What are the essential ancap books?

File: 60 KB, 500x483, 41DD0485-D45C-403C-94D8-BA44F623CD3C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:26:49 2020 No.15685585 [Reply] [Original]

What are the essential ancap books?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Wed Jun 24 01:29:36 2020 No.15685604 File: 480 KB, 2832x1131, BCE32FC3-C7B9-4478-80AB-9CF2ADAFBA6D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] That one quote where Rothbard admits that they are not actually anarchists

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:31:17 2020 No.15685619 >>15685604 if you think discovering ancaps aren't anarchist (and that they know they aren't) is going to dissuade its followers or dishearten its teachers, you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:31:25 2020 No.15685620 >>15685585 human action man economy and state how to win friends and influence ppl what everyBODY is saying (navarro) the charisma myth surviving a borderline parent

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:31:27 2020 No.15685621 >>15685585 >Human action >Democracy, the god that failed >The ethics of liberty >Man, economy and state

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Wed Jun 24 01:33:17 2020 No.15685629 >>15685619 >We’ll destroy the world to get our hands on those delicious child prostitutes!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:33:21 2020 No.15685631 >>15685585 Hoppe’s white supremacy muddies his too many of his points but democracy: the god that failed is unironically a great book

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:48:08 2020 No.15685711 >>15685585 Yes, it does. LTOV is true. Anyone who denies this is missing information, doesn't understand it or is just ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:52:41 2020 No.15685746 >>15685711 Labor and value are non-convex and non-linear with one another. The relationship between physical size and value is no less strong than the relationship between labor and value.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:53:46 2020 No.15685753 >>15685711 It’s not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:54:38 2020 No.15685764 >>15685711 >LTOV is true LOL

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 01:57:55 2020 No.15685789

>>15685746
Value =/ price, reminder.
If you spend 5 hours working on something it will undeniably be better than 1 hour assuming your labour output is consistent throughout it. Of course, if it can only be improved up to a certain extent than the 5 hours could not matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:01:44 2020 No.15685816 >>15685789 Oh btw to pre empt your essay: If in 1 hour your output is to 5 hours of consistent labour then the labour is still the same. Also sorry about my English if it is bad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:11:15 2020 No.15685866 >>15685746 >>15685753 >>15685764 Delusional

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:11:39 2020 No.15685870 File: 420 KB, 772x720, hoppe liberty.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685604 >they Ancaps reject all forms of collectivism, what one individual says doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:12:59 2020 No.15685876 File: 248 KB, 730x486, belledelphine subjectivity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685866 Want to be BTFO again LTV fag?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:13:17 2020 No.15685878 >>15685585 >>15685604 >>15685870 Only 3 not talking about Marx so just a reminder AnCap is a literal meme ideology and if you are an unironic AnCap you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:14:18 2020 No.15685887 >>15685876 Sure try to "BTFO" us but I know you're just gonna post personal attacks. So yeah try! But also if you haven't read Marx go do that!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:14:18 2020 No.15685888 File: 145 KB, 512x512, 1592941638262.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685870 >this group of people rejects the idea of a group of people Whoahh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:14:34 2020 No.15685891 >>15685866 Read Wicksteed

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:15:40 2020 No.15685898 >>15685891 Disprove LTOV

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:15:56 2020 No.15685902 >>15685888 The way you are using "groups" is collectivist garbage.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:16:23 2020 No.15685910 >>15685878 >communists get triggered by OPs pic and enter thread to fling shit >surprised when the entire thread is just shit flinging

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:18:01 2020 No.15685921 >>15685910 Prove Ancap isn't a meme ideology. Literally just "omg yass this guy inherited money from his great great grandfather step on mee!!!"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:19:54 2020 No.15685935 >>15685585 Ancap is actually the stupidest belief ever. I can't believe you actually think communists are dumb when your entire ideology is just replacing government with Bezos.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:20:57 2020 No.15685939 >>15685921 Minarchism is legitimately the better version of an ancap. Disregarding the fact that a state grows in a vacuum, someone still has to enforce the nap

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:21:22 2020 No.15685944
File: 1.20 MB, 1280x720, belle1.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15685898
>>15685887
>>15685866
You asked for it fag.

Belle Delphine released the water she bathed in in one of her videos. The little jars were posted on their page for $ 30 each and quickly sold out.
If for Marx, the exchange value of a commodity depends on the socially necessary work that they have incorporated, how can we explain the ridiculous and absurd exchange value of Delphine jars, with these having practically no incorporated work? Being the price for Marxists, the apparent representation of the exchange value, which in turn, ultimately depends on work, is there a solution?
The reason why a small bottle of Delphine "bath water" is priced relative to half a tank of gas is because value and prices have Nothing to do with work.
Belle Delphine and the theory of subjective value seem buries the theory of labor value and the theoretical core of Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:22:42 2020 No.15685951 >>15685921 >Prove communism isn't a meme ideology. Literally just "omg nooo this guy makes more money than me, State please step on himm!!!"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:23:43 2020 No.15685957 >>15685898 Yard sales

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:25:24 2020 No.15685964 >>15685944 Price =/ value Retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:26:49 2020 No.15685978 File: 2.07 MB, 604x850, 1592047207040.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685964 t. braindead Give up commie you have no power.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:27:27 2020 No.15685984 >>15685951 It isnt though. Communism has actually happened,but ancap has not

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:27:41 2020 No.15685985 >>15685978 Not an argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:28:35 2020 No.15685991 >>15685984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:29:08 2020 No.15685998 >>15685944 >>15685978 >Essay gets BTFO by literally two words Seethe

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:29:25 2020 No.15686000 >>15685585 >ancap Oxymoron. >>15685619 Just say capitalism, bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:29:38 2020 No.15686004 File: 51 KB, 500x500, bell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685985 The valor of the water jars was $ 30, dumbass. You don't even understand the theory you are trying to defend, pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:30:12 2020 No.15686007 >>15685585 Ancap is bullshit and you know It.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:31:04 2020 No.15686017 >>15686004 Unironically read Marx

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:32:13 2020 No.15686024 >>15685991 LMAO Ancucks destroyed >>15685944 >>15685964 >>15685978 >>15686004 >>15686017 Commie is right in this case but for the wrong reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:32:37 2020 No.15686026 >>15685984 Communism has literally never happened. Show me one example historically where the state was dissolved and workers owned the means of production

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:32:57 2020 No.15686030 File: 870 KB, 1280x720, bl4.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686017 see>>15685985 And read dictionary. My job here is done.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:33:09 2020 No.15686034 >>15685944 If it turns out that LTV can't account for prices in the 0.0000001% of all commercial transactions that involve degenerate commodity fetishism, I can live with that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:33:39 2020 No.15686036 >>15686024 Kowloon was based though

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:34:16 2020 No.15686040 >>15686024 This, Marxfag is wrong and he knows it but so is the Delphine guy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:34:33 2020 No.15686042 >>15686024 >Commie is right in this case but for the wrong reason. No, you are simply a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:35:42 2020 No.15686047 >>15686042 He is right though because Marx was specifically talking about mid 1800s commodities. LTV applies to those still.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:36:41 2020 No.15686055 >>15685957 this made me laugh but i understand your point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:36:58 2020 No.15686056 >>15686047 >talking about mid 1800s commodities Like water? xD

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:38:31 2020 No.15686066

>>15685991
>From the 1950s to the 1970s, it was controlled by local triads and had high rates of prostitution, gambling and drug abuse.
Literally first paragraph. Ancaps seethe about how commie society doesn’t work then turn around and say this is a good example of ancap

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:41:24 2020 No.15686085 >>15686047 Marx was a retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:41:41 2020 No.15686091 >>15686066 >nooooo you can’t abuse drugs and fuck prostitutes and be in a gang!!!! you have to pay taxes and wait in the bread line!!!! Fuck off moralist

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:42:02 2020 No.15686092 >>15686056 Belle Delphine's piss water wasn't something Marx would have any reason to think about and really it just proves that capitalism is a fucking terrible system if

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:43:24 2020 No.15686099 >>15686091 Ancuck cope. You all think you'd be some capitalist warlord with a harem of Asian chicks but in reality you'd be a serf.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:43:44 2020 No.15686100 >>15686091 You're completely onions and would have your hands (and dick) chopped off your first day there. Ancaps are tough guy larpers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:45:05 2020 No.15686111 >>15686099 and every communist thinks they’d be some artist instead of having to work at starbucks

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:45:48 2020 No.15686120
File: 43 KB, 850x400, quote-every-socialist-is-a-disguised-dictator-ludwig-von-mises-140-56-65 state government.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15686092
Who are you say what is terrible or not? Is it because you want to control like a dictator what people can like or not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:45:52 2020 No.15686121 >>15686091 I’m not a fucking communist you seething retard. Also yes, you shouldn’t harm other people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:52:08 2020 No.15686153 >>15686120 And?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:52:14 2020 No.15686154 File: 82 KB, 500x500, F60454AE-59EF-4252-B0F6-E8FE531076E9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686100

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:54:06 2020 No.15686168 >1800+220 >still no good argument for communism is communism just a containment zone for retards?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:54:28 2020 No.15686169 >>15686120 It's called being an Übermensch. Now bow down and show some respect for your betters, you subhuman filth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:55:13 2020 No.15686174 File: 55 KB, 793x794, 1572962771219.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686153 Proved my point. Thank you.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 02:56:29 2020 No.15686184

>>15686120
Without Delphine pisswater they were nothing. They'd built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked, but nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. Cities exploded -- a whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:02:00 2020 No.15686210 File: 85 KB, 491x625, soijack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686174 BUT WHAT ABOUT MUH N.A.P.? YOU CAN'T JUST TURN ON THE HECKIN' GASERINO. THAT WOULD BE WAY TOO AGGRESSIVE...NOOOOOOO!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:04:10 2020 No.15686222 File: 40 KB, 474x444, 1573431044162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686184 If there is nothing that satisfies my preferences. Everything can go down in flames.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:16:57 2020 No.15686282

>>15685944
One should read Baudrillard for such examples, Baudrillard thought that a "sign-value" reigned supreme in our current times. A good example of this is someone who buys a Rolex. Sure, the person might value the function of the watch, yet might value even more, even subconsciously, the sign and prestige associated with such a thing, that signifies his or her wealth.
It is the same with the disenfranchised people who actually buy the thing for whatever reason, they themselves know it has no utility, unless for sexual deeds, but there are better examples of such things such as findom etc. The reason they value the thing is the thing signifies something, no matter if it may be their post-ironic detachment, their deep association to meme culture and this post-internet hellscape we live in.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:17:59 2020 No.15686289 >>15686282 who buy the bathwater*

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:26:09 2020 No.15686333 >>15686282 Good point. It still implies subjectivity though. Regardless if it can be considered sick or not.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:31:24 2020 No.15686367

>>15686184
obviously the solution is an authoritarian government that makes moral regulations and laws for the good of society, (banning degeneracy like bellewater for instance, if its becoming too big for its own good)

while the finer details of production are allowed to be free. a communist manager has more abusable power than a capitalist one since they are monopolising production under the "worker's" common ownership (but in reality is the state's ownership, subject to all the corruption that implies, and you would need to put in a lot of work and technology to ensure the former doesnt devolve into the latter).

Theres no reason a group who can benefit the greater good where production is concerned (by providing more for less - efficiency) cant muster up the capital to buy the same means of production they covet. The limiting factor is convincing lenders you arent full of shit

None of those means of production are limited in supply, except things like land, which is why you need to be more like singapore and have some commercial/industrial zones in cities be lease-only, while more rural areas can still be freehold

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:37:35 2020 No.15686397

>>15685964
exchange value is actual genuine value, since that is what people who have different subjective "values" can agree upon to be a mutually beneficial exchange.
other types of value are moralistic/religious propaganda that you can convince people to agree with, but it will be inauthentic and all but the most impressionable wont take it to heart.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:42:25 2020 No.15686416

>>15686034
It applies to all luxury items, all sign value, all art. You could say its commodity fetishism, or you could say its an attempt to establish your individual identity in a massive society by contrast

A bourgeois pursuit, but are you saying we should be de-individualised ants instead? LTV certainly applies to them pretty well

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:56:21 2020 No.15686470 File: 118 KB, 1100x1600, M3SubHandsblackgoldgey.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585 The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 03:58:31 2020 No.15686479 File: 29 KB, 550x400, notarealanarchist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685604 >muh label!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:00:20 2020 No.15686485 File: 360 KB, 600x580, kek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685711 >LTOV is true

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:01:22 2020 No.15686492 >>15685964 What's this phantom """value""" you're talking about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:02:24 2020 No.15686496 File: 269 KB, 1280x1500, marx .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686017 Why would anyone read a pseud whose theories have been debunked time and time again by history itself?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:09:26 2020 No.15686524 >>15685789 >Of course, if it can only be improved up to a certain extent than the 5 hours could not matter. Why would you willingly undermine your own point like this

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj Wed Jun 24 04:13:41 2020 No.15686537 >>15686479 So just admit you’re a liberal. Stop memeing Same with the Libertarian Party. They aren’t libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:18:55 2020 No.15686559 >>15686537 How is the libertarian party not libertarian?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:28:02 2020 No.15686591 >>15686559 Newfag detected. You should know by now that only leftists get to define things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:28:23 2020 No.15686594 >>15686496 what did history "debunk"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:29:38 2020 No.15686600 >>15685964 What is value, then? Surely price is the best indicator of economic value? Other values are aesthetic, moral, or even epistemic, but not economic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:42:15 2020 No.15686642 >>15686416 >we should be de-individualised ants instead Stop trying to define your identity as a person based on what you consoom. Jesus and Marx are in agreement that this kind of bugmanism is perverse and sick.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:43:38 2020 No.15686652

>>15685619
this. I don't understand what they wish to accomplish by arguing semantics like this. Ancaps are anarchists in the sense of "no state". Being like well akshually anarchism means no unjust hierarchies is such a weak argument. It refutes nothing, and doesn't say anything about ancaps either, it's just a definitions game. Imagine thinking this is some sort of own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:45:47 2020 No.15686664 >>15686559 >>15686591 Lol. Both "libertarian" and "anarchist" have always been leftist terms. The fact that some rightwing Amerilard tried to appropriate the label in the 60s is of no consequence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:46:50 2020 No.15686667 >>15686652 >Ancaps are anarchists Lol, no. Read a book.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:48:54 2020 No.15686678 >>15686537 >>15686664 >just admit you're not a """libertarian""" (TM) (Leftist Retard Edition) Sure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:49:56 2020 No.15686686 >>15686667 Why not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:50:57 2020 No.15686691 >>15686594 Pretty much all of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:52:01 2020 No.15686700 File: 100 KB, 800x600, 800x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686047 >LTV applies to those still. How the fuck are you so stupid? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_machinery Fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:54:01 2020 No.15686710 >>15686667 Fuck off with your definitions faggotry, your post is exactly what I'm talking about. We all know what anarcho-capitalists means by anarcho but you just have to whine that it doesn't fit your leftist definition of anarchist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:54:04 2020 No.15686711 >>15686686 Because they propose policies that are deliberately designed to increase the unjust concentration of power into fewer hands (capitalism). That's going in the exact wrong direction if you purport to be an anarchist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:55:38 2020 No.15686716 >>15686711 >more liberty is anti-libertarian lol you're a retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:56:01 2020 No.15686717 >>15686710 Also you type like some sort of twitter tranny, just so you know. Maybe tone the queerness down a bit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:56:41 2020 No.15686720 >>15686711 >increase the unjust concentration of power into fewer hands You mean like every leftist ideology in practice?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:57:05 2020 No.15686723 >>15686711 Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that totally rejects a set hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:57:41 2020 No.15686725 >>15686000 >Oxymoron. Why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 04:59:24 2020 No.15686730 >>15686034 >0.0000001% of all commercial transactions Try all transactions in a modern economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:00:52 2020 No.15686734 >>15686700 What?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:01:02 2020 No.15686736 >>15686416 It's not just art, that anon is retarded. The output of virtually ALL labor in a modern economy is amplified by capital (machinery, etc.) Anyone with a single braincell can see that. LToV is flat-earth tier (probably worse).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:01:57 2020 No.15686737 >>15686710 >logic doesn't matter! I can use words however I want!! Dilate.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:02:23 2020 No.15686741

>>15686734
What "what"? Are you fucking retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)
>In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.
Holy shit read a textbook for once and then fucking kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:03:24 2020 No.15686745 >>15686716 Private ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with "liberty" you fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:04:31 2020 No.15686754 >>15686717 Methinks the manlady doth protest too much.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:05:34 2020 No.15686758 >>15686730 Closer to none.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:06:18 2020 No.15686762 >>15686745 Yeah it does. I'm free to reap what I sow and I'm free to do what I want with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:06:52 2020 No.15686764 >>15686745 lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:07:37 2020 No.15686767 >>15686741 Are you feeling okay? You keep posting non-sequitur wikipedia articles before making a pissy comment. Take a deep breath and formulate a response relevant to the conversation you are participating in.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:07:54 2020 No.15686769 >>15686758 What do you mean? Are you a time-traveler from a pre-industrial age or something, retard?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:08:56 2020 No.15686778 >>15686767 Agricultural output is not proportional to agricultural labor. You fucking retarded moron. Do the world a favor and neck yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:09:19 2020 No.15686781 >>15686736 What are you trying to say? You think LTV is somehow incompatible with the existence of machinery? You sound completely unhinged.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:10:13 2020 No.15686785

>>15686737
>I can use words however I want!!
I can use words in the way they are used by society at large. Which implies that some words won't really have precise meanings, they might be used in different ways by different people.
>logic doesn't matter!
Argument over semantics don't matter.
>Dilate.
>>15686717

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:11:02 2020 No.15686787 >>15686762 Says who? You need a nanny state to defend your precious bugman "property rights" that exist nowhere in nature.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:11:02 2020 No.15686788

>>15686781
Let me read the definition out for you, you stupid baboon.
>The labor theory of value (LTV) was an early attempt by economists to explain why goods were exchanged for certain relative prices on the market. It suggested that the value of a commodity was determined by and could be measured objectively by THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF LABOR HOURS necessary to produce it. In the labor theory of value, the AMOUNT OF LABOR that goes into producing an economic good is the source of that good's value.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:11:28 2020 No.15686792 >>15686781 No, he's obviously saying that capital renders the LTV worthless, since the output will inevitably outweigh the labor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:12:02 2020 No.15686798 >>15686787 >"property rights" that exist nowhere in nature. They exist right now lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:12:53 2020 No.15686801 >>15686787 No, I don't. All I need is a gun. Or better yet, lots'a men with lots'a guns.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:13:32 2020 No.15686805 >>15686778 Jesus fucking Christ, are you really that retarded? That's not what the LTV is about. LTV is about the labor embodied in the agricultural equipment. You really need to read Marx because you are completely lost.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:15:34 2020 No.15686816

>>15686805
See >>15686788 you utter imbecile.
>LTV is about the labor embodied in the agricultural equipment
>"""embodied in"""
Fucking LOL.

A man spends all day digging holes in the desert and filling them back up. Another man expends the same amount of labor but plants crops. Which one created value in any meaningful sense? Only a brainwashed, retarded Marxist like you could possibly be blinded to the obvious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:16:47 2020 No.15686820 >>15686788 The "labor" involved in using the equipment is dwarfed by the labor involved in making the equipment. You can't just include the labor of the last person in the supply chain to touch the thing. You have to aggregate all labor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:17:49 2020 No.15686823 >>15686798 Only in your mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:18:44 2020 No.15686830 File: 525 KB, 900x550, kubota-900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15686820 >the labor involved in making the equipment lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:19:01 2020 No.15686831 >>15686816 Holy fuck you are LOST. Did you really think you could just bullshit your way through this without reading any Marx?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:19:45 2020 No.15686834 >>15686820 See >>15686816 you dumb fucking monkey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:20:03 2020 No.15686836 >>15686830 B-but what about the factory builder, and the material providers and logisticians, if only we had a tool to include the whole production process

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:20:19 2020 No.15686838 File: 18 KB, 220x369, 1592990419180.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585 Probably the best ancap book ever written.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:20:33 2020 No.15686841 >>15686830 Yes, prices go down when the necessary labor decreases. That's the theory, brainlet. What are you not getting?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:20:46 2020 No.15686843 >>15686823 And liberty, anarchism, etc. don't?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:21:20 2020 No.15686846 >>15686816 >>15686831 marxist anon here might be a tranny but he's correct, that not what labor means in the context of LTV

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:21:48 2020 No.15686848 >>15686831 >can't refute the simple example I gracefully accept your concession. You may now return to bunkerchan, chapocel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:22:41 2020 No.15686850 >>15686823 And in law. It's more real than anarchy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:22:48 2020 No.15686851 >>15686841 >I'm gonna reply with something irrelevant haha I'm so random xD Fuck off retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:23:30 2020 No.15686855 >>15686823 Social constructs are real

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:23:32 2020 No.15686856 >>15686848 Pro-tip: learn what the LTV is before attempting to critique it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:23:50 2020 No.15686857 >>15686846 >haha not him but That's EXACTLY what labor means in the context of LTV >>15686788, so stop bullshitting, you dishonest sack of shit. You've been blown the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:24:51 2020 No.15686860 >>15686856 see >>15686788

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:25:06 2020 No.15686862 >>15686851 Irrelevant? It's literally what the theory entails, mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:25:52 2020 No.15686865 >>15686823 >dude can't you see it's like all in your mind bro lamo XD we live in a society

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:27:29 2020 No.15686871 >>15686857 You literally thought LTV was refuted by the existence of agricultural machinery. That's how fucking clueless you are. At least the Delphine water guy had a legit criticism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:27:38 2020 No.15686873

>>15686862
Your """theory""" entails that a man digging holes in the desert and filling them back up has produced more """value""" than someone expending half the effort in useful work.

The theory is fucking retarded, anon. How can you seriously not see this? Actually, I bet you do see it, it's fucking obvious after all. You're just trying to save face, because your """theory""" is fucking nonsense and you know it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:29:16 2020 No.15686880 >>15686871 It is. It's refuted by pretty much anything in a modern economy, actually. It's an utterly dumb theory, something you'd expect from a toddler.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:30:17 2020 No.15686884 >>15686857 Bro, did you just google LTV definition, go into "investopedia" and think you debunked Marxism, without even reading Marx? Cringe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:30:51 2020 No.15686886 >>15686873 I'm right wing and think you're wrong. Digging and filling isn't socially necessary. Pretty sure that was from like chapter 1.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:31:32 2020 No.15686887 >>15686884 >dude bro but like you still haven't read Marx tho ur gonna make me cry bro ;_; Address the example, you fucking weasel.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:31:57 2020 No.15686891 >>15686880 This, there's a reason Marx is discussed much more in philosophy circles than in economical ones

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:32:14 2020 No.15686892 >>15686873 LTV does not entail that someone doing meaningless work without even a product in the end has produced more value than someone who does half the work and produced a product. Read something instead of debunking points noone is making

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:40:53 2020 No.15686925 >>15686873 Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:42:26 2020 No.15686933 >>15686880 >huh huh what about muh tractor! >LTV refuted! You are truly astonishingly retarded.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:42:52 2020 No.15686935

>>15686892
>But what is the value of a commodity? The objective form of the social labour expended in its production. And how do we measure the quantity of this value? By the quantity of the labour contained in it.
>Twelve hours’ labour are exchanged against 10, 6, etc. hours’ labour. This equalization of unequal quantities not merely does away with the determination of value. Such a self-destructive contradiction (!!!) cannot be in any way even enunciated or formulated as a law.
Das Kapital 1.6.19

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:43:31 2020 No.15686938 >>15686873 You are shadowboxing yourself into a coma, my dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:43:54 2020 No.15686939 >>15686925 Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:44:55 2020 No.15686942 >>15686933 >I still can't refute the fact that the value of a commodity isn't determined by the quantity of labour expended in its production. Yeah I know. It's impossible to refute.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:45:56 2020 No.15686946 >>15686938 You are shadowboxing yourself into a coma, my dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:46:38 2020 No.15686948 >>15686887 Filled-up holes is not a viable product unless Delphine is doing the digging.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:46:57 2020 No.15686950 >>15686886 See >>15686935

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:48:03 2020 No.15686954 >>15686933 >I have no response

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:48:10 2020 No.15686955 >>15686942 >the value of a commodity isn't determined by the quantity of labour expended in its production That's not what the LTV says, you drooling imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:49:05 2020 No.15686960 >>15686948 >Filled-up holes is not a viable product precisely why LTV is dumb

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:50:11 2020 No.15686963 >>15686955 >That's not what the LTV says uh oh, looks like you didn't read the book >>15686935

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:50:56 2020 No.15686966

>>15686935
How does this quote in any way support the "digging" argument you made earlier?
He states in the quote you posted that the objective form is the labour expanded in its PRODUCTION. There is no need or "production" of digging a useless hole for 10 hours.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:51:22 2020 No.15686968 >>15686935 >>15686950 We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:53:22 2020 No.15686978 >>15686960 You think LTV requires the viability of filled-up holes as a product? Based on what? The point of LTV is to explain actual prices. If there is no price to explain, there is no need for any explanation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:53:40 2020 No.15686980 >ITT seething chapocels trying to defend, I kid you not, the LTV I thought this was a forum for literature, not astrology-tier healing crystals shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:54:30 2020 No.15686984 >>15686963 Reading comprehension fail.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:54:52 2020 No.15686987 >>15685711 Nope. If someone stumbles across a bar of gold the product isn't going to be worthless because it was an easy find

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:55:21 2020 No.15686990 >>15685944 LTV is compatible with classical economics with the assumption of rational actors. You've posted a poor example as cumbrains do not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:55:41 2020 No.15686992 >>15686987 That's not what the LTV says, numbnuts.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:57:55 2020 No.15687001

>>15686978
>>15686966
Since you're still trying to save face and being deliberately obtuse, consider the following example:

Pete plants crops with a good fertilizer, resulting in high output.
Joe expends the same amount of labour planting crops with a poor fertilizer, resulting in low output.

Newsflash: If you think the value of Pete's output is the same as that of Joe's because they expended the same amount of labour, you're just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:58:05 2020 No.15687002 >>15685789 We've had this conversation at least 20-30 times this in 2020, in still waiting for what purpose value serves Imaginary points inside your head have no effect on economy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 05:58:56 2020 No.15687006 >>15686984 Reading comprehension fail. >>15686992 That's exactly what the LTV says, numbnuts. AMOUNT OF LABOR DOES NOT DETERMINE THE VALUE OF A GOOD OR SERVICE.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:01:01 2020 No.15687010 >>15686992 Cope

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:02:51 2020 No.15687019 >>15686984 why? that's literally what the quote says.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:05:30 2020 No.15687027

>>15687001
>If you think the value of Pete's output is the same as that of Joe's because they expended the same amount of labour, you're just retarded.
You're proving yet again that you have absolutely no idea what the LTV is. The LTV is not a theory that equates the value of the output of two workers if they work the same number of hours. That's not even in the same galaxy of what the theory addresses. Learn at a minimum what the theory says before attempting to 'refute' it with utterly irrelevant 'examples'.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:06:22 2020 No.15687033
File: 1.11 MB, 1530x2293, e49b16b0d9421df751b5caa1e24d1ef0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15686282
Watchmaking is a good example of LTV being valid and reflected in the market. The amount of labor and craftsmanship that goes into a watch, the more the worth. Several machines could make a similar watch in the course a few hours yet are worthless in comparison.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:11:09 2020 No.15687051 >>15687033 But if it is a nobody that puts the same amount of work and craftsmanship on his watch, it is still worthless compared to a famous brand.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:11:12 2020 No.15687052 >>15686987 If everyone shat gold turds, gold would be worthless under both systems. It would however still be valuable for its uses

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:11:28 2020 No.15687053

>>15687002
the value of a good is the quantity of socially necessary labor required to produce it. in other words, the average labor expended to produce some commodity. this average amount of labor expended to produce something no doubt plays a role in its market price but is not the only factor (supply and demand are easy factors to name here as contributors) , hence value =/= price.

value as defined above is necessary as a concept insofar as it explains why we can say x bananas are worth y televisions. both have their source of value in their production from human labor, and the average banana and television take some average amount of labor to produce unique to each commodity. value describes that aspect of human labor which links all commodities together.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:12:11 2020 No.15687057 >>15686691 Fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:12:17 2020 No.15687058 >>15687019 No, it does not. What an individual worker produces in a given amount of time is completely irrelevant to the LTV, which is about total labor time aggregated throughout an economy.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:16:20 2020 No.15687073

>>15687033
I know literally nothing of watchmaking, and I can see your point, but it was more of an example of Baudrillard theory of sign value, i.e the rolex in question can be exchanged with any goods that reflect the same point, like for example: Supreme, the material itself is no better than any other t-shirt, yet it is worth more simply by association with the "luxury" or "lifestyle" it promotes.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:19:18 2020 No.15687085

>>15687006
>AMOUNT OF LABOR DOES NOT DETERMINE THE VALUE OF A GOOD OR SERVICE.
Read Marx, kiddo. The price of a pound of gold is determined by the AVERAGE amount of labor time needed for its exploration, extraction, purification, etc. The fact that a random person got lucky once does not move the needle in terms of the AVERAGE labor-time per pound, which is how the LTV explains prices.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:20:53 2020 No.15687090

>>15687053
That's literally just an imaginary currency whose value is linked to labour
I don't see what we get out of it
I guess it might help in a barter economy but 9/10 times such a thing would never work in a barter economy for a variety of factors

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:23:42 2020 No.15687103

>>15687033
This is closer to a challenge to LTV than an example of its validity. It's a case where the labor itself is being fetishized -- not quite the Delphine pisswater case, but in the same ballpark. That's assuming we are talking about the unique scare labor time of a famous master craftsman. If it's just fetishizing labor time as such, that's easily accommodated by LTV.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:24:57 2020 No.15687109 >>15687090 LTV is the only empirical explanation of prices that actually works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:25:51 2020 No.15687113 >>15687109 >LTV explains value, not price >LTV is the only empirical explanation of prices Choose

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:26:23 2020 No.15687115 >>15687103 *unique scarce labor time

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:27:58 2020 No.15687117 >>15687113 I only posted that last response; I'm not the other guy. What LTV explains is actual commodity prices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:29:16 2020 No.15687127 >>15687085 >he price of a pound of gold is determined by the AVERAGE amount of labor time needed for its exploration Yeah? Not by scarcity?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:33:25 2020 No.15687138 >>15687127 Scarcity just means it is difficult and laborious to obtain more.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:41:05 2020 No.15687161

>>15687113
the aspect of value will have much more weight in a communist society- the goal of communism is in part to abolish commodity production which includes destroying production for sale as well as the price system.
again, the LTV doesn't explain 100% of the price of every good, but rather it shines a light on an aspect of the price of a commodity that basically isn't discussed in neo-econ. neo-econ centralizes supply and demand as the determinant of price. marx tries to come up with a more holistic understanding of what contributes to price, which the socially necessary labor time (SNLT) to produce a good is absolutely a relevant factor to price.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:50:45 2020 No.15687194

>>15687161
It isn't discussed in economics because it's plainly wrong. Adam Smith discussed the paradox of value before Marx was even born and the first Austrians solved the paradox quite intuitively. Nothing about the LTV is supported by empirical evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 06:55:26 2020 No.15687212 >>15687194 LTV is the only theory that accurately predicts actual prices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:03:37 2020 No.15687237 >>15686652 Agreed, im socialist, but i think its very gay to get upset that ancaps call themselves so because of semantic autistry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:14:42 2020 No.15687272 can marxfags explain why land has value? human labor had absolutely nothing to do with its creation it seems obviously apparent that value is based on scarcity

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:26:24 2020 No.15687325

>Banned for posting a fun pure lit thread
Lick my taint trash nazi mods.
>>15687085
Now, /biz/ness man here, that is not how markets work at all. Markets are hardly ever rational or reflective on the basis of work or inherent value, it's purely >>15687127 and speculation driven. You saw just how "valuable" everything was when this covid mess happened, everything started to crash.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:26:36 2020 No.15687328 >>15687237 It's not about 'semantics' at all. It's about the delusion that 'freedom' has any connection to property rights.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:36:42 2020 No.15687365

>>15687325
If you are talking about electronic trading markets, the supply-demand approach is actually practical. You can see the actual order book, and make the graphs that are only theoretical in textbooks. Still, you are not explaining prices fundamentally. LTV is not a predictive model you use to determine what the price will be 12 microseconds from now. It is an model that explains why this month 7 foos are roughly trading for 12 bars. It does not attempt to account for short term irrational fluctuations driven by speculation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:47:45 2020 No.15687400 >>15687365 Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a theory you can see in practice today through niche areas like space artifact collectors, for example but it just doesn't work anywhere outside of that where speculation and paper trading reigns.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 07:52:51 2020 No.15687422 >>15687400 It works quite well for explaining 99.999% of prices in the real economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:13:06 2020 No.15687494 >>15687212 >>15687422 Why are Marxbots so ignorant of reality?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:16:24 2020 No.15687508 >>15687494 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:17:27 2020 No.15687513 >>15687422 Oh, honey...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:18:07 2020 No.15687519 >>15687513 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:20:52 2020 No.15687532 >>15687508 Neither is your babbling. Tell me why is the price of the basic the loaf of the bakery in front of my house different than the one in the next neighborhood.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:22:34 2020 No.15687543 if you post evidence showing how value is heavily correlated with price they'll believe you anon. im sure michael roberts or andrew kliman have some data on the subject.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:23:44 2020 No.15687550 >>15687532 cause your baker spent a different amount of labour on it :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:24:31 2020 No.15687559

>>15687422
....How can people be this retarded? for fucks sake just look at the "price" of hiring an artist to play a concert for your event. IT IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE POPULARITY OF THE ARTIST, AKA HIS DEMAND! Same with a catering company, same with a professional decorator, same with a DJ. And trust me the event business is not a small one.

For fucks sake just look at art, the value of painting is completely subjective. And the price varies widely REGARDLESS OF WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME YOU SPENT ON IT.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:29:52 2020 No.15687594 >>15687532 A whole range of possible reasons. Different fixed costs (rent etc) prominent among them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:31:54 2020 No.15687601 >>15687559 We're talking about the reproducible commodities that the world runs on. Not your boutique Delphine pisswater transactions.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:32:32 2020 No.15687604

>>15687559
Doesn't the musician charge you differently if he plays for half an hour or the whole night? doesn't Marx talk about the first two sectors of labour (harvesting raw material and producing products as opposed to service labour and information gathering)? Wouldn't a unique painting in Marx' terms be something that is produced only once? And if something is irreproducable then the question of labour time is either ridiculous or 2500+ years?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:33:10 2020 No.15687614

>>15687550
No, in fact that is pretty much impossible seeing my bakery is poorer and therefore has less of the , machinery needed to make the bread easily. You see the things is there is less demand for his bread, therefore he has to drop the prices in order to attract clients, so that he can sell his supply. If more people bought his bread and wanted to buy his bread meeting all of his supply so that he is incapable of meeting the damn he would increase his prices so the a new equilibrium is reached, meaning he sell all the bread he is capable of making at the same rate people are willing to buy it. Similarly if people stopped buy from him he would have to reduce his prices in order to sell his supply. When price and demand meet the price is set.
It makes no sense for him to say to a costumer "I worker 5 hours in the bread pay me 10 dollars per loaf" if the costumer is only willing to pay 5 for the loaf, the costumer will simply leave.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:37:10 2020 No.15687631 >>15687614 Unless the baker's costs are proportionately lower, he is only reducing his rate of profit by lowering prices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:39:27 2020 No.15687636 >>15685629 Oh, sorry, you're "just an anarchist" because it's not like that's going to destroy the world either.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:42:16 2020 No.15687654

>15687601
>99.9999% of good and services
>haha your doesn't count hahahaha
not even ogin to give you a you
>>15687604
>Doesn't the musician charge you differently if he plays for half an hour or the whole night?
No it really depends on the type of contract you sign I had one guy charge more for a couple of hours than a while night because he was busy that day and there was nobody else. AND MORE SO ON THE MUSICIAN THAN ANYTHING ELSE FOR FUCKS SAKE. You can hire a university band for a whole week for the price of one hours of the of shots.
>Doesn't Marx talk about the first two sectors of labour (harvesting raw material and producing products as opposed to service labour and information gathering)?
If that is so than simply by virtue of how the world evolved marx theory of labor is irrelevant service labor and information gathering makes the overwhelming majority of the economy and job allocation in most countries in the world.
> Wouldn't a unique painting in Marx' terms be something that is produced only once?
maybe but then you get into automation, which also completely destroys the current way the theory is set and i have little experience with that.
>And if something is irreproducable then the question of labour time is either ridiculous or 2500+ years?
That is just a bad theory then as it doesn't account for the service industry (the biggest industry in the whole world), which is accounted for by the supply and demand theorem.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:47:29 2020 No.15687686

>>15687631
>he is only reducing his rate of profit by lowering prices.
YES, AND WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? because there is no demand, if there was he would increase his profit margin, his supply needs to reach the demand, selling 2 loafs a day at 900% profit at 10 bucks is worse than selling 200 loafs a day at 100% profit by selling it a 2 bucks. If there's a higher demand for loafs he can increase the cost and still sell close to 100% of his loafs, if the demand falls he needs to lower his prices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:50:08 2020 No.15687703 >>15687654 You keep equivocating between your luxury commodity fetishizism and the actual economy of reproducible goods and services. Paintings that can be automated are obviously reproducible, hence accounted for by the LTV.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:52:25 2020 No.15687721

>>15687686
You seem to think "supply and demand" is some alternative to LTV. It's not. Everyone understands that prices are determined by supply and demand, but that doesn't give you any new information. It's essentially tautological. What LTV does is *explain* why prices are the way they are.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:58:15 2020 No.15687751

>>15687703
Mate for fucks sake a hair salon is available to every class of people and they work the exact same way. But I suppose next yous re going to tell me hair salons are also luxury and don't count and most people cut their own hair. So much for the 99.999% fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 08:59:56 2020 No.15687759 >>15687751 Why on earth would a hair salon not fall under LTV?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:04:29 2020 No.15687779

>>15687721
Than LTV is absolutely meaningless as, again, the "cost" of someone's labor is decided by supply and demand. Again taking the baker as an example if in a work day of 12-14 hours (at least that is what my local bake says he does every day) after taking into account the cost of the products, machinery, electricity, ect. The value of hour of labor is completely dependent on his profits which are in turn completely dependent on supply and demand.
He said to one time he was struggling to get by and had to borrow money to pay the bills on the bakery utilities. so in those times his labor as negative in value. Now that he is doing well enough again his labor cots is positive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:08:35 2020 No.15687800 >>15685711 He's right, if you measure it by psychological, spiritual and physical labor - then something's value is dependent on how much labor was spent/exerted creating the thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:08:56 2020 No.15687802 >>15687779 good job, you've now established that his labor explains 99.999% of prices in the real economy :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:11:22 2020 No.15687814

>>15687779
LTV is a theory of prices. The price of a loaf of bread is determined by the average amount of labor-time (across the entire economy) necessary to produce it. That includes not just the baking labor time, but the labor embedded in the necessary equipment, etc. People will bake simply their own if the retail price diverges too much from underlying cost.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:11:38 2020 No.15687815

>>15687759
Have you ever been to one mate? their prices are completely dependent on the amount of costumer they are getting. Besides a few of the ones whoa are actually run by the owners and rely on a steady clientele the rest of the prices are incredibly fluid, even more so than in the catering business for example. The prices of a cut or treatment vary wildly depending on the time, day and previous appointment already made, for fucks sake trying to get your hair cut on weekends is always at least twice as expensive as doing it on a week day, even on the owner run businesses. IT's 100% dependent on the will of those who want to have their hair cut or treated and it clearly shows how the value of their hour of labor is dependent on supply and demand.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:13:43 2020 No.15687829

Imagine being AnCap

You see the whole world getting destroyed due to crony capitalism and consumerism and their conclusion is: let's give them even more freedom. AnCapism is just a reactionary ideology to oWn thE CoMmIeS rather than a serious and intellectual alternative to the world.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:15:34 2020 No.15687842

>>15687815
LTV accounts for both supply and demand. You seem to be under the misapprehension that LTV can't explain changes in price resulting from changes in demand. That's not the case. LTV explains both sides of the transaction; that's the only way to explain price.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:19:07 2020 No.15687872

>>15687802
OH SO THE ECONOMIES OF THE WOLD HAVE BEEN FAKE FOEREVER!!!! OH!!! OH the humanity!!!!
> The price of a loaf of bread is determined by the average amount of labor-time (across the entire economy) necessary to produce it
No that is completely wrong. As the fact the bakery has end day sale at bellow the production cost in order to get rid of their supply even though there is low demand at night for bread.
>People will bake simply their own if the retail price diverges too much from underlying cost.
.... in what world do you live dude? do you know how hard it is to bake bread? I do, I try to bake at least once a month. And if you don't take a whole day off to do it you won't be able to end with a good bread that is "unique", even "quick" breads take a lot of time and effort, you need a housewife dedicated to cooking in order to do that. Or you could just buy the loaf.
The very ideas that the bakeries in the richer parts of town are able to charge absurd prices to products that are essentially the same as the ones in my local bakery is Proof that you are wrong. They are not just making bread to sit on the shelf's. If they didn't sell the bread they would not have baked it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:20:40 2020 No.15687881 >>15687872 well since you put such a large amount of labor hours into the bread you bake, you would be able to start a very successful bakery indeed :) this is the LTV of Marx :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:24:25 2020 No.15687910

>>15687842
It doesn't, because once again, the idea of "labor value" contradicts the fluctuation of the labor "value ". If there was a fixed value for an hour of labor and the prices originated would be more or less fixed. They aren't. They fall bellow whatever amount you put as a standard making the hour of labor go down with them and they soar past beyond taking the value of the labor up with them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:25:27 2020 No.15687920 >>15687872 >>15687814

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:25:49 2020 No.15687922

>be mid 19th century thinker with big beard and big brain
>revolutionize philosophy
>literally invent economics
>literally invent sociology
>literally invent the word 'Capitalism'
>influence governments all over the world, making a huge impact on world history like no other philosopher did before
>living rent free in the heads of all kinds of anti-intellectual reactionaries anno 2020
>regarded as outdated but influential and relevant by those who have read him
>vocal minority (more like super minority) of niche fanatics who still believe in the socialist utopia adore him still
>irrationally hatred by those who have never read him but read .JPG files on Twitter instead
>the irrational haters call everything they don't like 'Marxism' and if you have an nuanced opinion on his writings (which are extremely contradictory and which goes through multiple stages)
Is Marx the most based philosopher of all time? No one talks about Hegel or Kant anymore outside of academics, yet Marx is written and spoken about so much outside of academia too. Can you name some AnCap thinkers? Was Rand one? Do people even care about her outside of some subreddits?

Remember how Jordan Peterson railed against 'postmodern marxism' for more than a year, making him a famous public speaker, only for Zizek to discover Peterson only read the communist manifesto. Peterson had literally never heard of the 'late Marx', and he never read a single page out of Das Kapital.

Why is it that rightwingers always need a boogieman to project their shit on? I have yet to see one (1) /pol/ alt right weirdo explain WHAT is actually wrong with Marxism (and boy, there is a lot wrong with Marxism) rather than using it as a buzzword for opinions he disagrees with. It's fucking embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:26:25 2020 No.15687926 >>15685585 Charles Kochs cheque book

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:27:46 2020 No.15687933 >>15687800 still naive. effort does not correspond 1:1 to success. if your methodology is bad you spend more spiritual, psychological and physical effort accomplishing the same thing, or even fail to get results at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:27:51 2020 No.15687934 >>15685789 I mean value, not price. >>15685866 BTFOd glownigger

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:29:22 2020 No.15687941 >>15685964 Price approaches value given time

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:30:49 2020 No.15687947 >>15687922 if you're going to post bait, don't put your most egregiously wrong points right at the top. ease them in.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:31:01 2020 No.15687949 >>15687922 good summary of based Marx as the enfant terrible visionary thinker that he was

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:31:40 2020 No.15687952

Anarchist capitalism is an idea of Murray Rothbard. No one used that term before him.
Also I don't know why everyone is talking about the LTV. A better assslap would be to explain the better theoretical use of cardinal utility against ordinal utility.

>>15687779
>the "cost" of someone's labor is decided by supply and demand
Do you believe that the aggregate cost of labour could go bellow the price of paying for rent and food? Obviously the price of labour isn't as flexible as with other commodities. You can just give everything built up in your inventory away if you really have to. Wage rigidity isn't something liberals can easily admit exists or is possible in a market economy because it introduces a lot of intellectual problems.
19th century liberals like Ricardo (LTV) supported free trade so the price of food would go down and wages could be cut and manufacturing would become more profitable... of course you had proto-Keynesians like Malthus (subjective supply/demand logic) who supported agricultural protection so rents/wages/employment would stay high.

>>15687910
Anarchist capitalists from what I've read do believe in one very important fixed value, they seem to think the price of gold is very important and the government has to make sure it's price doesn't fluctuate. All of them from Hoppe to Rothbard think the government should buy and sell gold to keep the price fixed. Now obviously any government could just as easily fix a minimum cost of an hour of labour by employing everyone at that cost and allowing private actors to bid against them for that labour. Not much difference?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:39:54 2020 No.15688014

>>15687952
>Anarchist capitalists from what I've read do believe in one very important fixed value, they seem to think the price of gold is very important and the government has to make sure it's price doesn't fluctuate. All of them from Hoppe to Rothbard think the government should buy and sell gold to keep the price fixed. Now obviously any government could just as easily fix a minimum cost of an hour of labour by employing everyone at that cost and allowing private actors to bid against them for that labour. Not much difference?
Completely different, in the non dismantling of the state the it's necessary to have a fixed set value of currency in order to prevent government manipulation of the currency in detriment of ti's citizen as does china and to a certain extent the US. It's about reducing the power of the government not increasing it.
>Now obviously any government could just as easily fix a minimum cost of an hour of labour by employing everyone at that cost and allowing private actors to bid against them for that labor.
How would that even work? the government get the the "extra" salsry? how would you account for specialization and previous experience? What would happen to the sector that are already at the max employment capacity? What would happen to then?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:42:09 2020 No.15688031 >>15687910 Not sure what you're trying to say here. LTV is the only theory that accounts for fluctuations in prices for reproducible products and services, including labor.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:43:32 2020 No.15688038

>>15687952
>Do you believe that the aggregate cost of labour could go bellow the price of paying for rent and food?
THE PRICE OF FOOD AND RENT ARE FLEXIBLE? and yes they can go bellow then i have and also have had several friends that had to move to cheaper places and change what we ate because of the rising rent of the lowering of our salaries in the economic crises. That would be how the restaurant bakery or whatever else going out of business.
>Obviously the price of labour isn't as flexible as with other commodities
they are more flexible than some and more rigid than others. It also depends on the type labor provided. God for example, is much much more rigid than the price of labor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:44:06 2020 No.15688040 >>15687872 You can simply skip bread if it's that much trouble to you. I don't know what the rest of your post has to do with LTV.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:44:41 2020 No.15688044 >>15688031 Are you actually kidding me right? do you have any idea about basic economics? Am I being baited?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:46:02 2020 No.15688051 >>15688044 What's your alternative theory that explains prices? Saying "supply and demand" is not a theory, it's just restating the problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:46:23 2020 No.15688052 >>15688044 >Am I being baited? yes

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:48:28 2020 No.15688065 >>15688044 Educate yourself: http://paulcockshott.co.uk/publication-archive/Talks/politicaleconomy/Brazillecture2.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:48:28 2020 No.15688066 >>15688051 "rationally" explaining the process of decentralized valuation is only useful for retards

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:48:30 2020 No.15688067 >>15688031 it's really unfortunate that literally 0 reputable economists that operate in the scientific domain support the LTV :( I can't believe how modern academia shuns Marxism like that :(

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:48:57 2020 No.15688071

>>15688040
>You can simply skip bread if it's that much trouble to you.
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE. I like baking I do it as a hobby, and I like eating bread. I would not be able to eat bread everyday if I baked it myself because I would have to work and baking takes time.
THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY PEOPLE WHO WORK WOULD SIMPLY BAKE THEIR OWN BREAD SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER WHICH WAS WHAT WAS STATED!
> I will just ignore the rest of your arguments

of course you will

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:50:23 2020 No.15688078 >>15688071 >THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY PEOPLE WHO WORK WOULD SIMPLY BAKE THEIR OWN BREAD Of course they would. If they wanted bread, that is. >SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER WHICH WAS WHAT WAS STATED No, that's not what was stated. Reread the post.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:51:57 2020 No.15688090 >>15688051 Do you have any idea of supply and deamdn is? the price is what is is because that is what people are willing to pay for it. That is the explanation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:52:19 2020 No.15688094 File: 67 KB, 1004x246, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15688065 holy shit I have been EDUCATED!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:52:39 2020 No.15688095 >>15688066 It's similar to explaining relative stock market values based on earnings growth. It's not applicable to short-term fluctuations based on irrational speculation. But over time, the prices converge to their rational values.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:54:07 2020 No.15688106 >>15685964 Marxists are this stupid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 09:55:41 2020 No.15688115 >>15688090 That's a superficial one-sentence 'explanation'. LTV goes a lot deeper.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:00:26 2020 No.15688143 >>15688094 What implies the conclusion of exploitation?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:01:21 2020 No.15688149

>>15688014
>it's necessary to have a fixed set value of currency
You can claim that but no one will agree with you in practice. A lot of lolberts aren't freaking out because the price of bitcoin is fluctuating against gold, some of them even claim it's money. Anarchists capitalists need some sort of government to regulate monetary affairs so that full reserve gold banking has a monopoly or else people will choose to use the cheaper option.
>How would that even work? the government get the the "extra" salsry? how would you account for specialization and previous experience? What would happen to the sector that are already at the max employment capacity? What would happen to then?
Instead of the government buying gold to hold in reserve and paying for its protection they buy labour at a minimum fixed price and allow private competition to bid for it. You got a "fixed" minimum price than.

>>15688038
You're assuming people can move to increase real wages. The price of labour obviously can't be held bellow a "living standard" for to long but there's situations where that might be the market clearing price but not accepted. Labour markets are very different from others.

>they are more flexible than some and more rigid than others. It also depends on the type labor provided. God for example, is much much more rigid than the price of labor.
The price of gold over the past 50 years has been much more all over the place than with labour.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:01:39 2020 No.15688152 How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:03:40 2020 No.15688166

>>15688095
no, not their rational ones. you could argue they're approximating some ideal, and that supply and demand is just a force that aggregates the accidental forms into one property of their true form (value), but that's facile for anybody who understands Adam Smith. Adam Smith was much more concerned with large systems and philosophy than he was equations and politics, different from modern "economists" (bs operators).

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:04:13 2020 No.15688169

>>15688078
>The price of a loaf of bread is determined by the average amount of labor-time (across the entire economy) necessary to produce it. That includes not just the baking labor time, but the labor embedded in the necessary equipment, etc. People will bake simply their own if the retail price diverges too much from underlying cost.
Which is complete bullshit. You think people are robots who not only intrinsically know the labor costs but also decide based only on them.
Again on the bakery issue. There are those tiny sweet baked for sale, the balaclavas which the owner makes very few off are cheaper but cost more to make than the rest of his sweets. He makes then more because he wants to than for profit, his margin on them is very small. BUT PEOPLE DON'T BUY THEN AND THEY GO FOR OTHER SWEETS WHERE HE GETS 500% THE COST OF THE BACK AS PROFIT!!!
>Of course they would. If they wanted bread, that is.
No they would buy it as any normal person with no time would.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:04:31 2020 No.15688172 File: 79 KB, 644x954, 90878551-DEE8-4AB2-96E6-32DEFE67F4C2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >over 200 replies >still no nozick this thread is full of underage larpers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:06:25 2020 No.15688188 >>15688115 The supply and demand theory also goes deeper way way deeper. But can also be explained in one sentence. Being more complicated as a basis does not mean it's true.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:10:19 2020 No.15688214

>>15688149
>You can claim that but no one will agree with you in practice.
THAT WAS THE CASE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS! just because the current governmental bodies ratter have the authoritarian practice of currency manipulation at their disposal does not mean there is no alternative.
>Anarchists capitalists need some sort of government to regulate monetary affairs so that full reserve gold banking has a monopoly or else people will choose to use the cheaper option.
No you can just use gold as a currency. Why do you need to complicate it by making a bill that represents an amount of gold that is in the bank? At most you do that with a card.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:12:34 2020 No.15688226

>>15688166
LTV basically asserts that over time prices of commodities tend to converge to their 'labor content,' in the same way equity prices tend to converge to their 'earnings content'. In the short term, all sorts of irrational fluctuations in supply and demand can cause prices to diverge wildly from their fundamental values.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:14:18 2020 No.15688236 >>15688226 yes; that is the definition of LTV. it is an interesting incorrect assertion that also betrays a basic understanding of ontology.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:14:54 2020 No.15688239

>>15688149
>You're assuming people can move to increase real wages.
They can, I have done so. You need to be willing to leave your life behind but it's completely feasible. And it didn't even migrate countries I just moved states. Why do you think Mexicans come to the USA illegally?
>The price of labour obviously can't be held bellow a "living standard"
living standard is also a very flexible standard. Compare the "Living standard" of a factory worker in china vs a factory worker in Europe.
>The price of gold over the past 50 years has been much more all over the place than with labour.
Not if you count for inflation. And where have you been since the 2000? the salaries in several different sector have gone wild several times already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:17:19 2020 No.15688252 >>15688236 The empirical evidence is fairly overwhelming that it is correct. http://paulcockshott.co.uk/publication-archive/Talks/politicaleconomy/Brazillecture2.pdf

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:22:10 2020 No.15688274

>>15688252
no; a descriptive definition of value would be based on utility, not labor. this is what all orthodox economists do. this is easily proven as follows: certain products exist which decrease in value over time despite the amount of labor put into them not being changed. this is true of mechanical calculators, abaci, analog film, the NES, &c.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:24:55 2020 No.15688292 >>15688274 What's to be explained is price at time of sale.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:27:02 2020 No.15688305 >>15688292 no, the NES, abaci, analog film &c. are all less valuable today either in price or other, less discrete measurements of value.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 10:45:41 2020 No.15688418
File: 77 KB, 600x431, gold-inflation-adjusted-price.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15688214
All examples of full reserve banking were the consequence of government action ironically. Whenever the government backed off fractional reserve banking was what dominated. Just look at the period of loser banking in America after Andrew Jackson. The notes never traded near their face value. The problem with the idea of "just use gold" is no one will. Why would anyone use gold as a currency? Cryptocurrencies were the product of a free market not any government scheme. Of course since they're so deflationary anyone dumb enough to have taken out a long term loan denominated in bitcoin in the early 2010s would of gotten fucked.

>>15688239
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You're assuming real wages can be risen by moving but that's the result of some "market failure" which should be fixed... all unskilled real wages should converge in a free market, no? Not to mention factor mobility might be a lot less under an anarchist capitalist government. It might be very expensive to move anywhere if you had to pay rent to every land owner you travel or fly over. Anyways the point is you need to pay enough for food and housing or it's not worthwhile working and better to just be a drifter.
Also if you adjust for inflation gold looks worse. If you asked someone what the average wage in 20 years would be 20 years ago they would be much closer to the truth than if you asked them what the price of gold would be.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:01:37 2020 No.15688527

>>15688274
Not who you're responding to but the labour theory of value was only interested in markets where competition drives investment with decreasing costs (i.e. what capitalism started doing which was historically odd and interesting in the early 19th century). Obviously stuff like art works don't function as inputs into this process much but stuff like land does and that's where things got iffy. It's not much a theory of monopoly and orthodox economics doesn't provide a better explanatory theory of monopoly not to mention there's different utility theories... why should I accept any theory of ordinal utility over cardinal utility? Liberal and marxist theories are equally metaphysical because they can't just deal with price but invoke substances (utility and neccesary labour time) which can't really be directly measured as explanations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:05:07 2020 No.15688548 >>15688527 no, that's only Marx's application of the LTV; the LTV as conceived by Smith &al. is a hard and fast rule. it should be obvious to anybody intelligent that cardinal utility is pseudoscientific nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:06:33 2020 No.15688557 >>15688548 >it should be obvious to anybody intelligent that cardinal utility is pseudoscientific nonsense. Go read Maurice Dobb's "Welfare Economics and the Economics of Socialism" and feel stupid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:07:13 2020 No.15688561 >>15688557 i can't read

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:08:13 2020 No.15688565 >>15688557 insofar as value is useful, it's ordinal. when it is cardinal, it's continuous. when it's discrete, it's pseudoscience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:11:05 2020 No.15688580 >>15688565 I can trigger your Austrotard ass by easily stating market actions don't really reveal preferences... insofar as value is useful it's a non-market thing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:13:00 2020 No.15688597 >>15688580 already agree with that. not an austrian. just completely orthodox.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:26:47 2020 No.15688700

>>15686642
instead of exercising your freedom to curate your experience of art, culture, lifestyle and consooming from a massive sea of choices, you'd prefer to be shackled to the single authority of Jesus or Marx to decide what's "socially necessary"
Why? Which representative of Marx are you giving the power to update this, or is the idea to design a perfectly static society to exist in isolation forever, and hope capital never comes knocking on your door at some point in the future

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 11:32:47 2020 No.15688745

>>15687033
is every clock maker's time worth the same? or is a master's paid more because his work has been deemed "more socially necessary" than the uglier but just as functional watch I built.
Who decided that which was worth more? The whims of big brother, or the democracy that is the free market.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 12:03:33 2020 No.15688968 >>15686524 Read Marx you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 12:29:48 2020 No.15689146 File: 923 KB, 2426x2676, 9be9ce9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 13:18:07 2020 No.15689521

>>15688745
In a market economy things that don't sell stop getting produced. An inefficient worker gets removed over time making the remaining workers time more homogenous and worth the same.

>>15687033
No it's not. A better example is the production of semiconductors or something where you see significant deflation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 13:31:43 2020 No.15689645 >>15689146 emberassing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 13:32:51 2020 No.15689657 >>15688968 read a micro-economics textbook you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 13:53:36 2020 No.15689820 >>15689645 not a criticism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 14:05:56 2020 No.15689910 >>15685711 If someone spends their whole life digging a massive hole in the desert, does that mean it's more valuable than than diamonds and oil?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 15:07:20 2020 No.15690350

>>15686282
>Sure, the person might value the function of the watch, yet might value even more, even subconsciously, the sign and prestige associated with such a thing
Shouldn't this be ovcious if one were to include such things as esteem of the producer as part of "Bildung" (education) the worker needed to produce the product, since Marx says a higher necessary Bildung to produce a product would increase the value of the product.
So the Rolex producer needs beyond the technical skill also the esteem of the brand as part of their "Bildung" and therefore his product is valued higher than someone lacking the same "Bildung", in the Rolex case the "Bildung" for the esteem.
Any girl can sit in bathwater and try and sell it. It is the brand of Delphine that makes the water more worth since the """"""""""""""work"""""""""""" she gives the value of the water needs the necessary esteem "Bildung" to garner the value of 30$ a jar instead of the previous fixed value of the water and jar. You could also see this unique "Bildung" necessary for increasing the "Gebrauchswert" for determining its price higher.
>>15688172
different kind of "anarchy". Nozick's is more political than economical.
>inb4 b-b-b-but politics and economy are connected

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:00:12 2020 No.15690731 File: 1.86 MB, 1276x2100, for a new liberty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:01:15 2020 No.15690738 File: 234 KB, 1620x1080, bug spray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685604

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:06:49 2020 No.15690783 File: 2.61 MB, 842x1425, anatomy of the state.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:08:45 2020 No.15690797 File: 70 KB, 880x1360, the problem of political authority.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585 The Problem of Political Authority

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:11:56 2020 No.15690825 File: 111 KB, 1060x1600, the market for liberty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15685585

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:11:57 2020 No.15690826 >>15686030 I masturbated to her "music video" every day since it came out (I didn't use to be like this)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:13:13 2020 No.15690841 >>15689645 seething

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:15:16 2020 No.15690862 >>15689645 >emberassing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:16:18 2020 No.15690874 >>15687027 >I'm gonna pretend that I didn't get btfo instead of explaining the problem

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:17:19 2020 No.15690889 >>15687057 Fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:19:51 2020 No.15690912 File: 183 KB, 600x600, Aleister_Crowley_1902_K2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15690826

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:24:08 2020 No.15690957 File: 100 KB, 1280x720, commie screeching.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15688143 Nothing, dumb commies think working for money is LITERALLY slavery.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:28:42 2020 No.15691005 >>15689910 ^ case in point

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:29:48 2020 No.15691015 >>15690738 Ironic coming from a liberal bugman.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:34:44 2020 No.15691046 >>15690874 How many times does this need to be said? LTV refers to the AVERAGE socially necessary labor-time needed to produce the commodity. The fact that you have a retarded uncle who takes 10 years to grow an ear of corn is irrelevant. Read Marx.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:38:59 2020 No.15691077 >>15685944 >belle1.webm holy shit that's atrocious lighting

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:41:25 2020 No.15691092

>>15686034
its a lot but the whole point of this arrangement is that we're usually just daisy chaining labor arrangements in that Leninist take on imperialism (except we do it soft, and we do it everywhere as the USD has penetrated and dominated every money market)

now that you can only essentially use USD to hedge yourself (both through finance and directly through cash holdings and the investment opportunities are almost literally gone) there is absolutely no risk of labor reentering into the equation

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:41:29 2020 No.15691094

>The labour theory of value predicts that the prices of commodities will vary proportionately with their labour content. Refuting this should be easy, just show that in fact their prices do not vary with labour content in this way. Did the economists opposed to the labour theory of value do this? Did they hell! They did not even bother to collect the data to do the tests. So for a century after Marx, the theory was ’discredited’, but never empirically refuted. As soon as economists started to collect data to test the theory, which depended on reasonably good economic statistics of whole economies, what did they ﬁnd? They found the Ricardo and Marx had been right all along. A whole bunch of studies --Zachariah (2004); Tsoulﬁdis and Paitaridis (2016); Fröhlich (2013); Ochoa (1989); Gintis and Bowles (1981); Petrovic (1987); Shaikh (1998); Zachariah (2006); Cockshott et al. (1993); Cockshott and Cottrell (1997,) or (Shaikh, 2016, pp. 69-70.) -- since the 1980s have shown that the labour theory of value is very good at predicting prices.

http://paulcockshott.co.uk/oldwp/didmarx.pdf

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:44:21 2020 No.15691120

>>15686805
this is a very bad take, but only so bad as the one you're quoting

you could easily arrange a coherent take of Marx by blending info (as an arrangement of uncertain knowledge through half solved Nash equilibriums) with total labor time, but it'll be a pure material materialism (IE subjectivity was never important to the concept of labor) and render something like complex computation

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:44:29 2020 No.15691123 In the marxist view of today's world, what does 'means of production' refer to? I work with my computer will some factory workers take it away?

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:45:13 2020 No.15691130

>>15691046
ok, I could be very ignorant and retarded, but how is LTV different from the idea that the price at which you can sustainably sell a commodity that you produce, depends on the cost of production of said commodity?
that just seems like basic business sense: you can't operate a business at a loss. So the price of a commodity has to be at least the cost that it takes to produce.

But that doesn't mean that this production cost represents inherent, intrinsic value that a commodity is imbued with purely by virtue of its production. That just means that any commodity that doesn't sell at a price equal to or higher than the production cost, won't get produced in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:45:58 2020 No.15691137 >>15691046 >AVERAGE socially necessary labor-time needed to produce the commodity Planting crops with good fertilizer takes the same "socially necessary labor-time" as planting with bad fertilizer, you dumb retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:46:11 2020 No.15691140 >>15691046 average is mostly irrelevant outside of super mature industries (where Marx's highest critique re fall of rate of profit - or was that Ricardo first like most of marx? - is the more meaningful modifier)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:47:33 2020 No.15691156 File: 70 KB, 1024x903, kek 4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15691094 >Paul Cockshott

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:47:52 2020 No.15691160

>>15691046
>LTV refers to the AVERAGE socially necessary labor-time needed to produce the commodity
And what people are trying to say is that that average is useless meaningless both because it cannot be accurately measured and it also varies wildly by geographical location and time.
Also stop trying to make it seem it's just a base for value. It's intrinsically connected with he theory of creation of value that indicates that value is only created by labor changing nature WHICH IS A LIE!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:48:35 2020 No.15691168 >>15691094 literally who

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:49:36 2020 No.15691178 >>15691046 >AVERAGE socially necessary labor-time What does this so-called "average socially necessary labor-time" mean in the crop example?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:49:54 2020 No.15691184 >>15691123 Today it would probably refer a lot more to what Marx called the "noetic/mental factors of production": education, science, technology, knowledge in general.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:53:44 2020 No.15691206

there is no Rothbardian/Marxist/Keynesian/Friedmanian take on anything in the Post-Liquidity marketplace, except for the take on falling rate of profit

>>15691160
desu how would finance (or in the ancient case agriculture) hedge/divest from the risk of total loss, or adequately move to invest useful productive capacity if average wasn't constantly being re-inputted into both projection (as actual-virtual), as well as into the confidence of that price (futures/othercommodity price uncertainty, inter JSC non-perfect competition, etc)

>>15691184
the social form of the labor value inputted into the "raising of the modern man" is a golden goose of marxism, and is probably the most interesting part of any current economic analysis

only the Neo-keysenians have anything to say on it at all afaik

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:56:15 2020 No.15691228 >>15691137 Obviously false.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:58:25 2020 No.15691243

>>15691137
>Planting crops with good fertilizer takes the same "socially necessary labor-time" as planting with bad fertilizer
That's why the price of the commodity is the same regardless of how long it took each individual farmer to produce, you mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 16:58:29 2020 No.15691245 >>15691228 Obviously not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:00:14 2020 No.15691256 >>15691178 The price of an ear of corn is a function of the AVERAGE labor time needed to produce an ear of corn.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:03:06 2020 No.15691278 >>15691256 OH, then why are there differences with farms prices for ears of corn? surely they should be the same since they sue this average as the means of setting the price....

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:06:57 2020 No.15691293 >>15691278 Prices differ when there is a difference in labor content.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:12:43 2020 No.15691331 >>15685711 >>15685866 >>15685898 >>15686017 >>15686047 The value of a good or service is subjective to each individual's needs, means, and goals. This is why people trade at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:14:22 2020 No.15691349 File: 31 KB, 370x349, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>15691243 >Pete produced a batch 100 oranges while Joe produced a batch of only 10, but these batches are worth the same I swear!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:15:45 2020 No.15691357 >>15691349 Do you not know what the word "average" means? Is that what's tripping you up?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:15:46 2020 No.15691358 >>15691256 >AVERAGE labor time Over what distribution? Pete and Joe? Half-and-half?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:16:47 2020 No.15691367 >>15691357 Average of what and over what distribution?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:16:55 2020 No.15691370 >>15691358 Throughout the entire economy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:21:16 2020 No.15691402 >>15691370 This economy consists of Pete and Joe in a remote village. Now why do you claim Pete and Joe produced the same amount of value? Literally what the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:21:29 2020 No.15691405 >>15691367 The price of an orange is proportional to its embodied labor content. How efficient Peter or Joe is at growing oranges is utterly irrelevant -- they sell for the same price since the average labor time is the same.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:22:38 2020 No.15691414 >>15691402 >Now why do you claim Pete and Joe produced the same amount of value? I don't, you fucking moron. The price is determined by the average labor time per orange.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:22:45 2020 No.15691416 >>15691405 >The price of an orange is proportional to its embodied labor content. Pete expended one tenth of his labor on each orange than Joe, since he produced 10x as much. You're a fucking idiot dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:23:45 2020 No.15691429 >>15691416 So you just don't grasp the concept of an average, is that it? You are not making any sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:23:46 2020 No.15691431 >>15691414 The average labor time per orange is lower for Pete.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:25:22 2020 No.15691443 >>15691429 I know you're frustrated because you've been backed into a corner and are being forced to see the nonsense behind LTV. Take a deep breath, take a walk outside, and only then come back.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:26:26 2020 No.15691455 >>15691431 No it isn't dumbfuck. That's like saying the population's average height is lower for Pete. You don't seem to grasp what an average is.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:28:41 2020 No.15691478

>>15691455
Holy shit you're dumb.

total labor expended by Pete = total labor expended by Joe
oranges produced by Pete > oranges produced by Joe
therefore labor expended per orange for Pete < labor expended per orange for Joe

Have you forgotten basic arithmetic? Go back to primary school.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:30:10 2020 No.15691495 >>15691478 Look up what an average is, Einstein.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:31:49 2020 No.15691515 >>15691495 Do you need a refresher? labor per unit = total labor / total units

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:34:30 2020 No.15691541 >>15691515 Now apply that economy-wide to get labor content per orange sold, which will be proportional to the clearing price.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:35:25 2020 No.15691547 >>15691541 Labor content per orange sold is lower for Pete. Do you fucking accept that or not, you retarded toddler?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:37:20 2020 No.15691568 >>15691547 Nope. The labor content is the average labor time per orange sold across all farmers. That is the same for every participant in the market.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:41:47 2020 No.15691601
File: 19 KB, 400x400, njOFR7bA_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>15691568
>Nope.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT

total units for Pete > total units for Joe
total labor for Pete = total labor for Joe

THEREFORE

labor per unit for Pete < labor per unit for Joe

YOU FUCKING IMBECILE LEARN SOME BASIC ARITHMETIC

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:42:29 2020 No.15691606 >>15691601 based retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:42:42 2020 No.15691609 >>15645450 testing

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:43:08 2020 No.15691616 >>15691606 based retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 17:45:59 2020 No.15691637 https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q?t=111

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 18:21:30 2020 No.15691938

>>15686987
Nope. If someone stumbles across a bar of gold the product isn't going to be worthless because it was an easy find.
>>15689910
>If someone spends their whole life digging a massive hole in the desert, does that mean it's more valuable than than diamonds and oil?
The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products.
(...)
Marx's goal was not to subsume the price of unreproducible objects under the law of value. He did not do this because of the simple reason that the law of value has to explain precisely the laws of human productive activities. In his theory of value, Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value#Field_of_application

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 18:22:43 2020 No.15691956

(Edit)
>>15691938
>>15686987
>Nope. If someone stumbles across a bar of gold the product isn't going to be worthless because it was an easy find.
>>15689910
>If someone spends their whole life digging a massive hole in the desert, does that mean it's more valuable than than diamonds and oil?
The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products.
(...)
Marx's goal was not to subsume the price of unreproducible objects under the law of value. He did not do this because of the simple reason that the law of value has to explain precisely the laws of human productive activities. In his theory of value, Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value#Field_of_application

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:03:10 2020 No.15692270 >>15685629 You know all the arguments against ancap are the same arguments for ancom right? Just because the businesses are owned by workers doesn't change any of the criticism of the anarchist system you give ancaps lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:24:05 2020 No.15692440 >>15692270 No, it changes everything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:27:43 2020 No.15692456 >>15691637 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B77f_8lQ1g

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:29:14 2020 No.15692464 >>15692440 Why do you think sex with children is permissible in ancap but not ancom?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:31:49 2020 No.15692487 >>15692464 Because ownership of capital, including human capital, is prohibited under the latter but not the former.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:40:51 2020 No.15692559 >>15692487 ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:41:53 2020 No.15692566 >>15692487 Who said anything about ownership? Are you blind? I asked why you think sex with children is permissible in ancap but not ancom.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:44:33 2020 No.15692587 >>15692487 to be clear, you’re saying you think that humans can be owned and therefore sex with children is permissible?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:45:34 2020 No.15692597 >>15692487 >ownership of human capital I don't think you know what that term means lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:46:35 2020 No.15692605 >>15692487 so in ancom you can still have sex with children right? this has nothing to do with ownership

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:47:40 2020 No.15692614 >>15692566 Economic theories don't address issues of rape or abuse outside a framework of property relations. Anything you own can be abused. >>15692587 That's the AnCap perspective, yes. >>15692605 No.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:47:43 2020 No.15692615 >>15692487 If a person can consent to sex in acap the same is true in ancom. If a person cannot consent to sex in ancom the same is true in ancap. This is completely orthogonal to either ideology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:48:44 2020 No.15692623 >>15692614 >No. Why not?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:48:47 2020 No.15692624 >>15692615 Ancom forbids 'ownership' of persons other than yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:51:15 2020 No.15692638 >>15692614 >That's the AnCap perspective, yes Humans aren’t property, dumbass. Now that you’ve been caught lying out of your ass, what mental gymnastics will you reply with?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:52:17 2020 No.15692649 >>15692638 >Humans aren’t property, dumbass. According to AnCap they certainly are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:52:57 2020 No.15692659 >>15692614 >Anything you own So not humans?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:53:51 2020 No.15692665 >>15692659 Are you trying to dab on people for not owning slaves? Sick.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:53:58 2020 No.15692668 >>15692624 So does ancap.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:54:59 2020 No.15692683 >>15692649 According to AnCap they certainly aren’t.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:56:05 2020 No.15692692 >>15692624 Do you even know the most basic thing about ANCAP and the NAP?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:56:09 2020 No.15692693 >>15692665 ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:56:51 2020 No.15692699 >>15692668 Where? >>15692692 NAP is meaningless.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:58:27 2020 No.15692708

>>15692487
>>15692614
>>15692649
Based retard
>There are several aspects of this important truth. In the first place, each individual, according to our understanding of the natural order of things, is the owner of himself, the ruler of his own person. Preservation of this self-ownership is essential for the proper development and well-being of man. The human rights of the person are, in effect, a recognition of each man's INALIENABLE property right over HIS OWN BEING; and from this property right stems his right to the material goods that he has produced. A man's right to personal freedom, then, is his property right in himself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:58:49 2020 No.15692713 >>15692699 >NAP is meaningless. Commies are inherently authoritarian and ancom is a lie in order to put dictators in power. Fuck off you disingenuous bastard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 19:59:29 2020 No.15692721 >>15692699 Where what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:00:30 2020 No.15692730 >>15692699 Your post is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:02:23 2020 No.15692741 >>15692708 According to owners of human capital, slaves are not 'persons' - they are subhuman chattel to be abused as desired.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:06:18 2020 No.15692766 >>15692741 They're wrong.

Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:07:40 2020 No.15692777

>>15692741
The term "human capital" doesn't mean what you think it means, you dumb commie:
> Human capital is an intangible asset or quality not listed on a company's balance sheet. It can be classified as the economic value of a worker's experience and skills. This includes assets like education, training, intelligence, skills, health, and other things employers value such as loyalty and punctuality.
That doesn't mean you own a person, retard. It means you've hired their skills as mutually agreed upon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:09:02 2020 No.15692791 >>15692766 Glad you feel that way. Progress! Maybe someday you will realize that ownership of land and natural resources is also morally repugnant. Georgism is sort of like the halfway point. Next stop: the abolition of capital in general.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:11:00 2020 No.15692802 >>15692791 Oh you are using strawmans and twisted definitions to justify you genocidal ideology... got it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:14:13 2020 No.15692836 >>15692777 based retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:18:47 2020 No.15692866 >>15692777 This may come as a shock to you, but slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865. That's why 'human capital' can only be an 'intangible asset' on balance sheets in 2020. Prior to 1865, human capital was very much a tangible asset.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:21:51 2020 No.15692881 >>15692866 it may come as a shock to but the term human capital was coined by an economist in 1954 you filthy lying commie.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:27:51 2020 No.15692932 >>15692881 False. Human capital is capital that is human. In Western countries today that connotes intangible assets, but elsewhere and elsewhen it refers explicitly to the slave inventory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 24 20:34:01 2020 No.15692988 >>15692932 You filthy lying piece of shit. WHY, assuming i believe you i don't, ARE YOU USING NON WESTERN DEFINITION FOR WORDS IN ORDER TO APPLY THEM TO WESTERN THEORIES SUCH AS ANCAP AS IF THAT WAS THE INTENDED DEFINITION??

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature