/lit/ - Literature

Regarding Wealth of Nations.
>this book says that capital goes into the most productive channels of its own accord, and there is no need for government to intervene. But look at the crypto craze; right now, more electricity is used to mine bitcoin than the entire power usage of Argentina. Ordinary people have put billions of dollars of their savings into unproductive 1s and 0s. Isn't this proof that capital does not flow into the most productive channels of its own accord? Shouldn't it be possible to do better as a society?

Marx is intimidating to me because of the length of his work. Das Kapital is 3 books of 1000 pages each correct? It took me a year to get through Wealth of Nations. I have read a little about his ideas however.
He seems to believe that the owners of capital defraud the workers by making a profit off of their labour, and that if we ever want to put an end to the cycle of revolution nations face, we must eliminate the profit of capital by giving the entirety of the production of any factory to the workers. He seems to be ignoring the contribution of the factory owner, who gathers all the workers together, who gives them the means of production by which their labour is magnified, and who specializes in increasing the efficiency of production. Have I understood the essence of Marx correctly or is he much more complicated than this? Because if that's all he's saying then I don't really see the point of reading 3000 pages of his work.

Who made these means of production, the factory owner, working alone in his garage?

If you pay for something then you own it. How does the fact that the factory owner's machinery was made by others nullify his contribution? Are you arguing against personal property?

>How does the fact that the factory owner's machinery was made by others nullify his contribution?
How did he get Capital, inheritance? Was he friend with a banker? Speculation? Previous Capitalistic venture (factory), where he already exploited surplus labor?
To gain large amounts of Capital, you necessarily have to exploit it from other. No one in the world can "earn" dozens of millions by himself.
> Are you arguing against personal property?
Not against personal property. Against private property of the means of production. I don't give a shit if you personally own a toothbrush, a personal computer, or a pair of sneakers.

>>18444552
The fact that crypto is a Ponzi scheme becomes quite clear if you accept Smith's explanation of what money actually is. He says money is a means of trade, worth exactly what is necessary to distribute among the people the different amounts of the produce of the land and labour of the nation that they are entitled to. So the worth of a currency is directly tied to the amount of goods that are annually exchanged with it. Now think, how much goods are traded with the entirety of crypto? The answer is almost nothing, except for what I assume is a negligible amount of drugs. So does the current worth of crypto reflect its actual value? I don't fucking think so.

>>18444633
>He says money is a means of trade, worth exactly what is necessary to distribute among the people the different amounts of the produce of the land and labour of the nation that they are entitled to.
Bitcoin is traded for dollars, and dollars can be traded for Bitcoins.
Your point is irrelevant.

>>18444968
>Bitcoin is traded for dollars, and dollars can be traded for Bitcoins.
The dollar is not a consumable good. The fact remains that bitcoin is not used to trade goods, and that is what gives a currency value.

>>18446756
>The dollar is not a consumable good. The fact remains that bitcoin is not used to trade goods, and that is what gives a currency value.
Gold isn't either. Gold isn't a currency. But was a currency. And can be, if someone accept it as paiement, a currency. However, gold still is mined. Why is that? Value storage. For people and central banks.

>>18448547
>However, gold still is mined. Why is that? Value storage. For people and central banks.
1. Gold is a physical commodity.
2. Gold has industrial and ornamental uses, crypto doesn't.
3. Gold has thousands of years of human history backing it, crypto doesn't.
Don't even try to compare your memecoins to gold.


>>18451064
>1. Gold is a physical commodity.
Yes and? The internet is not physical, but it's here to stay, at least some decades.
>2. Gold has industrial and ornamental uses, crypto doesn't.
Industrial use is negligeable (around 10% of total gold extraction). Ornmental use of gold is considerable, but it probably conflate with value storage.
>3. Gold has thousands of years of human history backing it, crypto doesn't.
Sure. Books also have thousands of years of human history backing them. That doesn't mean the internet is useless.

You are trapped into cognitive dissonance. Crypto is, in your mind, on the negative side. It's only a matter of time for you to reverse your opinion, according to the principle of polarity.

>>18457071
Marx is deeply hostile to smiths views on value (theories of surplus) and sees Ricardo as less wrong. Jesus fuck read capital before opening your oral sewer.

Read the Austrians, the only relevant economic theory these days.

>>18465196
I would recommend reading Frederic Bastiat beforehand
Best to start at the roots of the topic

>>18465128
>Against private property of the means of production.
I would read The Capitalist Manifesto by Kelso and Adler, there they address various concerns that you're referring to. They even advocate for a redistribution of capital, like you're referring to. You see, once upon a time, maybe around 30 or 40 years prior, people weren't so divided on political lines and actually thought constructively about this kind of thing.

They propose that every worker who produces something, or works for anyone, owns stock in the company he works for, or a portion of that capital. Therefore, the profits are still accruing to the capital owner, but distributed throughout the base, necessarily.

This makes more sense than the corrupt bullshit we deal with today. Renting capital, especially to the degree which we see today, should be illegal.

:3

>>18465196
Funny how Austrian economics is so dividing. A lot of people seem to disagree with them.

>>18465293
They are annoyingly repetitive with their tropes. I'll delve into their theories every now and then and come out a little more thoughtful of certain social issues, though.

They are the philosopher's economist :3

I read a lot of scientific economists.

>>18465227
>owns stock in the company he works for, or a portion of that capital
What would he give in return for that stock? A worker today is free to buy stock in the company he works for is he not?

>>>/biz/
Not /lit/

>>18465330
>What would he give in return for that stock?
His labor. :3

Stop being an asshole. Worker's rights have necessarily increased as time has gone on, we are in need of SOME kind of revolution, it does not need to be a Communist one.

I think the rejection of a Communist revolution in favor of something more intellectual is actually a step in the right direction, it shows an acceptance of certain realistic truths, and the idea that workers, and people, are increasingly important as time goes on.

Austrian socialism, as championed by Joseph Schumpeter, is one such example of an interesting mentality towards this philosophy.

The book that defeated the Austrians

>>18465533
>going to /biz/ for anything but memes
That board is the most reddit of all 4chan boards.

>>18465128
Marx claims (pure) capitalism becomes an inefficient form of social organization and is historically transient after its played it's initial role of developing an industrial economy. If organizing investment around profit can keep things going that's all the proof necessary to disprove him but that's the question on how the ownership structure develops

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3451462
>This paper argues that it is impossible to achieve the following objectives simultaneously: (i) portfolio diversification, (ii) shareholder representation, and (iii) competition. In an economy where everyone holds the market portfolio, all the companies have the same shareholders. If, in addition, firms act in the interest of their shareholders (i.e., if the agency problem is solved), the equilibrium outcome is equivalent to an economy-wide monopoly. When managers are entrenched, however, the anti-competitive effects of common ownership are mitigated, yet they only disappear completely in the extreme case that managers are fully insulated from shareholder dissent. The trilemma highlights a fundamental systemic problem in stock market economies: their inherent tendency towards common ownership, and therefore away from market competition.

>>18465150
A Ponzi scheme isn't just a bubble but structurally has to go insolvent, something like bitcoin isn't that because it doesn't generate liabilities it can't meet... 1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin. Even if bitcoin is worth one cent no one was scammed since bitcoin doesn't promise to be worth anything.

>>18465533
As someone who uses /biz/ as their homeboard, I can guarantee you this thread would die with 0 replies in about 10 minutes. On the other hand, this shithole is filled with commie larping faggots, so perhaps it dying without a reply is a preferable alternative than being discussed by retards

>>18465870
Unfortunately you're wrong. This thread is economics.

The reason economics is discussed on /lit/ and /his/ more than on /biz/ is because /biz/ is fucking reddit.

:3

>>18465870
What's the deal with the rate of thread creation on /biz/? It's the highest or second highest of any board on 4chan.

>>18465902
Its filled to the brim with literal pajeet scammers. Every 5 minutes pajeets copy and paste the same code from their previous scam, change the name, and post a thread on biz. And they keep doing it, because retards will always fall for their scams.

From "Killing the Host" by Michael Hudson

>>18465902
Noting surprising, obviously the heaviest traffic on any website is going to be either looking for ways to get money by doing noting (/biz/), troll (/pol/) or porn

Can you be more specific OP? Please ask some new questions instead of just copy-pasting stuff from the last one. Don't kill a good thread now.

If anyone wants to learn more about economic history, I'd recommend reading "A Farewell to Alms." Pretty good read and dives into how the economy actually transformed from sustenance/agrarian to industrial

Thoughts on Salazar?

>>18466361

>>18466369

>>18465112
>unproductive 1s and 0s
this is a horribly misguided understanding of what "production" means. as if the only production that ever happens is when hammer meets anvil

>>18466376

>>18466985
>as if the only production that ever happens is when hammer meets anvil

Hammer meeting anvil has purpose usually to turn that metal into something better. What the hell is crypto good for when it is horribly inefficient for transactions, wildly fluctuating in 'value' and as yet (and probably never will) actually be adopted as a global currency endorsed by a first world or developed country?

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11360907