridge full of soylent, a closet full of dragon dildos, a video game console made from cardboard boxes, and a browsing history full of cuck porn?


 No.93779

>>93777

Okay, now this is epic.


 No.93780

>>93777

>this much bait

Everyone knows leftists have a fridge full of cuck porn, a closet full of cardboard, a console made with dildos, and a browsing history full of soylent.


 No.93782

>>90720

You are confusing use value with exchange value.

Clearly it has no use value to the amputee. But, it has use value to non-amputees, therefore it is socially necessary, in capitalist terms, there is a demand for it in society.

Does the amputee not needing it remove the use value to the rest of society?

If everyone in society were an amputee then socks would not have use value and therefore it would not have exchange value.

By saying all this I have said nothing about "labor". Does it require labor to produce the sock? I mean someone else's labor not your own. The answer is yes.

The sock is socially necessary and it requires other people's labor.

Compare this to oxygen. Oxygen requires only your labor (breathing), it requires nobody else's labor besides your own. It is not a scarce commodity. Therefore oxygen has no exchange value.


 No.93786

>>93739

And i really wondered why is this thread so shit up with the same repeated responses. Guess /leftypol/ has grown so shitty that they raid 3 posts/day boards now.

Oh well, stop replying to these stupid fucks and they'll fuck off. Don't waste your time and don't waste this boards traffic, you will achieve nothing.


 No.93790

>>93786

>Tries to blame his defeated theory on /leftypol/ raid.

<This thread is much older than the /leftypol/ one

>Can't make substantial arguments

>Calls it waste of traffic


 No.93794

>>93790

Sure thing. Now fuck off.


 No.93795

>>93794

Such a small mind. Tiny.


 No.93798

>>93782

Yeah. Prices of mass-produced items usually don't have much to do with personal utility. You can read that in Marx (or Adam Smith). OP himself brought up an example for that, and immediately stopped thinking at that point. If prices usually don't have that much to do with utility, how much can markets contribute to quality of life? OP doesn't care. He doesn't want to be challenged on anything. It's like a mini socjus twitter, just some circlejerk with three people patting each other on the back and being snarky about everything. The act of engaging in any argument whatsoever is seen as a personal attack.


 No.93802

Labor value is the most retarded shit ever, as already proved in this thread and in lots of books.

Leftists are retarded, its like a Christian creating whole theory for rock sedimentary beds that fits the biblical flood.

They will the defend something that is wrong and proved wrong because is religious fervor and not rational thinking.


 No.93805

>>93802

Do you even understand the Marxist position?

Btw I love your creationist example, as it fits perfectly with the subjective theory, a theory created only because the Law of Value was problematic for the interests of capitalism.


 No.93806

>>93802

Well Christianity is as much of a mind-virus as communism is.


 No.93807

>>93802

>>93806

>Baseless statements

>No arguments


 No.93808

>>93802

>lots of books

>my side has the more valuable arguments because we spend so much time writing these texts

Keep quiet or you'll get helicoptered for saying that.


 No.93812

File: c368eb7e7b7e9e4⋯.png (165.93 KB, 663x304, 663:304, c368eb7e7b7e9e4944c9945ac0….png)

>>93802

>in lots of books

Ayn Rand was a hack


 No.93816

>>93812

>Libertarians are randroids. The only libertarian book out there is Atlas Shrugged.

At this point, I just want to egg you on to post more, because if you make arguments that are that one-dimensional, I don't even have to argue back. I can just bring third parties to this thread read how ridiculous your arguments are and come to their own conclusion.


 No.93819

File: 5156d2999a07bff⋯.jpg (12.51 KB, 396x263, 396:263, 1530766944355.jpg)

>>93816

>At this point, I just want to egg you on to post more, because if you make arguments that are that one-dimensional, I don't even have to argue back. I can just bring third parties to this thread read how ridiculous your arguments are and come to their own conclusion.


 No.93822

File: 744928db557c532⋯.png (187.2 KB, 720x471, 240:157, 1470536147705.png)

faggots


 No.93823

File: 3ed0b7c5e1097bc⋯.png (166.82 KB, 1180x530, 118:53, 1470544742049-0.png)


 No.93824

File: f958139478f9de6⋯.png (923.01 KB, 1280x1163, 1280:1163, 1470544742049-1.png)

ITT


 No.93828

File: a8519c5f0c8ff26⋯.jpg (42.07 KB, 960x643, 960:643, failure.jpg)


 No.93830

File: b510f124764e8e0⋯.mp4 (4.26 MB, 490x360, 49:36, 1446080929059-0.mp4)


 No.93831

File: fa2b310ff999843⋯.jpg (803.13 KB, 853x1009, 853:1009, 1446664432912-1.jpg)


 No.93834

>>93828

Believing Soviet statistics.


 No.93836

File: e1426bd7aff232b⋯.png (177.78 KB, 1330x591, 1330:591, 1446664828083-0.png)

File: 9e5e407a433e778⋯.gif (5.69 MB, 500x500, 1:1, 1455683218971.gif)

File: 1152c4c1efb40e2⋯.jpg (63.54 KB, 373x523, 373:523, 1459385192731.jpg)

File: befac961ee2af85⋯.jpg (50.01 KB, 736x500, 184:125, 1469621078196.jpg)


 No.93838

This is now a two thread discussion. On /leftypol/ we've been talking about this thread in a thread of their own.

http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/leftypol/res/2721086.html

>>93836

It humors me that the richest guy looks Jewish.


 No.93840

>why is gold so expensive, I don't even wear jewellery


 No.93841

>>93834

>thinking the massive industrialisation of the soviet economy was imaginary


 No.93845

>be me, small business owner and tailor

>own a dry cleaning business that also sells a small selection of haberdashery and shoe polish

>cripple comes in just before closing time

>smells bad, appears homeless.

>wearing a stained "Dont Tread On Me" yellow tee shirt

>produces his old uniform out of a trash bag and asks if we offer a military discount.

>tell him we don't, our price is $16.75 for the jacket and wasitcoat like this plus $6 each for the pants and shirt

>he tells me he will have to take his business elsewhere

>looks under the counter where I am standing

>"How about those striped socks"

> "Let me check the tag for you", I walk around the counter and point to the clearly visible price tag that says 6.99 "six ninety-nine"

>he points to his stubs

>"I only have one foot, I demand half price"

>"I'm sorry sir but they are six ninety-nine"

>"I only value them half as much as your usual customer"

>tell him i'm sorry about his disability but I have to charge full price

>He produces a copy of *Human Action* from his trash bag and begins to read aloud

>I tell him to please leave if he is not going to buy anything

>He throws the book at me and tells me that we are on a desert island

>I tell him i'm calling the police

>Says that is unnecessary, he will leave on his own.

>asks me to help him with the door

>I open the door and go to pick up the book from the ground

>He says i'm violating the NAP

>Produces an ar-15 from his trash bag and shoots me

>Die

>Meet Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and Engels in the after life

>They all agree with me that value is objective and the vet was in the wrong to demand half price


 No.93846

>>93840

>Soviet Union

>Socialism


 No.93850

>>93780

woah dude thats fucking epic


 No.93851

File: 2469753da46481d⋯.jpg (49.02 KB, 500x650, 10:13, politely ask them to leave.jpg)

>>93845

>be cripple

>look at sock prices

>realize my demand and willingness-to-pay for socks is lower than shop owner's willingness to sell

>leave store


 No.93860

File: 8e3c2dd252b7a31⋯.jpg (326.85 KB, 2000x1128, 250:141, serveimage(3).jpg)

>>93802

>Labor value is the most retarded shit ever, as already proved in this thread

Please copy-paste the few bits in which LTV was proven retarded.

>and in lots of books

>READ A BOOK LMAO

I thought you guys hate it when leftists tell you that.


 No.93862

>>93808

>reading books? oy vey shut it down


 No.93863

>>93851

>realize my demand and willingness-to-pay for socks is lower than shop owner's willingness to sell

>leave store

Yes. Mass-produced stuff is bought in shops and you usually don't haggle over price. You make a decision with regards to on which side of your buy/no buy threshold the price is, but what difference does it make whether the distance to that point is big or small? If a thing is much cheaper than the highest price you'd tolerate paying, you don't give free extra money to the seller because you are so happy with the price. And if you can find it still cheaper somewhere else, that's where you buy it. And when you become used to a thing having a usual price range, you will call a selling offer cheap or expensive based on that experience, whether the thing is vital to your survival or some unimportant flimflam.

That means price doesn't have much to do with utility. Which is the point of classical economists and Marx.


 No.93866

File: df513357f672fb2⋯.jpg (111.33 KB, 501x457, 501:457, df513357f672fb289082aff479….jpg)

>>93830

Jesus Christ, leftytrannies can't meme for shit.


 No.93868

>>93862

>implying you read books

You don't even read the posts in threads you "contribute" to. When presented in precise language, OP's entire argument against Marx presented in this thread is:

>1. The Marxist value concept is individual utility.

>2. At a given time and place, multiple units of the same commodity are said to have the same Marxist value.

>3. How can Marx assume that the same thing has the same utility for every individual?

Assumption 1 is false, so there's really no argument here. What OP and friends have written is not more intelligent than the following:

>You say your car has a trunk, trees have trunks, your car isn't a tree you liar QED


 No.93875

File: 3a715987fe603b0⋯.jpg (25.57 KB, 650x366, 325:183, laughs while deporting.jpg)

>>93863

>price and value are the same thing

>I can't into price discrimination


 No.93876

>I should be able to take water into the desert and become a millionaire, the thread.


 No.93877

>>93875

>price and value are the same thing

>value is subjective

>goes out and buys widget for the price of 3$ while subjectively valuing it at 4$


 No.93879

>>93875

Would you mind actually quoting, replying, and (if possible) refuting, instead of making up shit? Which of these statements do you disagree with:

>Mass-produced stuff is bought in shops and you usually don't haggle over price.

True or false?

>If a thing is much cheaper than the highest price you'd tolerate paying, you don't give free extra money to the seller because you are so happy with the price.

True or false?

>And if you can find it still cheaper somewhere else, that's where you buy it.

True or false?

>And when you become used to a thing having a usual price range, you will call a selling offer cheap or expensive based on that experience, whether the thing is vital to your survival or some unimportant flimflam.

True of false?

Of course, these statements are all true. You feel you wouldn't like being in the position where answering truthfully leads, so you only have a goony meme response.


 No.93880

>>93879

Not confederate anon:

>Mass-produced stuff is bought in shops and you usually don't haggle over price.

Directly haggling over price is not common in countries like the USA but it's still prevalent in other cultures (i.e. Asia). Still, there are more indirect ways to offer products at different prices to different consumers depending on their willingness to purchase, e.g. early bird discounts, sales, coupons, reward cards, mail-in rebates, youth/elderly discounts. This helps maximize sales.

>If a thing is much cheaper than the highest price you'd tolerate paying, you don't give free extra money to the seller because you are so happy with the price.

True. In this case there is net profit for both of you (assuming the supplier was selling at a price that worked for him); however the supplier is not receiving maximum profit. If you as a consumer are representative of the majority of the demand market, then the supplier is underpricing his goods. He has the incentive to increase his profits by raising prices.

>If you can find it still cheaper somewhere else, that's where you buy it.

Yes, provided that the substitute product is comparable in quality.

>And when you become used to a thing having a usual price range, you will call a selling offer cheap or expensive based on that experience, whether that thing is vital to your survival or some unimportant flimflam.

The "usual price range" can change based on market conditions, e.g. gas prices.


 No.93881

>>93880

Not the anon that asked:

>Directly haggling over price is not common in countries like the USA but it's still prevalent in other cultures (i.e. Asia).

Sure, but haggling to get a better price is always to your self interest. It doesn't matter what subjective valuation you make, you're always gonna want to lower the price.

>True. In this case there is net profit for both of you (assuming the supplier was selling at a price that worked for him); however the supplier is not receiving maximum profit. If you as a consumer are representative of the majority of the demand market, then the supplier is underpricing his goods. He has the incentive to increase his profits by raising prices.

This is a very moralistic view. Sure, when an exchange happens, both parties participating in it, do it because they think it is good for them. However, when examining an economy as a whole, trading is zero sum, the commodities remain constant if you don't take production into account. However many times money changes hands, it doesn't increase in quantity. Sure, someone may gain in an exchange, by getting more than the average price, but that automatically means the other end loses the same amount.

>The "usual price range" can change based on market conditions, e.g. gas prices.

No rational person would claim otherwise. Prices change because material conditions change.


 No.93883

>>93881

>mfw leftautists treat prices at local walmart as objective standard of how valuable things are.

>It doesn't matter what subjective valuation you make, you're always gonna want to lower the price.

>Price=value

What's with /leftypol/ raiders? Are they hit by cuckchan almost as hard as /pol/ or were they always this stupid?

>they think it is good for them

That's a very moralistic view.

>However, when examining an economy as a whole, trading is zero sum

Why you buy things then, autist? Why are supply lines established, goods delivered and services offered? What a waste of time.

>However many times money changes hands, it doesn't increase in quantity

Yet people end up with food, electricity, water, comfortable homes and even internet where the likes of you can complain about all that.

>Prices change because material conditions change.

This ignores literally everything said in this thread. You are just repeating this silly bullshit time after time like a mindless drone you are. You can't go beyond mindless assumptions.


 No.93888

>>93883

>mfw leftautists treat prices at local walmart as objective standard of how valuable things are.

What specifically do you mean when you say valuable? Personal utility?


 No.93889

>>93883

>mfw leftautists treat prices at local walmart as objective standard of how valuable things are.

>AnCaps need to be constantly offensive to stroke their ego

No, not really. We use labor time to do that.

>Price=value

So, when a business gets undercut and is forced to lower their prices, is that because they suddenly value their commodities less?

>That's a very moralistic view.

I was describing how AnCaps view value and you just fell into an unintentional trap..

>Why you buy things then, autist? Why are supply lines established, goods delivered and services offered? What a waste of time.

Because of their use value. All those things are set to realize surplus value in the market.

>Yet people end up with food, electricity, water, comfortable homes and even internet where the likes of you can complain about all that.

I never stated that they didn't. That still doesn't disrupt my statement. You are conflating use value(objects that are socially needed) and exchange value(how much of each other commodity a certain commodity trades for).

>This ignores literally everything said in this thread. You are just repeating this silly bullshit time after time like a mindless drone you are. You can't go beyond mindless assumptions.

This is not an assumption, there is a whole theory behind this.


 No.93893

>>92781

Because hes literally just worshipped by marxist retards for his higher class in society after he managed to cheat his way into niche job as some pet in degenerated universities while talking pure marxist bullshit, where he recycles the exact same retarded bullshit with "academic language" impressing the average retards who dont understand that any postgraduate can write 20 pages of formally pristine mathematical proof that all squares are circles except its just dumb and pulls off the usual libtard model cherrypicking bullshit .

Hes a completely irrelevant nobody but one of the few nobodies the marxist faggots have that isnt some liberal arts dropout working at a grocery story and otherwise not really employed or unemployed or underage and leeching so they keep hyping him like as if any of the bullshit he poops out has even an ounce of relevance. They are desperate for an icon of authority because no one takes these fags serious.


 No.93894

>>93893

That anon mentioned Cockshott for his work about empirically testing the correlation between work time and prices, which directly relates to the topic of this thread, unlike your post.


 No.93895

>>93893

I agree, he's no Stephen Molyneux.


 No.93903

>>93750

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

>Often "average" refers to the arithmetic mean, the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are being averaged

>>93774

All you said is that people's desires are dependent on how much money they have. That's blatantly retarded.


 No.93906

>>93730

>You really believe people have mental states about what they want that are completely independent of how much money they have, and that these mental state translate into effective(!) demand.

>>93903

So, would you say that above quote is an accurate representation of your belief?


 No.93907

>>93903

You are correct, mean and average are the same.

>All you said is that people's desires are dependent on how much money they have. That's blatantly retarded.

You are paraphrasing what the anon said. He explained the position you are arguing against and the way you are misinterpreting it and that's what you keep doing.


 No.93908

>>93906

Yes.

>>93907

>you are misinterpreting it

I'm not misinterpreting anything.


 No.93909

The reason Ancaps misunderstand Marxist arguments is Individualism, the philosophical position that individuals are the epicenter of morality. This is a form of idealism, that sees humans as autonomous, self determining beings, the ultimate moral authority.

They fail to understand that humans are not perfect in their individual perception of reality and that are by nature interdependent animals, that we depend on society to give us our knowledge, safety and to fulfill our needs while also taking part in it.

To examine any structured system, be it a human body, a house or society through its individual ingredients can lead us to somewhat helpful but shortsighted answers. Without examining how it works as a system, we can never understand it.


 No.93910

>>93909

An individual can exist without society, but society can't exist without many, many individuals.


 No.93912

>>93908

>I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Yes, you are. You thought what anon before said was "people's desires are dependent on how much money they have". What he actually asked you was "do mental states translate into effective demand?"


 No.93913

>>93910

A cell can exist without a human, a human can't exist without many, many cells.


 No.93914

>>93912

Read my original response.


 No.93915

>>93914

I suppose you mean the burger example. If that's the case, what if those people would buy a burger only for 0.01$(under its production cost by far) do they still translate to effective demand?


 No.93917

>>93903

Literally the two sentences before what you quote:

>In colloquial language, an average is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers. Different concepts of average are used in different contexts.

Literally the sentence right after your quote:

>In statistics, mean, median, and mode are all known as measures of central tendency, and in colloquial usage any of these might be called an average value.

At which point did the brouhaha about averages start? With your post here:

>>92937

>A handful of outliers can really skew the average

A claim which looks rather silly when average refers to median or mode. It is a sensible statement with reference to the arithmetic mean when the set in question is small. But what is the set in the context of what Marx was writing about? (This post is not a Marx infomercial. In order to formulate an informed critique of a position, you must first know what the position is.) The concept of Marx-Value does not apply to unique art pieces, it is about mass-produced items in a competitive environment.

Suppose there are three known techniques for producing a particular item with three different costs associated with them. What's the average cost of producing the item then, is it the addition of the per-item cost of the three techniques, divided by three? Consider this: What if different techniques are used under the same roof (picture surprisingly high demand and not enough time has passed to update everything). The answer is that the average production cost of an item in the produced pile has to be weighted by the proportion of items in the total each technique contributed to it.

A supplier that has a few hiccups while producing a ton of identical items can't make the few items where the hiccups occurred super-expensive and expect to sell that alongside a big number of items of identical quality also made at that place and sold by them at much lower price; instead the cost of these hiccups has to be averaged over the items sold. And a supplier that uses a bad technique can't keep up doing that for long. Both effects taken together mean a few outliers don't make a dent here.


 No.93918

>>93876

>I should be able to take water into the desert and become a millionaire, the thread.

I'm glad you brought that up.

Marx's labor value theory says that IF you are successful doing that, then OTHER people will enter the market if they can get more money for less work, equalizing everything.

Ancaps deny the free market would lead to such self-regulation. >>90720 even started a thread to debunk the concept of the free market self-regulating through appeal to mockery of a person of straw.


 No.93919

>>93915

Not all people would only buy a burger for a penny, there are plenty who just want a slightly lower price.

>>93917

>A claim which looks rather silly when average refers to median or mode

Too bad most people think of mean first. The argument against that was not that I was using the wrong sort of average.


 No.93920

>>93919

>Not all people would only buy a burger for a penny, there are plenty who just want a slightly lower price.

Of course not. The thing is, people that don't make enough to cover their needs and pay more than a penny for a burger don't affect effective demand, therefore effective demand people make is dependent on their income.


 No.93925

>>93920

There are still plenty of people just outside the current price for any given good.


 No.93926

>>93925

>There are still plenty of people just outside the current price for any given good.

We really need to examine what you mean by that. Do you really think people have specific prices they are willing to pay for a product statically in their minds? My experience is

"I'm out of cheese, let's go buy some" >goes to the market

>sees cheese, scans the prices and labels

>picks one depending on the state of mind at the moment

There is no constant valuing going on. Sure I may like some brand better, but depending on the day I might choose a less liked but cheaper cheese.


 No.93928

>>93926

Not a specific price, but how many times have you looked at the price tag on a product and thought that you'd buy it if it was a bit cheaper?


 No.93929

>>93928

Sure, but it's always in relation to other products.


 No.93950

>>93917

>>93919

>Too bad most people think of mean first.

Everything in that post after the part you quoted is assuming the mean.


 No.93958

>>93910

That's false. Individuals can't exist without society consistently. Sure you might point to some stray example of a baby lost in the jungle and somehow surviving, but 1) If this was the norm humans would go extinct 2) Is this individual what you have in mind when you think of humans?

Humans are social animals, from hunter-gatherer to the modern human this remains true. By making the individual the focal point, you don't take into account the social interactions that created humans as they commonly are today and are lead to false assumptions.

Society has evolved not because of an increase in individual intelligence or biological evolution but only because of the concentrated actions of societies in the past.


 No.94665

>>93958

>Individuals can't exist without society consistently.

They have unless you consider a interconnected group of roaming bands as a "society", which most hunter-gather humans operate in. Human relations are limited by the Dunbar number 150, a significantly smaller number than what we deem modern society.


 No.94666

>>93918

>Ancaps deny the free market would lead to such self-regulation

Citation?


 No.94667

>>93917

>The concept of Marx-Value does not apply to unique art pieces, it is about mass-produced items in a competitive environment

But those unique art purchases defer resources that otherwise would have been used for mass-produced commodities. Marx is ignoring a very important factor in this equation.


 No.94668

>>93926

>There is no constant valuing going on

There are 2 types of valuing that are occurring::

1. Ordinal - "I prefer to have cheese rather than other food"

2. Quantitative - "What benefit will I obtain relative to price"


 No.94669

>>93913

Transhumans have a got a word to say to you.


 No.94670

>>93909

>Without examining how it works as a system, we can never understand it.

Systems cannot be understood accurately without analyzing the individual components.


 No.94673

>>93838

Damn, all those circle-jerk comments on how marginalism only applies to exceptions, when it literally applies to every transaction.


 No.94674

>>93711

>The question by Marx wasn't whether supply and demand exists as an adjusting mechanism in states out of balance, it was about what describes the economy in balance.

Economies are never in balance, hnece why its called a dynamic equilibrium.

>hat these equilibrium prices would be closely related to work costs does not look like a particularly wild statement to me.

Because you are looking at the product (work) and not the individual components of work (supply and demand) as mentioned in an earlier post.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / asmr / beast / ck / komica / leftpol / vietnam ]