/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6971164]

why isn't there a /lit/ essential guide to economics?

let's talk about essential books in economics, trying to talk without an unique bias

[Anonymous No.6971205]

>>6971164
The essential guide to economics is the holy qur'an. Let the domes be our helmets and, akhi, let the minaretts become our guns.

[Anonymous No.6971245]

>>6971164
>Marx
>Economics
Pick one

[Anonymous No.6971249]

>>6971164
Economic theory is not literature

[Anonymous No.6971256]

>>6971245
>Economics deemed heterodox by contemporaries are not economics

[Anonymous No.6971262]

Please, OP, take this garbage out of here.

[Anonymous No.6971274]

>>6971256
Marxism is essentially the intelligent design of economics.

[Anonymous No.6971636]

>>6971249
can you direct me to the economics book board?

[Anonymous No.6971662]

>>6971636
/biz/

[Anonymous No.6971701]

>>6971662
lol those capitalist shitters don't know shit

[Anonymous No.6971706]

>>6971274
Have you read any of it? You dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.6971711]

>>6971164
anyone who studies economics should fucking kill themselves

[Anonymous No.6971713]

>>6971706
Yes, the guys an economic retard, his system has been riven wrong and wrong time and time again. But hey if you reds just get the right body count, it might work this time!

[Anonymous No.6971716]

>>6971711
>being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.6971724]

>>6971706
if you read Das Kapital and didn't immediately realise it's total garbage then you should reread it

[Anonymous No.6971729]

>>6971711
>studying fictional stories that never happened is somehow more worthwhile than studying a field which determines how we organize ourselves as a society

[Anonymous No.6971743]

>>6971706
>If u red it u wudnt cal it rong
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.6971784]

>>6971274
Marxism is more history than economics.

Anyways, it's not fair to call *anything* the intelligent design of economics, since economics is already a sad discipline incapable of making meaningful predictions.

[Anonymous No.6971790]

>>6971784
name a discipline that has made meaningful predictions. inb4 much science.

[Anonymous No.6971814]

>>6971205
>>6971245
>>6971249
>>6971262
>>6971274
When are these shitposters going to fucking leave, Jesus.

OP, take the helm and make a guide. I'd suggest taking a chronological approach to organization. So, maybe something like;
>Pre-Ancient/Ancient/Medieval (up to 1500 AD)
>Early Modern (1500 - 1700)
>Industrial Revolution (1700-1800)
>Late Modern (1800-1900)
>Contemporary (1900 - Present)
With each section divided into primary and secondary texts. So, the Muqaddimah would go into the Medieval period primary section, but a textbook about economics of the Malmluk Sultanate would be secondary. (As an aside, most of the first categories primary texts will be works that are more than economy, but should be significant early commentaries on economy at some length.) Marx's Kapital would go in Late Modern as primary but Harvey's A Companion to Marx's Capital would be secondary. Etc.

[Anonymous No.6971819]

>>6971790
Biology, Physics, Chemistry.

By meaningful predictions I mean that the science has correctly predicted how to manipulate a system to achieve a given result.

Economics is very bad at this, and in the realm of providing predictive capabilities it ranks among sociology or psychoanalysis: it's not complete pseudoscience but it's pretty close.

Given its sad track record, being the "Intelligent Design" of economics has no meaning. It is already its own mockery.

[Anonymous No.6971821]

>>6971814
>When are these shitposters going to fucking leave, Jesus
This board has never been a Marxist hugbox.

[Anonymous No.6971827]

>>6971819
why is there a STEMfag on /lit/

go away

[Anonymous No.6971833]

>>6971790
>predictions don't have to be meaningful
this is exactly why STEM people laugh about economy, sociology, philosophy etc as fields

[Anonymous No.6971836]

Holy shit I just realized Sonic the Hedgehog is called Sonic because he runs at the speed of sound holy shit

[Anonymous No.6971842]

Holy shit I just realized Sonic the Hedgehog is called Sonic because he runs at the speed of sound holy shit.

[Anonymous No.6971846]

>>6971836
>>6971842
this post has more intellectual value than Das Kaptial

[Anonymous No.6971872]

>>6971827
I'm not a STEMfag, I'm just criticizing economics on its own terms. It's simply not worth the label science.

[Anonymous No.6971875]

>>6971821
First of all, you'll notice I wasn't just talking about your dumb anti-Marxist posts. Second, you are correct that his board has never been a hugbox, newfag, but it was moreso never a hug-box for your anti-communist off-topic shitposting in on-topic threads. You are an unwelcomed blight and unable to think critically about anything more complex than whether you should put raisins in your cereal, and you need to leave before you get shamed even more than you already have been.

[Anonymous No.6971883]

>>6971245
>>6971274
>>6971713
>>6971724
>>6971743
>>6971790
>>6971821
>>6971846
I almost want to think this is one of those false-flag idiots

[Anonymous No.6971886]

>>6971875
You seem upset. You also seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron and/or a troll. You should work on both of those issues.

[Anonymous No.6971889]

>>6971883
There are 18 unique IPs in this thread. It's much more likely that people have legitimate issues with Marxist dogma.

[Anonymous No.6971897]

>>6971706
I have, most of marxs theories are based on the classical economic notion of "labour theory of value", which was debunked by utilitarians and later annihalated by neoclassicals

[Anonymous No.6971898]

>>6971886
>>6971889
>being this assblasted

[Anonymous No.6971905]

>>6971897
>"labour theory of value", which was debunked by utilitarians and later annihalated by neoclassicals
could you expand/tldr this somewhat? I'm not that poster but would like to know how

[Anonymous No.6971906]

>>6971897

How was it debunked specifically?

To my knowledge neoclassicals just attached themselves to the subjective part of exchange value, and completely ignored the Smithian labor=working time perspective.

If anything LTV is just an extension of this, the capitalist absorbs the extra working times of the laborer for cheaper wages.

[Anonymous No.6971908]

>>6971889
>OP wants to talk about economic textbooks
>No one talks about Marxism in particular
>HUR DUR MARGZIZM IS SHET
You're doing God's work, anon.

[Anonymous No.6971910]

>>6971833
>Economics
>same as sociology, philosophy etc

Economics has come very far over the years, we can reasonably predict what events will occur from what policies and what sort of implications we can draw from them(microeconomics)
Macro has been much worse in this mainly because there are mountains of data, indicators and other contradiciting events occuring, so it has been very bad at prediciting e.g. Reccesions

[Anonymous No.6971913]

>>6971897
>I have
>posts Sowell
Bye

[Anonymous No.6971915]

>>6971908
>>6971245

The OP used a picture of Marx. It took less than five posts for someone to start complaining about how mainstream economics is nonsense. Enjoy your revisionism.

[Anonymous No.6971926]

>>6971906
LTV was debunked by Utilitarians who argued that "value" of a good, does not come from time/effort/skill, but from our subjective values about what the good is worth. For example people might not pay much for production of french poems who take much skill time/effort, but will pay billions to hear justin beiber screech on stage.

[Anonymous No.6971927]

>>6971897
That quote is fucking retarded. We already have those bureaucracies in insurance companies. And we also get to pay for their profit margins.

[Anonymous No.6971929]

>>6971915
>The OP used a picture of Marx
Did you miss the picture of Mises right before the picture of Marx? Did you miss where the OP specifically didn't mention Marx in particular and specifically mentioned wanting economic texts in particular?

Are you actually this dumb a fuck or are you pretended to be this retarded?

[Anonymous No.6971932]

/lit/ can't into economics. They're too interested in preserving their reality tunnel.

[Anonymous No.6971937]

>>6971926
does Marx seriously say value is how much time was put into it?

top kek where do I sell my steam account?

[Anonymous No.6971938]

>>6971929
>A picture of X negates a picture of Y

[Anonymous No.6971951]

>>6971938
Don't ever post again, please.

[Anonymous No.6971961]

Anyone who takes the labor theory of value seriously is literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.6971963]

>>6971915

and a picture of Mises. Are you retard? I'm the OP and i used that image to say, nicely, that i don't want a bunch of guys saying "oh marxism is retarded", "mises is a fucking jew go fuck yourself" and things like that.

[Anonymous No.6971964]

>>6971819
>>6971872
nassim taleb pls go.

[Anonymous No.6971968]

>>6971926

>LTV was debunked by Utilitarians who argued that "value" of a good, does not come from time/effort/skill, but from our subjective values about what the good is worth.


That's exactly what I was saying, which is too say that they didn't debunk it more or less completely ignored Adam Smith and the process of production. Smith is clear that exchange value and use value is not the same. What teh Austrian school does is to mistakenly assume that trading and exchange happens before production, but this is nonsense, use value is determined by supply and demand not subjective exchange value. what they essentialy did was to holistically apply their ideology to even the most basic of production process, but this is simply wish fulfillment and not proper theory.


>For example people might not pay much for production of french poems who take much skill time/effort, but will pay billions to hear justin beiber screech on stage.

Thats a simple crude way to explain exchange value. Exchange value is subjective but is also affected by several determining factors, such as supply and demand, rent, shifting prices, inflation etc. But again this has nothing to do with use value.

[Anonymous No.6971973]

>>6971951
I think you're in denial. This is a thread about economics. OP asked for economic texts, as you admit, and posted a picture of 2 economists. It makes sense to think that discussion of their theories would be on topic.
Why don't you go back to /leftypol/?

[Anonymous No.6971975]

>>6971937

Playing videogames is not work, it's a hobby. You didn't produce anything other your own enjoyment.

[Anonymous No.6971977]

>>6971963
Why didn't you just say that, then? You know how /lit/ gets about economics. Every thread becomes a shit-throwing contest between the hardcore Marxists and everyone else.

[Anonymous No.6971979]

>>6971973
This is legitimately embarrassing. I suggest you Ajax yourself.

[Anonymous No.6971986]

>>6971979
Mature.

[Anonymous No.6971997]

>>6971729
>fictional stories that never happened
>economics
>implying a difference

[Anonymous No.6972009]

>>6971897
then why don't you tell us a little about Marx's law of value.

[Anonymous No.6972017]

>>6971897
>if poor people can't pay for it, rich + poor people can't pay for it

[Anonymous No.6972020]

>>6971164
There is one.

[Anonymous No.6972027]

it's a fact that marginalists and other bourgeois economists can't explain the current crisis without resorting to the underconsumption meme, while marxist crisis theorists like Lohoff and Trenkle offer a plausible theory.

[Anonymous No.6972029]

>>6971997
suggest a single work of fiction which has ever had the same wide ranging influence on society as The Wealth of Nations

[Anonymous No.6972031]

>>6972020
Only ones worth reading are Bogle and Graham

[Anonymous No.6972033]

How does /lit/ feel about this man

[Anonymous No.6972037]

>>6972031
stop being a fag, that just isn't true

[Anonymous No.6972044]

>>6972029
The Bible.

[Anonymous No.6972045]

>>6972020
>implying that modernist trash is worth reading

jesus christ

[Anonymous No.6972048]

might be interesting for some of you guise

https://mega.nz/#!kls1iRoC!aMS3a26iPkqFNx7VCsp5hn6qHEOkeSjPD6FoXjkb3Fo

[Anonymous No.6972051]

>>6972037
I bet you trade actively

[Anonymous No.6972052]

>>6971968
Ah I didnt read your post fully and went from wiki definition of theory of value.

If you are argueing that Value is derived from supply and demand I would agree with you. However the question, then remains, where did the value come from, and if you are argueing that it did not come from labour, you are in a not agreeing with the Marxists today who still hold this belief.

[Anonymous No.6972068]

>>6972044

[Anonymous No.6972069]

>>6972033
based when he talks about economics, and a retard when he talks about politics

[Anonymous No.6972073]

>>6972068
>Le Hat Joke

[Anonymous No.6972083]

>>6972073
the bible wasn't completely fiction

[Anonymous No.6972095]

>>6972083
Neither is economics :^)

[Anonymous No.6972109]

>>6971937

Nope, he did not say that. On the contrary, in Das Capital he did mention the exchange value of a product always includes speculative value. In addition he did carefully separate the exchange value and production.

I don't know if I completely missed the point he argued, or if all the Marx critisisism I've read never hits the target. Never found anything that would fundamentally debunk the big picture painted by him.

[Anonymous No.6972121]

>>6971164
They're all biased.

On The Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith
Capital - Karl Marx
Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition - Charles Eisenstein
The Conquest of Bread - Kropotkin
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money - Keynes
The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution - Sam Dolgoff
Progress and Poverty - Henry George
Principles of Economics - Marshall
Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea - Mark Blyth
Debt: The First 5,000 Years - David Graeber

[Anonymous No.6972122]

>>6972052

You simply misunderstood.

The Austrian school claimis that there is only exchange value. Which is simply wrong.

Smith and Marx are not saying that Value "in general" comes from use value (labour=working times) but quite simply are saying that the ORIGINAL value comes from use value.

Use value has nothing to do with exchange, subjective factors. Use value is what the word says, the practical value of a product, its cost (even if it is intellectual labor) is derived from working times, this is essential the accumulation of labor which determines the original use/value.

For example the use value of food is greater than gold, but because gold is used as fixed currency in exchange it's more value but in terms of price. But if you were starving in the desert what would you rather have, gold or food?

To say that value is not derived from labor is absurd and purely ideological ignoring the original price fixing system in place before trading.

[Anonymous No.6972137]

anyone here interested in some Karl Sharx? not really anything profound i just photoshop his head onto sharks

[Anonymous No.6972139]

>>6972122
Anti-LTVfags BTFO

[Anonymous No.6972142]

>>6972137
Ummm okay.

[Anonymous No.6972143]

>>6971164
Here's the only guide to Econ you'll ever need:
Step 1: read everything associated with neoclassical synthesis
Step 2: read the Austrians, laugh at their idiocy
Step 3: read the marxians, laugh even harder at their idiocy
Step 4: read other fringe lunatics, laugh at them too
Basically, if it isn't mainstream, then it's pitiful and retarded. Anyone who says different is an edgelord of the Marxist or Ancap variety.

[Anonymous No.6972152]

>>6972109
>Never found anything that would fundamentally debunk the big picture painted by him.
the bureaucratic elite?

[Anonymous No.6972153]

>>6972143
mericlap detected

enjoy getting your ass cavity destroyed by abusive corporations

[Anonymous No.6972156]

>>6972142
if you're not really into karl sharx I also have karl larx

[Anonymous No.6972158]

>>6971937

protip: Marx is talking about value in capitalist production.
Consider the role played by division of labour and machinery.

If you don't know what dead labour is you really shouldn't bother posting on either end.

[Anonymous No.6972165]

>>6972033
cringeworthy but sometimes spot on

[Anonymous No.6972181]

>>6972143
Iunno man. Keynes was lowkey into Lenin.

[Anonymous No.6972183]

>>6971706
Have you? Any idiot whose only economics training was an intro to macro course in high school can see the flaws in Marx.

[Anonymous No.6972186]

>>6972142
maybe karl barx is more your speed

[Anonymous No.6972197]

>>6972186
uh here's karl darx

[Anonymous No.6972203]

The guy samefagging this thread is the same one that had absolutely no idea what the marxian LTV that he criticizes actually was.

I'm not a marxist but antimarxists in this board are embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.6972206]

>>6972183

Macro-economics are joke and have been a joke since the 80's, not once have they managed to predict an economic crisis, much less our modern day crises which are built in the system as economic bubbles caused by de-regulation rather than irresponsible fiscal policy, such as the housing bubble collapse in 08'.

[Anonymous No.6972208]

Had to read this in high school, thought it was pretty good tbh

[Anonymous No.6972211]

>>6972122
>The Austrian school claimis that there is only exchange value. Which is simply wrong.
I agree
>To say that value is not derived from labor is absurd and purely ideological ignoring the original price fixing system in place before trading
Price is not derived from labour, labour is just a part of production costs, as much as you could say that price derives from resourcesused. Of course marxists wont call it "resource" theory of value, because that goes against their poor worker greedy capitalist narrative.
>the practical value of a product, its cost (even if it is intellectual labor) is derived from working times
absolutely wrong, how can you possibly make that assumption, if it takes me 15 minutes to make a knife and 20 minutes to make a fork, would you say that use value of a knife is greater of a fork?
What you are argueing in "use" vs "exchange" value is largely the fact of what a country used as money, which was useful to explain why gold or rare metal prices are higher than their use value(they were used as exchange as well) But not much else, I could't say that for example sugar had any exchange value(addded) at all, other than what could exchange for it in gold, and from gold to another commodity..

[Anonymous No.6972212]

Every time anything that even remotely sounds like Marx is mentioned reactionary assholes derail the thread and people fall for the bait.
This is why we can't have nice things.

[Anonymous No.6972217]

>>6971905
It's the idea that the value of a good is based on the labor required to produce it and nothing else. This is retarded, for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.6972223]

>>6972217
>This is retarded, for obvious reasons.
So obvious that it was the economic mainstream for a century and apparently every single austrian fails to grasp the concept.

[Anonymous No.6972224]

>>6972211
I'm not the person you're talking to.
>if it takes me 15 minutes to make a knife and 20 minutes to make a fork, would you say that use value of a knife is greater of a fork?
>What is socially necessary labour time
>>6972217
>Has no clue what Marx was saying

[Anonymous No.6972230]

karl parx, safe for the kids until they starve to death

[Anonymous No.6972232]

>>6972217
>still can't explain how, just hopes people will be as dumb as he is and won't call him on his bullshit

[Anonymous No.6972238]

>>6972211
>poor worker greedy capitalist narrative
So you're saying the capitalist doesn't necessarily devalue the labor of the worker for profit?

[Anonymous No.6972245]

>>6972217
>It's the idea that the value of a good is based on the labor required to produce it and nothing else. This is retarded, for obvious reasons.

it'd nice to know if someone had actually debunked that

[Anonymous No.6972251]

>>6972230
>>6972197
>>6972186
>>6972156
>>6972137
top kek these are pretty funny

karl parx best so far

[Anonymous No.6972254]

>>6971164
Mises and Marx are pseudocientífic as fuck
Neoclassicals all the way

[Anonymous No.6972256]

>>6972152
>the bureaucratic elite?

The bureaucratic elite(obviously implying the communist failures of early 20th century) has nothing to do with Marx's work, which was critisism of capitalism. Find me an quote from Das Capital which even hints towards bureaucratic elite.

Marx however did say the capitalism led by government elite(which is what soviet union was) is an unavoidable passage towards the egalitarian society. Or an unavoidable passage either way, because capitalism always leads there. Piketty has quite perfectly proven that actually might be the case, unless the progression is stopped by force and "reset". It was pretty much same case in the late 18th century, before the socialist global revolution and two world wars effecfively reseted the whole economy and flattened most of the wealth accruals.

Marx never said that was the goal, and again, that has nothing to do with the economic theory he built.

[Anonymous No.6972261]

>>6972254
All of them are pseudoscientific, economics is a protoscience.

[Anonymous No.6972265]

>>6972238
no, if the laborer thinks his skills are more valuable as a private entity he is very free to leave the corporation and establish a propietership himself.
But very often that is not the case and both worker and capitalist benefit from the exchange.

[Anonymous No.6972269]

I'll just leave this here:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html

[Anonymous No.6972276]

>>6972211

>I agree

good

>Price is not derived from labour, labour is just a part of production costs, as much as you could say that price derives from resourcesused. Of course marxists wont call it "resource" theory of value, because that goes against their poor worker greedy capitalist narrative.

Where do resources come from man, who takes them out of the ground and collects them? Quite simply resources by themselves don't mean anything. It doesn't matter if you have chopped 100 trees. What matters is that you spend the working times to create a dam, a dam is actual valuable, the trees by themselves are not. Production cost on the other-hand is influenced by supply and demand, and supply and demand is nothing but the apropriation of use value based on needs. When Marx was trying to discover the origin of exchange, he went had to go no further than the medieval times, when peasants basically lived and traded using haggling and exchange of goods and without money.


>absolutely wrong, how can you possibly make that assumption, if it takes me 15 minutes to make a knife and 20 minutes to make a fork, would you say that use value of a knife is greater of a fork? What you are argueing in "use" vs "exchange" value is largely the fact of what a country used as money, which was useful to explain why gold or rare metal prices are higher than their use value(they were used as exchange as well) But not much else, I could't say that for example sugar had any exchange value(addded) at all, other than what could exchange for it in gold, and from gold to another commodity..

The difference between making a fork and knife is minuscule. However the difference in quality is measured by working times ( as well as by resources and tools collected which these too had to be measured by their working time and supply and demand). So a stainless steel knife is leagues above a simple iron knife, in older times it required a great craftsman to make it, now a complex machinery does it , proving that that working times do produce value.

And with regards to your sugar example, it is of course the case that it has an added value, sugar in fact is a good example because it is hard to extract and cultivate making it valuable commodity since ever. But in trading that value does not enter the picture, why? Well it is Marx's thesis that subjective value does not come only from supply and demand, but from the fact that the Capitalist "speculates" based on the already fixed prices. Fr example if sugar has a price has a value of 2$, the capitalist will drop it to 1.8$ just to test the market , it is the speculative part of capitalism in the process of exchange that tends to have rising profits for the capitalists but dropping wages for the workers.

[Anonymous No.6972285]

>tfw Stalin is almost uniquely responsible for the internet prominence of the Austrian School.

[Anonymous No.6972287]

>>6972265
So the worker and the capitalist share the profit derived from the exchange of a produced commodity equally?

[Anonymous No.6972295]

>>6972287
no the worker is paid a fixed salary, that ha agreed on and the capitalist is paid the difference between revenue and costs(hint- it can be negative)

[Anonymous No.6972299]

>>6972256
>Find me an quote from Das Capital which even hints towards bureaucratic elite.
I'm not saying Marx wanted this, but critics of socialist systems see the bureaucratic elite as a new class that will inevitably rise.

>It was pretty much same case in the late 18th century, before the socialist global revolution and two world wars effecfively reseted the whole economy and flattened most of the wealth accruals.

The 70 years that came after WW2 starting from an almost total reset have to be the strongest evidence there is against socialism and for capitalism. Essentially all capitalist nations prospered extremely quickly. Even if you take into account Marshall help, that doesn't account for the USSR sucking hard until it inevitably collapsed. Hell, even now you still see how underdeveloped and shitty eastern germany is compared to western germany.

Not to mention all the nations (Russia, China, Cuba) that only started prospering a bit when they let some capitalism back in.

You are right that Marx only wrote a criticism on capitalism though, but it still stands as at least a fundamental work in socialist thinking.

[Anonymous No.6972301]

>>6972295
So the worker's labor is necessarily devalued for the profit of the capitalist?

[Anonymous No.6972314]

karl quarx provides gains in exchange for labor if you're into that

[Anonymous No.6972318]

>>6971249
Oh, alright. Okay.

[Anonymous No.6972319]

>>6972301
no it isn't devalued because the capitalist decides how much it's worth. The worker can then say "ok sounds like a good deal to me" or "fuck you you greedy jew".

So essentially on the broader scale the market of supply and demand sets the value

[Anonymous No.6972327]

>>6972265
This is your average austrian retard arguing that your exploited sweatshop third world worker that has absolutely no capital and a slave wage is actually in a volontary free contract with his employer because he doesn't quit and magically start his own bussiness. Not only that, but his argument implies that everyone can work privately, completely ignoring how capitalist production actually works.

Capitalism started when workers were forced out of common lands due to fencing and had no alternative than sell their workforce in the cities so you're objectively wrong. It was necessary to force people into the conidtions of wage slavery for them to accept them.

[Anonymous No.6972340]

>i'm probably the only actual economist in this entire thread
>missed the entire damn thing while I was sleeping
Oh well

There's probably a good lesson in here somewhere. What's worse is I have a PhD dissertation to attend so I can't be on rn either. Would love to clarify some of the stuff in this thread though, believe me.

[Anonymous No.6972347]

>>6972327
this sound like the counter argument the girl with blue hair who goes to socialist youth camps brings up, believing capitalists are greedy and rich and take joy out of seeing people suffer, instead of people also subject to the market and just trying to keep their business afloat.

[Anonymous No.6972348]

>>6972340
karl denmarx

[Anonymous No.6972349]

>>6972211
>poor worker greedy capitalist narrative
yeah cuz we marxists simply reduce capitalism to exploitation.
Like what is accumulation
Like what is crisis
Like what is *insert any issue we face today*

[Anonymous No.6972354]

>>6972137
I'm interested. Please post more.

[Anonymous No.6972356]

>>6972340
do you believe that government debt is analogous to household debt

[Anonymous No.6972358]

>Lol Marxfags LTV has been disproved a quadrillion times lol u so dumb
>well how
>READ A BOOK MAN LIKE I CAN'T EXPLAIN EVERYTHING TO YOU LAZY UNI FAG

[Anonymous No.6972361]

>>6972347
>this sound like the counter argument the girl with blue hair who goes to socialist youth camps brings up
>guilt by association
>believing capitalists are greedy and rich and take joy out of seeing people suffer
>straw man
>instead of people also subject to the market and just trying to keep their business afloat
>unwarranted irrelevant emotional casting

[Anonymous No.6972364]

>>6972319
>no it isn't devalued because the capitalist decides how much it's worth.
So the worker isn't necessary for the commodity's exchange for profit?

[Anonymous No.6972366]

>>6972347
This sounds like you are inferring whatever you want to read to not have to deal with the arguments.

Orthodox economics sees corporations as amoral profit maximizing entities by the way.

[Anonymous No.6972374]

>>6972347
Somehow you didn't actually address the point raised. In fact, you seem to have engaged in an argument against the person via association instead.

[Anonymous No.6972376]

>>6972354

[Anonymous No.6972379]

>>6972361
he's right though. Capitalists are subjects to capital. They're not greedy and they don't act against the workers' interests because of muh money muh cars but because they truely believe it's the best for the economy (which is true in a way). Capital forms ideology subconsciousnessly. Obviously, there's some agency involved, but capital is the kingpin.

[Anonymous No.6972381]

>>6972379
>he actually believes this

[Anonymous No.6972387]

>>6972232
How? Ez. If I dig a fucking giant ditch in the desert for 3 years, is it more valuable than a house built in 3 months? No? Well not according to your retarded LTV.

[Anonymous No.6972392]

>>6972254
Fucking this. Don't listen to all the morons OP.

[Anonymous No.6972393]

>>6972381

[Anonymous No.6972396]

>>6972376

[Anonymous No.6972397]

>>6972379
>Capitalists are subjects to capital.
Literally everyone alive is. Irrelevant.
>They're not greedy
Unprovable. Irrelevant.
>they don't act against the workers' interests
Overgeneralization. Frequently false.
>because of muh money muh cars
Irrelevant and also probably false.
>it's the best for the economy
Poorly defined and also probably false.
>Capital forms ideology subconsciousnessly.
What the fuck? How can you believe this and still spout all your other simplistic opinions?

[Anonymous No.6972410]

>>6972387
If I use the ditch to irrigate water to create and use viable fields it is clearly more valuable than a house built in 3 months that wasn't up to code and collapses when the first mild storm hits it. I'm just entertaining your silly example, you're no actually describing LTV anyway.

[Anonymous No.6972411]

>>6972358
It's been explained like 5 times in this thread you lazy commie.

[Anonymous No.6972413]

>>6972276
>It doesn't matter if you have chopped 100 trees. What matters is that you spend the working times to create a dam, a dam is actual valuable,
Sure thing, but it does not at all equal that because you put 100 hours in building 1 dam, it will be more valuable than if you spent 100 hours building a tree house, even if the materials and everything else used was the same. Value did not come from labor, but from the uses the item has

>Fr example if sugar has a price has a value of 2$, the capitalist will drop it to 1.8$ just to test the market , it is the speculative part of capitalism in the process of exchange that tends to have rising profits for the capitalists but dropping wages for the workers.
how in the hell did you get that value of sugar is 2$ in the 1st place? it could be 1.8,1.7,2.8 etc,.There is no way of knowing for sure before you test the market, so if you set it at any price it will be speculation
>rising profit margins pic related

[Anonymous No.6972416]

>>6972396
alright I'm gonna go jack off and take a nap now enjoy the sharx guys i hope you like them i love you

[Anonymous No.6972418]

>>6972387

Why don't you retards grasp the concept of "SOCIALLY NECESSARY HUMAN LABOUR"?

You don't even have to read Marx's Das Kapital. Ernest Mandel's Introduction to economics is in pdf on the internet for free and it explains the basics of LTV in less than 50 pages.

Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.6972419]

>>6972387
labor has only value if it's useful to the society ie there's demand for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujk7T3hjUY0

>>6972397
fucking memebook answer m8.

[Anonymous No.6972420]

>>6972416
based

[Anonymous No.6972423]

>>6972376
>>6972396
Magnificent.

[Anonymous No.6972424]

>>6972379
>they don't act against the workers' interests because of muh money muh cars but because they truely believe it's the best for the economy
Which capitalist actually argues this? Isn't their whole lynch-pin that the pursuit of self-interest accidentally creates harmonious yet expansive economies?

[Anonymous No.6972425]

>>6972364
>So the worker isn't necessary for the commodity's exchange for profit?
depends on the commodity

think for example about a factory with only robots. He invests, thus he is the capitalist, and the product is exchanged for profit without any need for worker

[Anonymous No.6972430]

>>6972419
>fucking memebook answer m8.
more guilt by association.

[Anonymous No.6972431]

>>6972349
>yeah cuz we marxists simply reduce capitalism to exploitation.
>Like what is accumulation-greedy capitalist fault
>Like what is crisis-greedy capitalist fault
>Like what is *insert any issue we face today*-greedy capitalist fault

do you see what i mean?

[Anonymous No.6972436]

>>6972424
Don't understand me wrong, I was criticizing vulgar marxists, who make such a shallow and moralist "critique" of capitalism.

>>6972431
no, marxists argue that these phenomenas are endemic to capitalism. The nicest and fairest capitalist couldn't prevent them happening.

[Anonymous No.6972441]

>>6972413
>Sure thing, but it does not at all equal that because you put 100 hours in building 1 dam, it will be more valuable than if you spent 100 hours building a tree house, even if the materials and everything else used was the same. Value did not come from labor, but from the uses the item has
And again another idiot that argues against the LTV without even having read the wiki entry.

[Anonymous No.6972444]

>>6972436
pls ignore my shitty writing, I'm in a hurry.

[Anonymous No.6972446]

>>6972299

>I'm not saying Marx wanted this, but critics of socialist systems see the bureaucratic elite as a new class that will inevitably rise.

I see what you're saying, and I do agree. It is the government capitalist phase, which Marx saw as inevitable progression with or without socialist revolution. It is an horrible phase and if there are any other alternatives, maybe excluding world war, I'd want to avoid it at all costs.

However I was arguing about the debunking of Marxian critisism toward capitalism. That was derailed.

>Essentially all capitalist nations prospered extremely quickly.

There were no such thing as capitalist nations, and the prosperous feats were achieved in seemingly very arbitrary ways. United states for example - which is often used as an example of capitalis nation at the time - had 94% tax rate for the richest, and their biggest successes(nuclear energy, world domination with nuclear weapons, computers, internet and space techonology) were all results of government funded programs. In Europe, the succesful nations were more or less socialist, with scandinavian countries as an good example. They are, and were, very heavily socialist. Albeit not Marxian, but social democratic, which has closer roots to the libertarian socialists than Marxians.

Sorry for the terribly structured sentences, I'm thinking in the structure of my native language while typing.

[Anonymous No.6972450]

>>6972418
So then only human labor adds value? So a Toyota built by robots is useless, but a hand carved chess set is more valuable than a diamond? What kind of retard would believe in this bullshit?

[Anonymous No.6972460]

>>6972425
Please answer my question in sincerity. We do not live in a world where the capitalist produces, maintains, and repairs a league of robots that replace workers.

In our world, where the worker is in relation to the capitalist, is the worker not necessary for the commodity's exchange for profit?

[Anonymous No.6972462]

>>6972413

>Sure thing, but it does not at all equal that because you put 100 hours in building 1 dam, it will be more valuable than if you spent 100 hours building a tree house, even if the materials and everything else used was the same. Value did not come from labor, but from the uses the item has

The use of the item is dependent on it's social utility. But the since the working hours are the same between a house and the dam are the same (hypothetically speaking) then the difference is in their respective utility, both have the same value but their utility is different.

For example jewelry fulfill very little social utility, but they are valuable because of the working hours put into making them.(finding the gems, extracting them, crating a necklace etc.) That working hours differentiate does not necessarily point to value being lesser, these hings are different with regards to context and society.

>how in the hell did you get that value of sugar is 2$ in the 1st place? it could be 1.8,1.7,2.8 etc,.There is no way of knowing for sure before you test the market, so if you set it at any price it will be speculation

Sugar reached that original price due to it's demand and the extraction cost. But that original price was approximated subjectively. Value depends on Capital (plus production costs)+labour time= Exchange value approximated due to market demands and supply.

[Anonymous No.6972465]

>>6972413
>Sure thing, but it does not at all equal that because you put 100 hours in building 1 dam, it will be more valuable than if you spent 100 hours building a tree house, even if the materials and everything else used was the same. Value did not come from labor, but from the uses the item has
..actually, we would argue that building a dam involves more constant capital which cedes some of its value to the commodity.

Value is basically constant capital + labour costs + surplus value. Labour costs and surplus value are freshly generated value.

[Anonymous No.6972466]

>>6972425
That factory wouldn't make a profit according to both marxists or orthodox economics actually, providad that there's competence.

[Anonymous No.6972468]

>>6972450

A toyata is valuable because it takes forever to built the robot itself, while adding the high cost and time on making it's parts and the chips it requires.

[Anonymous No.6972472]

>>6972450
It doesn't create new value, but it takes some of the value created by Toyota's competition, which still builds some party manually.

If we extend the argument ad absurdum, you'd see how labor is the source of value. Just imagine a society which only produces stuff by using roboters.

[Anonymous No.6972476]

>>6972450

Really? You have no notions on organic composition or capital or pL / C + V and yet here you are posting against LTV?

Man, that's retarded as fuck. I have no notions on Wittgenstein or Kierkegaard but I don't go on threads about them to shitpost...

[Anonymous No.6972484]

>>6972472
PS

and the value constant capital (the roboters) cedes to the commodity

>>6972476
my comrade

[Anonymous No.6972504]

>>6972484

Man, I hate marxist criclejerking but threads criticizing marxism are even worse. Why can't people do some proper research?

What's the point? If you know you're against a certain set of beliefs/ideology yet you are aware you have no notions on them it should be obvious to you that you're being rused/you're prejudiced beforehand.

[Anonymous No.6972532]

>>6972468
this is just patently absurd

[Anonymous No.6972553]

For our austrian friends that seem to be unable to open a book, and for everyone that seems to be missing that prices != values, a quote by marx:
>Classical Political Economy borrowed from every-day life the category “price of labour” without further criticism, and then simply asked the question, how is this price determined? It soon recognized that the change in the relations of demand and supply explained in regard to the price of labour, as of all other commodities, nothing except its changes i.e., the oscillations of the market-price above or below a certain mean.

[Anonymous No.6972570]

>>6972504
>>6972532
SBE is who you speak of.
Lay me down, concrete love. The key in the gate-- It's a lean world. Heavenly kingdom with a lean girl, I see her.

[Anonymous No.6972581]

>>6972532

The robots don;t come out of the ground, someone has to built and maintain them. Just because machines due to mass production produce cheaper goods, doesn't mean they cheap to make.

In fact automation in most cases does lead to falling rates of profits because it takes too much to maintain them and suffer from the competition of cheaper human labor cost.

[Anonymous No.6973758]

>>6971819
> epidemeology isn't science
> meteorology isn't science
> evolution isn't science
Also, economics can and does make (correct) predictions you idiot.

[Anonymous No.6973814]

>>6972206
A necessary condition for a crisis is that you don't see it coming. If we follow good policy and there are fewer crises, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Macro badically predicted exactly how everything has panned out lately (US doing ok, austerity fucking europe in the ass, etc.)

[Anonymous No.6973825]

>>6972356
Ya of course. And taxes fund the US government. And austerity promotes growth. And price ceilings don't cause shortages.

[Anonymous No.6973826]

>>6973758
>Also, economics can and does make (correct) predictions you idiot.
lmao

[Anonymous No.6973836]

>>6973826
Hehe haha

[Anonymous No.6973837]

>>6973836
SHRAPNEL

[Anonymous No.6973873]

back from my nap

[Anonymous No.6973912]

>>6971790
Psychoanalysis lol

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6974879]

>>6971164
David Suzuki's my economist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se55CCdfaOA