/lit/ - Literature

>>22656332
He literally wrote a book to explain it. Why don't polniggers read?

>>22656332
Why didn’t he just say he wants them gibs and they need to join arms to take the gibbies by force?

Yes. That's why rice, one of the most labor intensive commodities, is also one of the most expensive commodities in the world.

>>22656393
And why twitch streamers, how expend no labour, are milllionaires

Every price is someone else's income. Therefore yes, value is created by labour.

>>22656441
not if I dont value it.

>>22656332
He literally never said this by the way.

>>22656445
The market does.

>>22656454
>He literally never said this by the way.
>literally

Are you saying Marx didn't write Das Kapital in greentext?

>>22656332
Create some value without doing labor to prove him wrong.

>>22656473
Land.

>>22656458
which is made by me, who does not value it. Sorry, but the vacuum tube industry does not make itself valueable just because 2 million people’s income where attached to that industry in 1949. Us transistor kids just do not care.

>>22656480
A dead industry has no labour attached to it.

>>22656332
Thanks to this retard infecting liberal minded brains for the last 250 years to deconstruct the previous feudal systems that created a homogeneous civilization, i have been a NEET with little to no explanation, or justification to anyone for the past 6 years, the payments just keep coming in.
Just keep paying those taxes wagies, it helps your soft bellied governments to become filled with women and their minority pets who are desperate to appear virtuous, all whilstdistributing the fruits of industrious types' stolen labor. I guess that's where a wagie creates value.... Think i will sleep in late tomorrow, been a fun weekend HAHAHAHAHA

>>22656473
Thats the thing, I dont need to create it, I just need to have it.

its not a product of the effort put into the wanted thing, just the possession of it.

>>22656476
In order for land to be of value, you have to keep people off of it. We call the people who do this labor "police" and "security." Without them, the land has no value, since it can't meaningfully be bought or sold.

>>22656485
but it did, yet its value decreased when something else was valued, despite the labour put into it.

Curious isn't it?

>>22656488
Why do you feel the need to take gibs if you are so 'contrarian' one should suppose you would reject money too. You're just a pathetic larper.

>>22656490
>I just need to have it.
How do you get it?

>>22656332
Not even a commie but can't imagine someone making a thread with this as an actual point lmao.
Bait's been taken though, nice.

>>22656492
Nails might be useful but that doesn't make them expensive.

>>22656494
many ways, some easier than others, thus various labours. inheritance, a literal single night of good conversation to convince someone, a spark of inspiration, years of grueling work, networking, education, happenstance. Sometimes working harder, sometimes working smarter, sometimes striking when the iton is hot. Qualitatively and quantitatively variable ways to the valued ends.

>>22656502
You woundt say that if you were nail deprived.

>>22656525
Wow, you always do labor to produce or acquire value. Amazing. I wonder whether someone pointed this out before...

>>22656541
ah, no? Could do anywhere from 0 to infinity amount of any arbitrary amount of labor for a given value. value could literally fall into my lap while im doing nothing.

labour is a circumstaniality rather than an intrinsicality of value.

>>22656540
But the value of a good is determined by how useful it is, remember?

>>22656558
not really seeing the point here. though its more correct to say it’s determined by how much it is wanted rather than how useful.

>>22656579
Goods are either wanted or unwanted. There's no incentive to produce an unwanted good. Wanted goods are sold at labour value or don't pay off.

>>22656473
my dick is valued by your mom and I don't even have to work for it,

>>22656591
yah, sometimes goods dont pay off and exchange ratios are not static or assured.

>>22656473
I am a handmodel.

>>22656579
I'm loving the citations here.

For Marx (vol 1.) value is a relationship in capital, value comprises of a bearer of value which occupies a social relationship of purported utility and exchangeability. Purported utility is absolute: it is present or not present. In iterated capitalist relations failed purportions will be observed: fool me once. Exchangeability is a magnitude as a proportion of total social exchangeability which finds its correlate is socially skill averaged necessary labour power. Ie: labour as necessarily exerted *in toto.* In iterated capitalist relations labour power relations which fail to adhere to social norms find themselves discredited: vide the abolition of the British enslaved labour power trade under strike and resistance in Jamaica.

For Marx value is constituted socially, in an iterated form, by a total society. It is not reducible to gedanken experiment outside of a context of a social system of exchange of the means of subsistence and wage labour.

Marx may well be wrong, but that is his argument as presented in Volume 1 of a meaningful way of talking about value. The core points to take away: social totality; social context; system of exchange for subsistence; system of wage labour generalised for production; commodities must be purported to be useful (in iterated: experienced generally as useful); for labour power to constitute the exchange value of value it must be necessary, at average levels of productivity, and purported to be realisable. People often fail to observe social necessity (realisation, utility & cost) as being rolled in through iteration and historicity because they read back of the cerial packet critiques by dumb fucks.

>>22656616
In other words, markets are too unreliable to base entire societies on them?

>>22656473
I am a video games ideas guy.

>>22656491
>you have to keep people off of it.
not in a society without niggers

Or in siberia

>>22656621
no, it means im not paying a static price for something of nonstatic value.

>>22656473
>Randomly receives a case when opening tf2

I have just created one cent worth of goods without any labour.

>>22656638
Why is the price non-static if the price is determined by how wanted a good is

>commodities have value
>commodities involve labor
>therefore commodities solely derive their value from labor
lmao do marxists really?

>>22656620
>Purported utility is absolute: it is present or not present.
why? it being proported even indicates it not being essential so the word “absolute” shouldnt really follow.
>For Marx value is constituted socially, in an iterated form, by a total society
that doesnt even jive with the essential use of the term value, I dont need to be in a society to value an apple, and if I am, wanting an apple at a certain degree of applelust is usually seperate from the mean somehow dictated by the totality of society. is my specific applelust no longer value then because it is distinct from the proported mean of the polis’ applelust?

>>22656650
because my want isnt static.

>>22656674
Ok, make me a good. I determine the price.

>>22656473
wild blueberries

>>22656680
Wrote a poem in my pocket, , 4 lines, iambic, and also found some gold, about 2 grams, in the other.

>>22656696
1 cent for the gold

>>22656680
a beautiful summer's day

>>22656702
ykw, ive been entertained, ill give it to you for 5 bucks.

>>22656720
5 dollars for the gold, the poem and your pants

>>22656705
the proported utility of a total society valued it at $64.43, plus a liability if $2400.45 that will be returned at the end of the grace period.

>>22656721
sorry, am planning to sell shares for my poem and my pants, to do this transaction I would require at most a total price of $4.50

>>22656733
3 dollars for the gold, the poem and your pants

>>22656727
is that valued by net or gross or mean or a derivation of or leveraged or nominal total or average utility per capita or per household or per unit or per weighted annual return or cost?

>>22656332
I've got to say it straight up: the idea that labor creates value is a myth. This concept has been perpetuated for too long.

When you really think about it, labor, in and of itself, doesn't magically infuse something with value. It's the end result, the product or service, that people place value on. The value is inherently tied to the utility or satisfaction it provides to consumers, not the hours of work that went into making it.

Let's take an example. Imagine two individuals, both working equally hard for a day—one painting a beautiful artwork and the other digging a hole and filling it back up. According to the labor theory of value, they should have created the same amount of value. But in reality, the artwork has value because people appreciate it, while the hole-digging exercise is just a waste of time.

The simple truth is that value is subjective. It's determined by supply and demand, consumer preferences, and the utility a product or service provides. It doesn't matter how much sweat you put into something; if no one wants it, it's not valuable.

Moreover, technological advancements and efficiency have changed the game. We now have machines and automation that can do the same work with less labor. Does that mean they create less value? No, it simply means we've found better and more efficient ways to produce goods and services.

Value is not about the effort; it's about the end result.

>>22656332
if you have one of these threads on every board you win the game

>>22656332
This gold I found on the ground? Worthless.

>>22656740
2.50, and you wont get a cent more out of yourself.
>>22656742
Its actually determined by the standard aproximate median price of 1 foot pound of weat under a vacuum in 1973 USD as sold to Kelloggs in specific. But it also matched up with the hypothetical time dialated price of the Morgan Bible if it was continuously owned by the shah of persian continuously until this day while still functioning on 13th century florens.

>>22656781
>still functioning on 13th century florens.
in terms of its average buying power of amber throughout the records of that century (meaning the stated price can be manipulated by new findings in Florentine paperwork of the period, as well of course of the problems converting religious significance into a usable quantity. not to mention hostoriographic, artistic, societally, etc.

Labor theory of value predates Marx. Adam Smith came up with it and Ricardo and Mill both pushed it.

>>22656897
Why try to talk to idiots?

>>22656897
>>22656920
Modern economic theories dont typically have a labor theory of value, while Marxism hasn't evolved past it.

>>22656924
There are some great socialist/Marxian economic theorists but 90% of Marxists are about as braindead as /pol/niggers.

Is the misunderstanding a micro/macro economics thing? I literally cant understand how the labor theory works in an fundamental micro scale, but I can almost see it as an abstracted thing if you are larger scale approximation level.

>>22656332
>Labour creates value because.... BECAUSE IT JUST DOES OKAY?
Well, where do you think value comes from? A value tree? Or a gnome who sprinkles magic value dust that makes the economy do good?

>>22656948
>A value tree?
unironically yes.

>>22656897
Also everyone conveniently ignores that a big part of what Marx did in Capital was to examine it from every possible angle and highlight flaws in it. In fact he only makes a tepid conclusion that it is essentially correct specifically to the domain of commodity production, which isn't really in dispute.
>>22656924
>Modern economic theories dont typically have a labor theory of value, while Marxism hasn't evolved past it.
This is completely incorrect, neither early Western Marxian economists like Lange, Kalecki, Grossman or even Hilferding espoused views like that, neither did most Soviet economists. The actual outdated/flawed concept in early Marxian economics is TRPF, which is also something that has been gradually dismantled since at least the 1960s.

>three eggs cost a dollar
>10 min of gas cost 10 cents
>together their cost is 1.10
>apply labor
>an omelette cost $2

not that hard

>>22657026
Who takes 10 minutes of gas to make an omlette?

also, is the point that labor is worth 55% of a product?

>>22657048
The point is that labor is one of the ways to create surplus value.

>>22656332

*misunderstands both the calculus and the history of the calculus*

>>22656476
Funny thing, David Ricardo a liberal tells you that land ownership has no value and they only steal from capitalist and workers who actually do something on that land, rent is largely a scam and both liberals and marxists know it.

>>22657140
Then why do you rent nigger?

>>22656758
While Marx is retarded, so are you. His argument was never solely about the quantity of labour but rather some abstract concept like the quality (quantity*efficiency) of labour. Obviously though when you really break it down further than he could, it's a nonsensical argument where he says it depends on labour but that labour itself is valued though a whole host of other non labour related factors.

>>22656473

>>22656758
>muh digging a hole
You niggers need to read. Do you guys never get embarrassed that you don't even know what you are arguing against?

>>22656666
"Purported utility" is absolute: use-values exist or don't; and the indicator is sale of the commodity or realisation.

>that doesnt even jive with the essential use of the term value
For Marx. Fucksake mate, you're functionally illiterate.

Shouldn't that be a picture of Adam Smith?

>>22656332
What about needs and desires. Those seem to drive people when considering if something is valuable or not.

>>22658148
Comparative utility arguments are bullshit because of the incommensurability of internal states. Fucksake, read the 19th century critiques of utilitarianism.

>>22658148
Needs and desires don't produce a commodity though does it? That explains demand, but you have no commodity with no labour

If labor doesn't create value why can't I just be neet? Why people have to work if labor has no value?

>>22658172
>Why people have to work if labor has no value?
People worked in English feudalism as peasants when labour power had no value. Value is historically contingent.

OK so people still worked though. Again why are they working if there is no value in it.

>>22658186
Peasant households generally produced a mixed bundle of objects they used directly to subsist. They grew crops and ate them.

Value in political economy relates to societies of generalised exchange and subsistence off materials garnered by exchange. The peasant village, the roman latifunda, the egyptian seasonal village, the classless agriculturalist cities and gatherers did not subsist off the products of exchange, but that which was made and divided by those creating and using it.

Value doesn't mean "nice thing" here.

>>22656473
I have stocks that are doing that as we speak

>>22656473

Abstaining from doing any number of things will increase the "value" (I don't believe in value) of any number of things. Abstaining from vandalism, for example, will increase the value of your hypothetical target.

>>22658186

Because they are dumb animals.

>>22656948

"Value", or the sham of value, comes from Power alone.

>disproves his own theory because the ideological works he labored and toiled to create brought negative value and death to the world

>things that we have without anyone's involvement are taken as granted
>things that we can have because someone did something cost something because said someone did said something in return for us doing something else so that they get something else they want
>so the cost of anything that cost something is connected to someone doing something towards the thing being there
This filtered millions

>>22658316
>a skilled person doing a task for 10 mins will produce more value than a retard doing the same task for an hour
This simple fact of reality cannot be understood by ideologues lured into an ideology that treats people as an inherently equal mass of automotans. They're genuinely surprised when things breakdown and the natural transition of dehumanization to murder ensues.

>>22658341
>a skilled person doing a task for 10 mins will produce more value than a retard doing the same task for an hour
Literally the opposite of what Marx stated, RTFM.

>>22658341
Marx specifically talks about qualified labor.

>>22658341
>- LABOR DOES NOT PRODUCE VALUE
>- Umm yeah it does.
>- WELL SKILLED LABOR PRODUCES MORE VALUE THAN UNSKILLED LABOR THIS PROVES THAT LABOR DOES NOT PRODUCE VALUE
Very big think.

>>22658341
Well till you find out that skilled laborer using instruments = the laborer + labor of his educators + labor of his toolmakers.

>>22658341
Absolute state of /lit/

>>22658355
>>22658359
>>22658368
First, labour doesn't necessarily produce value. Second, the discrepancy between the value produced between different individuals doing the same task illustrates Marx's theory isn't granular enough to be meaningful. Third, the subjective value of goods and services is untied to the labour it takes to produce them.

It's a dumb theory. It's an interesting take for someone in the 19th century but you should be embaressed to repeat it in current year.

>>22658393
>First, labour doesn't necessarily produce value
If it is not productive then it is not labour. Simple as.

>Second, the discrepancy between the value produced between different individuals doing the same task illustrates Marx's theory isn't granular enough to be meaningful
Cope.

>Third, the subjective value of goods and services is untied to the labour it takes to produce them.
I totally believe that your subjective valuation of various goods and services is totally not tied to the labour of marketologists and advertisers.

>another commietranny thread

>>22658431
>If it is not productive then it is not labour. Simple as.
You don't win a debate by appealing to shallow semantics, anon. Notice that you didn't actually address the fact that something that is labour intensive doesn't necessarily create more value than something that is not. Filtered.
>Cope
You're obviously filtered by that point and have no response to it. Thank you for proving >>22658341. I'll add to that point, to which you were unable to respond, that the labour theory of value doesn't distinguish itself as either a macro or micro theory. It's bogus.
>totally
>totally
Lol. The amount of labour it takes to produce something isn't the main factor, let alone the sole factor, from which value is derived. For example, it takes me very little effort to write these posts but they have far more value than the (lack of) response you strain to produce. This is because you're inherently unequal to me and thereby it's moral for people like me to reap more benefits, given scarcity, than useless dregs like yourself.

>>22658166
With no demand there would be no labour.

>>22658172
>Why people have to work if labor has no value?
To survive. Hunting and gathering is also work.

>>22658172
>false dichotomy
We're not arguing that labour can't produce value. We're pointing out that we have over a century and a half of insight Marx didn't have access to and the idea that labour is the main driver of value is laughably simplistic and obviously antiquated.

Where is the retard from the last thread that was arguing with me that bread is harder to make then a pencil?

I haven't forgotten about you you stupid cunt, its been about a week, have you managed to make a pencil yet? Didnt think so cobber.

Suck my nuts now and eternally, you dumb motherfucker. Yours truly the cunt who worked in a bakehouse

>>22658652
Holy shit. What an absolutely pointless argument to have with someone. This is 4chan and all but holy shit.

>>22658652
>>22658661
Samefag

People who work hard and expect others to do so as well are the biggest faggots in the world.

>>22658652
based breadposter

>>22658058
Because i dont own the land, you fucking nigger

Lefties must admit we need population reduction for nonwhite countries to maximise labour and socialist labour sharing
>no job competition at an unsustainable level globally
>labour quality goes up due to white participation
>labour process output aka goods and services become higher quality as well
>labour value compensation becomes super fair rvturn to tradition tier buying houses at age 30 with no debt tier
>everyone fucking wins
please argue against this without resorting to WEF style you will eat ze bugs solutions, UBI through AI nonsense or some Trekkian utopia that will never happen.
We can recognise overpopulation among animals especially in ranking their utility to man but wont do the same for mankind as a global collective.

>>22658505
>Lol. The amount of labour it takes to produce something isn't the main factor, let alone the sole factor, from which value is derived
Price is not value Jesus fucking Christ read the fucking book.

>>22659390
>Lefties must admit we need population reduction for nonwhite countries to maximise labour and socialist labour sharing
You can't enforce it through a capitalist government or a supra-government organization in any form because said capitalist government always needs more wageslaves and more consoomers, while the populace that they've already saturated with BeyondBurgers, microplastics, Xanax, OnlyFans, gentrified suburb rent and Netflix subscription just refuses to breed for some reason. Gotta get that blood somewhere.

>no job competition at an unsustainable level globally
Job competition is vital for the capitalist ruling class and they'll sooner get fucked by three dozen AIDS tranny niggers than give it up. To lose job competition means that wageslaves can get actual stable bargaining power and that would mean it's all ogre.

>labour quality goes up due to white participation
Muh planned obsolesce. Gotta keep you consooming.

>labour process output aka goods and services become higher quality as well
Not even shitposting but the fuck do you even need so much goods for? Are you not consooming enough already between your onions latte and 5 pairs of Nikes a year?

>labour value compensation becomes super fair rvturn to tradition tier buying houses at age 30 with no debt tier
The concept of "everyone buying houses at age 30" is some hardcore pinko succdem meme. Where the fuck did the previous generations' houses go when everyone started buying real estate at 30? Did you cancel inheritance? No? Then what are you doing with those? Renting them out? To fucking whom when fucking everyone buys their own house? The real estate is fucked, always has been, you can't retvrn because it was always a nuclear cesspit - the boomercore is exactly what caused it to currently be the way it is.

>please argue against this without resorting to WEF style you will eat ze bugs solutions, UBI through AI nonsense or some Trekkian utopia that will never happen
Nah, it will be worse. Niggers with rape, murder and plunder your corpses because you deserve it.

>>22659390
>We can recognise overpopulation among animals especially in ranking their utility to man but wont do the same for mankind as a global collective.
Thing is - humans run the ecosystems where they can decide to cull animals. You don't run shit, you're fucking cattle, the only meaningful difference between you and an AIDS-ridden mudslim sandnigger in terms of culling is that then AIDS-ridden sandnigger can get stuffed with two more mortgages, shit out nine future customers and get sent to softdev mines to generate revenue, while you are just flat fucking useless. So guess who's getting culled?
>"B-but they rape and knife and explode"
Yeah, they are doing the job, taking care of the farm, weeding the crops, maintaining the ecosystem. Exactly the way they are expected to.

>>22659406
I reject Marx's distinction between price/value and stand by the argument that his system in terms of economic understanding is antiquated. Followers along these lines are laughably naive given 150+ years of development not only when it comes to markets and general thought concerning them but pretty much every aspect of society as a whole.

Would Marx hold the same opinions if he was born as a zoomer today gooning to Ella Hollywood, crossdressing and feminizing himself to hook up with men at misterbnb and getting fucked by a new cock every week? Would the depravity and excess of modern life soften his chode towards gommuwunism and make him a grateful paypig cumslut?

>>22659466
>I reject Marx's distinction between price/value
I have some extremely valuable NFTs for you.

>>22659485
>Would Marx hold the same opinions if he was born as a zoomer today gooning to Ella Hollywood, crossdressing and feminizing himself to hook up with men at misterbnb and getting fucked by a new cock every week? Would the depravity and excess of modern life soften his chode towards gommuwunism and make him a grateful paypig cumslut?
Nah, he was already living basically like than when he hooked up with Engels, save the crossdressing, and that's probably like half of what made him come up with critique.

>>22659489
>Engels gay
>same guy who told Marx he'd suck and fuck girls 24/7 if he had 5000 francs

>>22656473
I make harsh noise wall does that count ?????

>>22656332
No, the real price determinate, which is the same always and everywhere, is measured by the proportional relationship that a quantity of money has to what constitutes the minimum quantity of goods and conveniencies, the necessities of life, to maintain the laborer and his family so as to ensure continuation of the species.

>>22659519
>gets deleted by global markets

>>22659521
Except it doesn't. Using subsistence theory of value as a measuring stick is by far the most reasonable approach. And no one since has come close do daddy Smith.

Simple way to refute this retarded idea following it, imagine me creating the worst looking piece of shit art and I take a whole year of adding paint and scribbling on it for a year. Is it valuable? Fuck no.

Socialists love this simply because they have no ability to create anything meaningful or beautiful, so instead they adhere to idea they deserve things simply because they try.

false. value is created by supply and demand. you fucking communist ignorants.

>be apprentice in bakery
>still not very good at it
>every croissant takes me a long time and effort to make
>meanwhile more experienced baker makes hundreds of croissants a day without barely breaking a sweat
>therefore his croissants are worth less than mine

Why are we debating economics and socialism and other gay shit? Just make money and get rich if you can lol! Problem solved!

>>22659519
>the minimum quantity of goods
Is a car produced in 1970s and in 1980s, the same good, or different ones? How do you quantify a heterogeneous junk-pile of shit and anal services? Aside from, pure arbitrary random decision, I mean.
And if your theory amount to arbitrary randomness, is it not a shit theory?

'cordtroons can't bait

>>22659486
>had no response to any of the criticism offered
>was called out for retreating to semantics
>had no response to clarification of criticism and didn't address the elaboration offered on a specific point
>again retreated to semantics by demanding I accept Marx's determination of how value is conceived
>told directly that I am rejecting that with reference to prior arguments
>accidentally implies he's the type of idiot who owns NFTs in a failed attempt at an insult
I accept your concession. Try reading a book on economics that wasn't written 2 centuries ago and reflecting on the fact Marx's observations, specifically those concerning the derivation of value, are rendered myopic given their historical context.

>>22658889
I was making fun of both of you. You're obviously the idiot who argued bread is harder to make than a pencil. Reconsidering, I wasn't in the thread and maybe he got some good jabs in a retard who would argue such a thing. I can imagine the argument:
>bread is easy to bake
>REEEEE IT TAKES FARMING EQUIPMENT TOO THO
>if you go that far down the supply chain I can argue the same for manufacturing pencils
>I can also point out there's an easily identified pressure in reducing the labour costs involved in making a, notably perishable, food product
>REEEEE MUH ECONOMIC THEORY DEVELOPED BEFORE GERMANY EXISTED
And so on. You're an idiot, anon.

>>22659793
economic 'theory' since Ricardo is a complete joke

>>22659548
prices are determined by supply and demand, but value is determined by labor.

>>22659930
>t. has never even studied basic linear algebra
Pseud.

>>22659714
The car is worth what people are willing to pay for it, and this is cross comparable by setting currency against the minimum subsistence wage for a man and his family.
If you're looking to objectively value something without considering demand for your planned economy, there isn't one. Retarded marxist valuations were what caused the USSRs collapse, as stated by their leadership. They lacked a good unit of account, and this caused the fall, in their eyes.

>>22656393
Price and value are not the same thing.

>>22659986
Price is an indicator of value. You don't get to dictate the meaning of terms in order to monopolize the perameters of debate, retard. That's called being an ideologue.

>>22659972
the collapse of the USSR was caused by a crisis of overproduction which weakened the state's ability to hold a multi-national empire together by force.

>Retarded marxist valuations were what caused the USSRs collapse, as stated by their leadership.
only thing retarded here is you taking what soviet bureaucracy said at face value

>>22660041
generally helps to know what Marx meant by 'value' if you want to debate his theory

>>22656366
Doesnt understand that this joke is about spooks

>>22656332
i dig hole in ground for 20 hours therefore it has value now yes?
also i pick fruit from tree in 10 min but you deep fry butter you made from cow milk so your food is more value than mine yes?

>>22656473
You prove him wrong by showing that you can labor for something that has no value. You're a moron who doesn't even believe what Marx wrote lmao

>>22659853
Nah his argument was something along the lines of -- somone itt had pointed out that pencils are like 50c each but a loaf of breqd is like $4; this fuckehead reckoned ot was because after the processes had been industrialised, pencils were way more easy to manufacture then baked goods. He cited retarded shit like ash & protein content making the whole ordeal trial and error saying that the 'floor manager' would have to constantly adjust recipes on the fly to combat it and that baking had in built 'wait times' ie the proofing times. When i told him his first point was a load of shit cause industrial sized bakeries use premixed flours and his second point was didnt really matter after the first few batches, he began reeing like his life depended on it.

Anyway i just wanted to take this opportunity to remind him that hes a stupid communist and his ridiculous ideas and ideologies were beaten down by the very working class him and his buddy marx anglicised.

>>22659972
>without considering demand
implying one can consider it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_theorem
"This implies that the excess demand function does not take a well-behaved form even if each agent has a well-behaved utility function. Market processes will not necessarily reach a unique and stable equilibrium point."

>They lacked a good unit of account
So do you.

>>22660085
>ACTSHUALLY, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE MEANT

>>22659972
>The car is worth what people are willing to pay for it,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
"a product that people consume more of as the price rises and vice versa—violating the basic law of demand in microeconomics."

The bowl of rice is worth a billion, because proles cannot afford to die from starvation.

On the other hand, since their salary is limited, a hightened price on rice means less money on a car.
And if a car seller is starving, he is sure as hell gonna cost-cut on a wage prole.

>The car is worth what people are willing to pay for it,
The car is worth what a rice-seller is willing to allow the proles to pay for a car.

Multiple different demands, depending on supply => entirely different range prices

>minimum subsistence wage for a man and his family.
Define "minimum subsistence". How shall we empirically measure that? Via putting you in a concentration camp?

>>22660338
>cost-cut on a wage OF a prole.
>entirely different range OF prices
typo.

>>22660044
> a crisis of overproduction
by not being able to quantify their stats correctly, yes, you've got it
>>22660270
>human beings are complicated and disequilibrium is the norm
Correct. This is why we fall back on the market as the best approximation. No one is denying that there are fluctuations on the micro scale and that there is still a business cycle and periods of correction in both supply and demand.
You can quantify how much demand there is for a good or service in relation to the subsistence number in their given area. Its a better alternative than CPI.
>>22660338
>The bowl of rice is worth a billion, because proles cannot afford to die from starvation.
Correct. And that is not possible, because as smith says, while someone can charge such a price, a price like that cannot persist for very long without the destruction of the labor force.

Thank you for articulating why smiths theory is in every way superior to subjective Marxist conceptualizations and overreaching.

>>22660269
That was more interesting than I expected. Sorry I doubted.

>>22660085
It generally helps to recognize when someone rejects your hypothesis while stating the reasons for doing so instead of insisting they don't understand. Otherwise you're an ideologue who has to retreat into semantics and projection in order to maintain your sense of reality. You know, a retard who can't accept 150 years of development when it comes to not only specific understanding but society as whole can render a take from 2 centuries ago myopic.

>>22656473
sillicon valley lmao landlords lol

>>22660440
Ahahaha cant tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I should probably let it go but to be honest it kind of was a bit of fun

>>22656332
>words words words words but still basically just "no you"

>>22656948
valuables literally grow on trees.

>>22660913
>BUT YOU HAVE TO HARVEST THE TREES THO
>IT'S NOT VALUE UNTIL THEN!
Playing retard's advocate here.

Reminder that the origins of the labor theory of value are in David Ricardo and not Marx.
Also Marx did not believe that simply working harder makes your product more valuable.
You retards could at least read the wikipedia page on LTV, since you are too ego-driven and attention-deficient to actually read economics.

>>22661577
I'm a fascist and even I know this. Marx is not a LTV proponent. He has a social/historical theory of value determination that basically any economist today could understand and agree with.

Value of labor (Lv) could easily be expressed as time (t) plus energy (e)
te=Lv

>>22656491
Marxoids, especially libertarian ones will screech at this very fact

>>22657026
>my labor costs 90 cents
>sell omelet to man who already has several omelets
>wtf now my labor costs 20 cents
>sell omelet to man who has never had an omelet
>wtf now my labor costs 3 dollars

>>22660717
>and every man and woman had the same rights

Yea, and every man and woman in Tanzania has the same clean water...

>>22660399
>while someone can charge such a price, a price like that cannot persist for very long
surprise, mothafucka. Smith pwned.

>>22661739
Yes, that's why gedanken experiment are shit and Marx deals with economies as total historical systems.

He has:
>free housing
>free healthcare
>free food
>free education
>a guaranteed job (entertainer)
What more could a hominid ask for you chuds? What else is there to the hominid experience? This is THE ideal just society in action.

>>22660399
>periods of correction in both supply and demand
Your demand cannot be formulated in laws (Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem), hence no demand curve can be drawn.
Your supply cannot be formulated in laws either (Cambridge Controversy). Hence you have no supply

You have neither supply, nor demand. What are you correcting with what exactly?
Both supply and demand are no better than Papua New Guinea tribal concept of "the spirit of Hau" of their gift economy.

>You can quantify how much demand there
No you cannot. You are quantifying astrological sign tokens. Now, of course, astrology is a very math-heavy discipline, and I respect astrologers' zeal and rigour. But their whole field of study is useless retarded shit.

>>22659972
>The car is worth what people are willing to pay for it,
A: "How do we differentiate the model of a Mustang car produced in 1970s vs 1980s. Is it the same good or 2 (slightly) different ones? What are people paying here for exactly? How do we analyze and chart it then?"
B: "The good is what the Invisible Hand wills it to be, hurr! Deus vult, durr!"

>>22659548
How do you calculate value when supply and demand are in equilibrium?

>>22658652
absolutely worker post

>arguing about marxism like its still relevant

um.....um....uh....you see....um

>>22660451
>150 years of development
take a look at a modern economics textboook with all it's fictitious drivel (pic related) and then compare it to the actual scientific work of Ricardo. The whole field is a complete embarrasment.

>>22663562
>proves he is confused by (really) basic math
That's just a formula to determine the number of each good a given household can consume you absolute retard. It has nothing to do with theory and I honestly can't believe you were filtered by it. It's literally something that would be flashed on a slide to give a first year economics student, likely at their very first class, a sense of how to construct a formula using common variables.

>>22663562
>The whole field is a complete embarrassment.
that became clear in 2008 when none of them saw the inevitable crash coming. its sociology levels of pseudo-science

>>22661819
>Classic marxist art-obsessed retard needs to turn everything into a symbol with spiritual implications
Money isn't what you think it is.

>>22661753
If you weren't an idiot, you'd know that this graph actually helps my (Smith's) argument rather than hurts it lel.

the industralization of china and the great leap forward was referred to as a means to an end by a very faithful source
they didn't even do genocide in a way where the people being genocided were considered to be subhumans, they genocided people in a way where they were considered fully able and as a tool for achieving something, which is actually worse than other types of genocide as the people being genocided were broader in characteristic and the success of it were paid for in human sacrifice and blood. one of the main aspects behind most genocides were the dehumanizing of a specific group of people and its inability to consider them human, be it a race or a religion, china regarded an entire class of people to have been tools to further their own best interest.
the genocide of the agricultural working class of china happened slowly and the state were completely aware of the things that transpired, but neglected their own countrymen as a way of progressing and modernizing their country. the current state of their industry and influence is one of shame and lack of basic conscience to not just a specific group of people, that they didn't even consider undesirable, but instead abuse and misuse of upstanding citizens of their nation.
any person who refers to china as a global superpower without mentioning the gross neglect that took place under the great leap forward is a supporter of a negligence and cruel way of handling internal affairs of a country's progression towards a modernized industrial country.

>>22663671
>china killed a bunch of people to get rich
>unlike britain
>or america
>or france
>or spain
>or the netherlands
>or rome
>or greece

>>22663618
>that became clear in 2008 when none of them saw the inevitable crash coming
Lol. Lots of people saw the crash coming and made money off of it. Banks were incentivized not to care because they'd be bailed out with taxpayer money and that's exactly what Obama did. He was having meetings with Wall Street execs during the run up to the 2008 election (in one of the debates he bragged about it to make it seem like he was in the loop and McCain wasn't). No one was held accountable and libtards still worship Nobel Prize winning POTUS Barak Obama.

>>22663556
I never realized how much of a strawman that argument was until that meme.

>>22663550
The problem is that Marxism's main opponents are neoclassicists (and austrians, who are just as committed to marginal utility). As such, economics is a Special Olympics discipline, where both sides are professing ancient long-discredited mantras.

>>22656473
I'm the guy who comes up with movie titles for Pixar. I make ~100k a year and I got a bonus for coming up with the title for the movie "Cars 2". Look it up.

>>22659972
USSR's collapse was caused by retarded hohols fucking up Chernobyl.

>>22656332
what is your point here?
facepalm
cringe

>>22656332
Normative statement.

>>22656473
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)#Power_theory_of_value

>>22659466
It didn't even take that long, hell Carl Menger's Principles of Economics came out less than 50 years after Karl Retard Marx, and it's several tiers more intelligent than anything that fat, lazy, envious fuck ever wrote.

>>22666594
>Karl Retard Marx
Fucking GOT EM'

>>22659466
>I reject Marx's distinction between price/value
The next step follows: reject nominal/real distinction. Fictitious capital is the only capital.

>>22666649
He's genuinely an unintelligent man. His theories when applied have only produced privation and crippling starvation. He's unworthy of serious reflection or consideration. Most of the retards itt are smarter than he is.

>>22666732
>i suck cock
say it louder faggot

>>22666732
Do you feel better now that you got it out of your system? Is this Marx in the room with us?

>>22666732
>His theories when applied
We can say that about mainstream economics as well.
Because, ever since the Cambridge Controversy, it has been proved that mainstream economics CANNOT work.

>>22659512
no anon, you prove the opposite point. You labor but create no value ;)

>>22663550
I just enjoy dunking on the preachy leftist archetype, they just make it so satisfying. A group of people so smug despite being so inferior

>>22666732
>His theories when applied
>>22666767
>We can say that about mainstream economics as well.

And - to double the irony - BOTH mainstream AND marxian economics are wrong on the very SAME grounds. The reason why one theory is "unworthy", necessitates calling the other one such as well.

>>22666760
>Is this Marx in the room with us?
no, the evil lazy fat fuck is dead and burning in Hell, hopefully.
Fuck Marx and fuck communism.

>>22666594
Menger's 'wokr' is idyllic fantasies for literal babies, at least marginalists after him had the good sense to invent theorems and models in order to obscure their retardation.

>>22660712
Not sarcasm. I pictured a retard making bad arguments getting under your skin to the point you'd bring it up in another thread. Instead, it was a retard making bad arguments and you writing interesting things in response (i.e. the type of posts that save the board).

>>22666727
>machines and tools aren't real
Lol

>still obssesed with marx even though his ideas became a historical artefact 4 decades a go

why are Americans like this? I guess the residue of cold war propaganda has some serious staying power huh? Personally I blame 90's AM talk radio hosts and their podcast progeny.

there are actually words inside of Capital if you grab the right side of the front of it and pull on it a little bit

>>22659986
Any discussion about theories of value inevitably turns into competing factions squabbling over how one determines actual value.

The important distinction is that Market Theory is actually objectively true. Like you can test it empirically. People price things based on how much they value them.

Labor Theory of Value relies on what are essentially a bunch of invisible variables you can't really ever track or quantify until after the fact. There are no good ways to effectively divine the economic needs of the future, that's why the Capitalist system historically functions so well, it relies on incentivizing people closer to the ground to identify and signal market conditions of their own accord.

The real issue isn't so much that the LtV or Law of Value are -necessarily- wrong, but rather that there exists no empirical means of measuring use value yet. It's easy to determine what people want--you just ask them. Determining what people NEED is hard, that requires a lot of information. So unless we're being really egregiously ideological, at this point it's fair to say yes, price and value ARE related and necessarily so, because we have no better metric for value at all.

>>22668016
> but rather that there exists no empirical means of measuring use value yet
What's the true value of my asshole?

>>22668252
Start an OnlyFans and find out.

>>22668016
It's the difference of value vs values.

>>22656332
That's literally what value is, in all cases, not just labour: something that only exists in our minds.

>>22656332
Labour creating value is so obvious that the fact anyone denies it is one of the greatest signs there is of neoliberal economics being a propagandist pseudoscience and a crypto religion. You don't have to be a Marxist or engage with any of that dumb debate to see it. It's just common sense and logic.


Think of anything worth economic value that doesn't take labour. Think of a rich man, such as a king, now think scientifically what it means physically to be rich and how do you enjoy it? What is a castle, where does it come from, how does a rich man enjoy it, why doesn't everyone have one, etc.

>>22658197
If you are serious, you understand the entire point stocks or any sort of money lending has value is because someone somewhere is actually working for you, right?

>>22668583
>filtered
See >>22658519

>>22659450
Niggers are infinitely less productive than whites. Low-skill labour shortage isn't what threatens our economic future. What are you even talking about? Is this the so-called leftist ethnomasochism?

>>22667557
Machines and tools are unmesurable, chud. Thus you don't have an objective calculable unit of measure.

Which isn't some grand reveal: it's an open secret ever since Veblen contrasted industry vs business.

>>22668016
>Market Theory is actually objectively true. Like you can test it empirically
Measure me an util, go on. >>22666767

>People price things based on how much they value them.
Monopolies price things based on how much power they have to get away with it. Firms are not price-takers. People are not price-makers.

>>22668647
>Machines and tools are unmesurable, chud. Thus you don't have an objective calculable unit of measure.
There are several ways in which they're "mesurable(sic)." For example, the cost of their procurement relative to their rate of depreciation over the time they're used in production of specific goods/services (these themselves measurable in terms of their market value).

You're an mathlet filtered by basic formulas and have no idea how to quantify data. Cope, retard. Cope.

>>22668823
>the cost of their procurement relative to their rate of depreciation over the time
Irrelevant to the actual capitalism behavior. Production is antagonistic to business logic. Hence, Veblen's 'sabotage'.

>>22668823
>their rate of depreciation over the time
A modern day microscheme would be useless in 1920s, because the overall tech level is incompatible with it. Lack of knowledge.
A machine is nothing outside the broad context of the whole. But how do you measure the social whole? What is a measurable unit of knowledge?

>You're an mathlet
You are an astrologer.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
"‘An astrologer’ is, in fact, the Oxford English Dictionary’s second definition of ‘mathematician’. For centuries, mapping stars was the job of mathematicians, a job motivated and funded by the widespread belief that star-maps were good guides to earthly affairs."

>>22668856
>microchip
typo

>>22668823
>these themselves measurable in terms of their market value
How much market value for breathable air? Is breathable air necessary?

>the cost
It's a political phenomenon of control, chud. Can you enforce copyright on a particular tech? Can you restrict pleb's access to it?

And can you enforce prices on the breathable air?

>>22668843
>Irrelevant to the actual capitalism behavior.
Tell that to a millwright, pseud.
>>22668856
>random sperg
Machines and tools are measurable assets that produce value. Simple as. Also, are you the same retard who said machines/tools aren't real? Go read your horoscope, faggot.
>>22668886
>shifts goalposts
You're a mathematically illiterate retard who is incapable of having a serious debate. Odds are you're a resentful loser indoctrinating himself with dated ideology as a cope because you failed at life. You're a waste of air.

>>22660041
if price is an indicator of value why does a ps5 costs more than one month worth of food?

>>22669026
>Machines and tools are measurable assets
I repeat: they are not.
Your ability to arbitrary restrict access/distribution of tools, tells us nothing about tech as such. You are measuring your power to restrict access to air, that is all.

>Tell that to a millwright
Industry and control over industry are 2 different phenomena. The capitalism pertains to the latter.
Were you dropped on your head, or something?

>You're a mathematically illiterate retard
I repeat: astrology is math-heavy. Prove to me, that you are not offering me astrology here, moron.

>>22669039
Bad example. Gaming systems are sold at a loss that's recuperated through licensing/game sales. Also, video games are a luxury good (a toy) and not a necessity. This distinction makes more sense than begging the question of a clean-cut distinction between price and value. Food has more value to a starving man whereas the fun that comes from owning a toy is more valuable to one with disposable income above the cost of bare necessities.
>>22669059
>I repeat: they are not.
Asserting your position without responding to the counter-argument that was presented is very poor form, anon. It's quite obvious you're an ideologue whose self-indoctrination has retarded your ability to think and respond.
>Your ability to arbitrary restrict access/distribution of tools, tells us nothing about tech as such. You are measuring your power to restrict access to air, that is all.
Ideologue answer. I never said anything about restricting access. I presented you with a retort to the laughably vague assertion that "machines/tools arent real" by way of defining how such may be defined as capital in terms of real-world cost with regard to depreciation and potential revenue (value). You can't respond so you start sperging non-sequiter nonsense about commodifying air.
>Industry and control over industry are 2 different phenomena.
Lol, I knew you multireplied like a seething faggot. I'm not here to slide into pointless semantics, retard. If you weren't such a retarded ideologue you wouldn't need to slide.
>I repeat: astrology is math-heavy.
I repeat: you're an uneducated mathlet. If you don't even have the ability to understand something as basic as linear algebra your opinion of econometrics is completely worthless. Fuck, you couldn't even understand a really basic formula (>>22663562/>>22663595) and projected that it would filter others as much as it did you.

You're a complete idiot, anon. Embaressing.

>>22656332
Some labour creates value, some labor destroys value. It's not that simple, but nothing that isn't simple can get any traction in politics.

>>22669209
>Asserting your position without responding to the counter-argument
It has been responded to. Learn to read, idiot.

>I never said anything about restricting access
Correct. I defined >>22668886 the cost as a form of control. As such, machine cost is but a nominal phenomenon. Are you having trouble following the conversation, idiot?

>I presented you with a retort to the laughably vague assertion that "machines/tools arent real"
And it has been responded to. Learn to read, idiot.

>by way of defining how such may be defined as capital
It may not >>22666767 >>22666802

>in terms of real-world cost
I repeat: unmeasurable. And you've been explained to why.

>value
There are other definitions of value. The ones that do not require real/nominal distinction >>22666523
>You can't respond so you start sperging non-sequiter nonsense
Am I speaking Chinese to you here, nigger?

>you're an uneducated mathlet
So, to summarize:
1. you were asked how your inability to provide a measurable unit is supposed to still provide correct predictions (cf. >>22666767 >>22666802 on why it is so)
2. you replied with a literal 'reee' screech.
Bravo.

>Fuck, you couldn't even understand a really basic formula
That wasn't me you were talking there, moron.
*I* am asking you, how you measure without having an actual unit of measure. No matter how amazing your formula is, you are inputting teletubbies in there, retard. Capital is immeasurable. And you've been explained why.

>>22669269
>It has been responded to.
It hasn't and once again you're simply asserting your position without directly responding to that which was offered. Thanks for proving my point.
>the cost as a form of control
You're framing the discussion in terms of your ideological bias as an excuse to sidestep the actual counter-argument that was made. I gave you an example of how to quantify machinery/tools in terms of their real-world application/use. Instead of addressing such you beg the question that they "aren't real" (lol) by going into a sperg about control/power which prejudices the discussion in terms of your ideological bias. You're too much of an idiot to even realise I can simply point out a self-employed contractor buying sawzall blades.
>And it has been responded to
Another assertion sans the weight of valid argument. You truely are an idiot.
>I repeat: unmeasurable.
I gave you a metric by which it can be measured and you've failed to respond to it.
>blah blah blah
No point reading the rest because you're stupid.

>>22669362
>I gave you an example of how to quantify machinery/tools in terms of their real-world application/use.
1. You gave me an example of how to chart an astrological chart.
2. You've been asked about the validity of astrological charts as methodology and astrology per se as a discipline
3. You responded with an "ideological bias!"-reee-screech.
Bravo.

>you beg the question that they "aren't real" (lol)
>to even realise I can simply point out a self-employed contractor buying sawzall blades
You've been replied, that the cost of the machines and the machines themselves are 2 different phenomena. The machine costs, the breathable air costs. What does the price claim has to do with the overall level of technological development? The USB-stick would be useless in 1920s. What does the price claim has to do with the machine?

>I gave you a metric
An astrological one.

>>22669362
>I gave you an example of how to quantify machinery/tools in terms of their real-world application/use.
Whatever the capitalism is, machinery is insignificant to the real-world business logic.

>>22660338
griffin goods have never once been proven to actually exist. they are pure conjecture

>>22670088
law of demand itself is pure conjecture

>>22670135
why dont you buy pencils at 30 trillion dollrs each then?

>>22670152
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli#Daraprim_price_hike

>>22670152
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_theorem#Significance
"it cannot be assumed that the demand curve for a single market, let alone an entire economy, must be smoothly downward-sloping simply because the demand curves of individual consumers are downward-sloping"
"The theorem has also raised concerns about the falsifiability of general equilibrium theory, because it seems to imply that almost any observed pattern of market price and quantity data could be interpreted as being the result of individual utility-maximizing behavior. In other words, Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu raises questions about the degree to which general equilibrium theory can produce testable predictions about aggregate market variables"

>>22656366
>reading jewish literature

May as well just kill yourself at that point. Completely worthless.

>>22670181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question#Marx_as_antisemite

>>22656332
It takes labour to get food, water, shelter, clothing, tools, etc...
If basic survival isn't "value" then what is?
I tend to think that if an axiom would make sense to a cavemen I can accept it at face value.
That being said clearly not all labour creates value...

>>22670247
>It takes labour to get food, water, shelter, clothing, tools, etc...
It takes thermodynamics for an open dissipative system not to disintegrate into entropy. Do dissipative systems labour?

>If basic survival isn't "value" then what is?
Thermodynamic depth. Energy.

>>22656332
There is a correlation between labor and value though, it’s just different depending on the context, and people disagree on how strong that correlation is

>>22670260
Doesn't physics literally use the term "work" to describe stuff acting on stuff or whatever
Basically theoretically technically yes maybe, but we're talking about people here Einstein

>>22670260
So the Mona Lisa is worth less than a gallon jug of petrol… interesting

So the question remains: What even is labour? Is it 'time*effort*efficiency' in proportion to 'utility and satisfaction' that is gained? If yes then we need to factor all these things and simply conclude that value is on the contrary that which is made possible through labour bit not necessarily related to it I'm a direct way.
For example for a long time my favorite time of the day was in bed before sleep because I was extremely exhausted and depressed. That time in bed in a warm place is made possible through labour, but the value of that time is not directly created through labour, I might as well feel horrible in bed before sleep.
So the right term is that labour makes value possible, and the more and better it enables value, the better the labour, but no labour necessarily creates value.

>>22670334
What labor creates zero value?

>>22670334
>we need to factor all these things and simply conclude that value is on the contrary that which is made possible through labour bit not necessarily related to it I'm a direct way.
Attributing labor to value is archaic, value has no relations to labor in any way, value is determined by necessity and what is necessary changes given progress.

>>22670579
Yes and not really the world doesn't magically progress around your bodily functions unless you mechanically replace them

Am sure of it

>>22670597
Labor can be automated and provide equal value as it did before it had been automated.

>>22670602
Are you gonna replace my dick with a dildo?

Serious fucking question

>>22670602
>Labor can be automated and provide equal value...
...yet automated labor leads to prices plummeting.

INTEREDESTING

>>22670624
>leads to prices plummeting
Which means an increase in the purchasing power of other labourers. Did the value of their labour magically increase or do you now realize that economic theory from 2 centuries ago is overly simplistic?

>>22669396
>1. You gave me an example of how to chart an astrological chart.
That's an assertion you fail to demonstrate and I reject the analogy. The capital value of tools/machinery is easy to quantify, as per the example given, and such has obvious practical application in the real world. You're a disingenuous retard, I shouldn't entertain your slides, but I'll point out the superficial connection you're making, using mathematics in a bogus field of enquiry, doesn't entail that such is being used incorrectly by econometrics. You're an idiot who is filtered by math as evident by the fact you posted a really basic formula earlier under the projection that others wouldn't be able to understand it.
>2. You've been asked about the validity of astrological charts as methodology and astrology per se as a discipline
Redundant. See above.
>3. You responded with an "ideological bias!"-reee-screech.
I clearly stated how your argument is indicative of ideological bias and you cannot directly respond to the criticism (which itself exemplifies ideological possession). Basically, you attempt to frame the issue at hand in terms of a demand that I accept semantic arguments that deflect criticism instead of addressing it. Alongside this assertions of you point without engaging with the wider context offered by my criticism. You're filtered and don't even realize it; this is the heart of ideological bias.
>You've been replied, that the cost of the machines and the machines themselves are 2 different phenomena
The point I made doesn't run counter to the idea that you can differentiate between the cost of a machine at a given time and the value it is able to produce at another. This is, again, a slide appeal to semantics in leiu of actually addressing criticism. As elucidated earlier, you can quantify the value output of a machine/tool at any given point in time as well as ascertain its lifetime output before purchase. I also pointed out that such isn't a matter of scale when it comes to price control (i.e. another ideological framing you injected non-sequiter) as the formula can be used for a factory or an individual contractor purchasing something like a sawzall.

To sum up you're an idiot incapable of having this discussion. You don't understand basic mathematics and are filtered by the quantification of variables, yet you think you're in a position to dismiss them. You project that I'm holding on to an antiquated understanding while you sperg about economic theory from 2 centuries ago. It's obvious you're out of your depth and ideologically possessed. Put more simply: you're a complete idiot and a waste of oxygen. Your absence ITT, and I'm willing to be in the world overall, would be a net value to society.

the point of automating labor is to reduce costs resulting in an increase revenue, this is not possible without leaving product prices the same, the whole idea is to make more money for investors not to increase the purchasing power of labourers, your ideas are as stupid as those of old grandpa telling you capitalism is better because everyone can work real hard and become a billionaire lmao.

>>22656665
>Believes commodities just pop into existence straight into your hands without any labor involved.
lmao do capitalists really?

>>22670902
>what is water

>>22656541
And what do those laborers use to fuel themselves? That's right, food! Value comes from food. Therefore the more you eat the more value you bring. Wanna prove me wrong? Give me a single example of a laborer that didn't need food.

>>22670802
>The capital value of tools/machinery is easy to quantify,
Yet your 'quantifications' have absolutely zero empirical relevance >>22669408 >>22668843
The power of Saturn upon your fate is easy to quantify, too. And absolutely zero empirical relevance. Hence, astrology.

>using mathematics in a bogus field of enquiry
entails that the quantified power of Saturn has only anthropological value of observation upon the quantifying retards. (pic related)

That still doesn't answer, how do machines enter the picture. And why do they really need to.

>The point I made doesn't run counter to the idea that you can differentiate between the cost of a machine at a given time and the value it is able to produce at another.
You cannot compute the value you think it is producing. Because you cannot define WHAT is producing WHAT, imbecile.
You cannot define neither tech per se (>>22669059 pic), nor even attribute inputs to outputs inside a black box (>>22666802 pic) that allegedly does the producing.

Hence you can only point at prices/costs. But that is precisely the problem, that I keep addressing, retard. There is no 'real' phenomena you can measure.

(And to elaborate for simpletons: no, I am not saying that machines do not exist. I understand that I am saying right now something super complicated for your 2-digit-iq brain, but bear with me:
1. There is no 'real' phenomena measured in economics.
2. no, I am not saying that sawzalls do not exist. I am saying there is a reason why you can price the sawzalls, but not breathable air.
Access restriction, capiche?)

>its lifetime output
>>22668647 pic. You are really incapable of learning, aren't you?

>To sum up you're an idiot
No, you.

>>22670695
>Which means an increase in the purchasing power of other labourers...
...so the value of THEIR labor has increased.

Welp.

>>22670969
>That's right, food! Value comes from food
But food comes from labor...

>>22670984
>Yet your 'quantifications' have absolutely zero empirical relevance
So you keep asserting while failing to describe why. I know the price of the tool now, it's rate of production over time, and the rate at which it will deteriorate. All of those things are objectively quantifiable in terms of real world empirical data. You can't directly argue against this so you regurgitate a superficial connection to astrology. I'm not arguing that every quantification of a variable throughout all of history is valid; I've stated a specific real world example which you are unable to address.
>entails that the quantified power of Saturn has only anthropological value of observation
You're mathematically illiterate, anon. You can't perform basic mathematical operations let alone describe to me how data is quantified into formulas. Just because you're confused by this and choose to go along with the ramblings of ideologues doesn't mean others, smarter than yourself, are as well.

Even though you're completely filtered and refuse to respond to my arguments I won't be disingenuous. For the sake of simplicity I'll tell you that all descriptive models are based on past observation (the argument in the picture you posted is weak if generalized). I'm not arguing that the finance industry doesn't entail shenanigans; there are economic variables that can be quantified, measured, and understood. The problem is that the economy is an extremely complex system and just like any system we study scientifically we model it piece by piece. Aside, you haven't studied the history of science and probably have no knowledge regarding the role astrology played in the Aristotelian Medieval Worldview or how charting patterns within the stars lead to practical applications (e.g. navigation) and modern science (e.g. Newtonianism).
>That still doesn't answer, how do machines enter the picture.
They demonstrate that an economic theory from 2 centuries ago is myopic by today's standards. Instead of determining aspects of a complex system by its parts and how they engage one another it sets out prejudiced terminology that dictates its own understanding. Such is ideological by its nature and fails to map reality.
>blah blah blah
You're an idiot, anon. You don't understand basic mathematics but maintain the pretense that you can dismiss it by regurgitating other people's (bad) arguments that are themselves only tangentially related to the discussion at hand. You'll never think for yourself and will continue to live in a world of delusion for the foreseeable future. You're too stupid to ever understand just how dumb you truly are.

>>22671035
Which your theory can't define adequately. The argument isn't that labour produces no value but rather that the labour theory of value is antiquated.

>>22671424
>I know the price of the tool now
which tells only about company's ability to forcefully restrict copyright access to a, say, USB-stick. You can't price air. Not powerful enough.

>it's rate of production over time
Ian Steedman's 'joint production' problem

>and the rate at which it will deteriorate
A USB-stick transported into 1920s would be no different than a wooden stick. A USB-stick as a piece of tech is nothing aside from the broad context of the social whole. Which lies outside your ability to measure.

>All of those things are objectively quantifiable in terms of real world empirical data
No more than a Saturn's influence on your fate. Yet ever since Babylon, the diviners were convinced otherwise: omens, extispicy, self-evident truth.

>You can't directly argue against this so you regurgitate a superficial connection to astrology.
You were just given:
-an argument against the price (price is quantifiable differential power, i.e. a nominal phenomenon)
-a several decades old reference to 'joint production', which in turn has commitments to Sraffa's and Joan Robinson's Cambridge Controversy, which directly argues that capital is not a measurable material thing (hence no production)
-the definition of tech as the knowledge part of human social network, - and the latter as a Complex System (as such, Chaotic)


Yet all I hear from is but a "reee"-shriek a-la "Noooo, you can't!"


>You can't perform basic mathematical operations
Currently, there is no need. As there is doubt about the validity of YOUR mathematical operations.

>let alone describe to me how data is quantified into formulas
Since economics cannot measure anything but prices, the only formulas that matter are:
1. anthropological ritual observation - aka differential power.
2. price measurements of the only nigh-universal yet-objectively-physical proxy: electricity

>I'll tell you that all descriptive models are based on past observation
There is a reason why sociology/anthropology/economics are not a hard science. They can't predict shit. As such, there is little difference between them and, say, Tolkien Studies

>The problem is that the economy is an extremely complex system
And Complex Systems have sensitive initial/boundary conditions. Insertion of 5 wolves changes the course of a river.

Complex Systems are resistant to math. Because math deals with static phenomena, and you are dealing with dynamic ones. You cannon mathematically model a river changing its own riverbed through flowing.

>and just like any system we study scientifically we model it piece by piece
To deal with a dynamic system you run computer simulations. Hoping, that the simplified model's cyclical behavior would somewhat resemble the real one.

But you've just been expressed doubt of the existence of the particular 'pieces'. You are trying to input fucking teletubbies in there.

>determining aspects of a complex system by its parts and how they engage one another
nonlinearly

>>22672336
>which tells only about company's ability to forcefully restrict copyright access
I've answered this already by pointing out such a measurement isn't dependant upon large scale manufacturing (i.e. an independent contractor buying a sawzall runs through the same real world considerations). I also criticized the point as representing an ideological bias being regurgated instead of actually addressing the argument that was made. You have yet to answer to either of these continue to fail when it comes to engaging with the context offered.
>air
I don't have to quantify the value of air in order to demonstrate that economic variables can be systematized and understood. I also pointed out that not every construct is valid and plenty of shenanigans take place in the financial world. You have yet to provide any evidence that what I've said is offbase beyond assertions and non-sequiters.
>Ian Steedman's 'joint production' problem
Name dropping isn't an argument, anon. Also, ideas concerning joint production do not invalidate the fact that you can quantify the productive capacity of a machine/tool over time. Another non-sequiter.
>A USB-stick transported into 1920s would be no different than a wooden stick.
The difference in past/present utility of an object doesn't undermine the idea that economic variables can be quantified in a meaningful way. It's a silly thought experiment and sounds like something a stoned teenager would mistake for insight.
>No more than a Saturn's influence on your fate.
Done reading your post. I've already responded to this assertion in detail multiple times and you just disingenuously ignore. This is why you don't have friends in real life, anon. You're a retard with nothing to offer anything. You have no value.

Marxism is a doomsday cult. Historicism was a mistake.

>>22672416
>I've answered this already by pointing out such a measurement isn't dependant upon large scale manufacturing
>an independent contractor buying a sawzall runs through the same real world considerations
To which it has been answered already >>22669408 >>22668843 that large-scale manufacturing empirically behaves contrary to you predictions. Are you insane, retard?

A large-scale manufacturer tries to restrict and sabotage the manufacturing.

>I also criticized the point as representing an ideological bias
It is not an "ideological bias", if your methodology is being doubted.

>I also pointed out that not every construct is valid
Why do you think yours is, retard?

>Name dropping isn't an argument
Nice way of disregarding an argument, schizo.

>ideas concerning joint production do not invalidate the fact that you can quantify
No, they do. You can't. You are just "ideologically biased".

>economic variables can be quantified
>Done reading your post
Nice way of skipping inconvenient theory about Complex Systems' sensitivity to boundary conditions. Sure, go ahead. Quantify.
Retard.

>It's a silly thought experiment
Nice way of disregarding an argument, schizo.

>>22660136
What do you think "socially necessary labor time" means?

>>22672416
>>22672478
>an independent contractor buying a sawzall runs through the same real world consideration
To elaborate for retards: you cannot buy a train ticket, if robber barons have dismantled all the railroads, so that people would buy cars.

Your "real world considerations" are directly shaped by the "large scale manufacturing". And the latter cognizes itself in price-logic ethos.

>>22672435
>Historicism was a mistake.
Historicism was. Darwinistic cultural evolution isn't.
The difference is: whether there is an environmental filter to select against.

But both are still better, than Invisible Hand worshippers, that think that markets are an eternal timeless god.

>>22672478
>To which it has been answered already
Nope. You're filtered by it so you can't respond. All you do is assert in wrong without any actual argument--frequently your slides aren't even tangentially related to the actual argument that was made.
>blah blah blah
Not reading your replies beyond the first sentence until you actually respond to an argument.

You're a retard, anon.

>>22672545
>your slides aren't even tangentially related
must be sad having a 2-digit-iq score.

>>22672554
>t. couldn't engage with a single point that was made
Lol

>>22671429
Nobody argues against that - Marx himself was not hanging on to it. The point here is that labor is a vital central element for the process of creation of value.

>>22672914
This is yours and his mistake

People do things for the heck of it