/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12133815
>how this shit works?
It doesn’t
>why are we “working” so hard for so little
economic exploitation.

Read Marx, Piketty, Graeber, etc.

>>12133815
made up bullshit to make you work for """them""" forever

>>12133826
Give me some specific books. I want a book that explains to me the why, where, and what this money is.

>>12133815

You literally don't want to know bro.

But okay.

They just print the money at the top.

Really? Really.

At the top no one works. They just use flowery language to make it seem that way.

The money is then directed downward and those who do not accept the money are literally slaughtered, i.e. Iraq.

>>12133832
Debt: The First 5000 Years

>>12133815
buy high
sell low

>>12133832
Money is equivalent to Labor

>>12133815
HONK HONK

Money flow. Managing an economy is a lot like managing a watershed or managing an electrical grid. Water is generated from the sky, which falls onto mountains that flow by creeks and rivers into bays that spill into the salty ocean - which then recycles the money back up into the air via condensation. A power grid is similar but the "return" is done through the value consumers obtain from their electrical appliances (eg, a welder, paint sprayer, or lightbulb) that recycles the money the power company used to buy fuel in the first place. It is unsurprising that the world's most important and relevant economic theories began in regards to waterway navigation or electrical policy. It's why the Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, and the Atomic Energy Commission are relevant in regards to broader human history and economic development.

>>12133815
A few smart goys create businesses that generate value through the labor of many dumb goys. Overarching this is jews who siphon value for themselves through taxation and inflation

>>12133834
Please expand

>>12133870
This is something I was curious about... isnt welfare overall profitable and necessary for a large economy?

>>12133967
yes UBI is the future but a bunch of retarded people still think that money is real

>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?
Your question does not follow. If you don't pay workers much, you will get more profits.

>>12133967
investing back into your population absolutely gives you massive returns, they become more educated and live longer healthier more productive lives, which makes your nation wealthier and stronger. Unfortunately this means the ultra wealthy have to actually pay taxes and it's harder for the to exploit the workers. So they've spent a whole lot of money convincing people to vote against their own best interests. and yes that includes both parties.

>>12133832
Karl Marx - Das Kapital
Karl Polanyi - The Great Transformation
Joseph A. Schumpeter - Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Thorstein Veblen - The Theory of the Leisure Class
Thomas Piketty - Capital in the Twenty-First Century
William Mitchell, L. Randall Wray - Macroeconomics
Steve Keen - Debunking Economics
David Graeber - Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Ernest Mandel - Late Capitalism
Ha-Joon Chang - Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
Yanis Varoufakis - The Global Minotaur
Paul Cockshott - Towards a New Socialism
Andrew Kliman - The Failure of Capitalist Production
Anwar Shaikh - Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises

>>12133826
>Read Marx, Piketty, Graeber, etc.

>>12133826
>>12133852
>>12134085
>this retard believes in the labour theory of value
How do people still fall for this shit?

>>12133815
>Can someone explain how this shit works?
an economy is the resource management in a region.
>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?
there is a difference between value and demand. so value is just an external attribution of how much an agent wants something. demand is the amount of agents that can and are willing to pay a price for something. so really anyone can create value and there are things that exist that people have ascribed value to in the market.
>Why are we "working" so hard for so little, and becoming so "educated" while most new college grads can't really do anything?
because people have been bamboozled into valuing things like prestige and "living a good life" even when they are meaningless outside the meaning we give it.
>Most jobs are essentially welfare with extra steps, or solely benefit a few rich people who are subsidized by their work and taxes. I feel like something is not adding up here.
p much. society is a big spook. without it there is no society. welcome to the cathedral. now you see it for what it is.

>>12133815
Don't listen to these retards, OP. Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value#Marginalism

Money represents marginal utility, the amount by which a good or service satisfies an individual’s subjective needs and wants at the margin.

>The theory of marginal utility, which is based on the subjective theory of value, says that the price at which an object trades in the market is determined neither by how much labor was exerted in its production nor on how useful it is on the whole. Rather, its price is determined by its marginal utility. The marginal utility of a good is derived from its most important use to a person. So, if someone possesses a good, they will use it to satisfy some need or want, starting with the one that takes highest priority. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk illustrated this with the example of a farmer having five sacks of grain...

>In explaining the diamond-water paradox, marginalists explain that it is not the total usefulness of diamonds or water that determines price, but the usefulness of each unit of water or diamonds. It is true that the total utility of water to people is tremendous, because they need it to survive. However, since water is in such large supply in the world, the marginal utility of water is low. In other words, each additional unit of water that becomes available can be applied to less urgent uses as more urgent uses for water are satisfied.
>>12133852
Discovering a diamond effortlessly doesn’t make it valueless.
Digging a hole in the desert with great effort doesn’t make it valuable.

>>12134108
The labor theory of value is correct, brainlet.

>>12133832
don't listen to that commie, he is a retard. the system he'd enact is much worse than capitalism. for all the faults of capitalism communism is nothing but serfdom where useful idiots have no clue they are subjugated by comissars.
read:
The Road to Serfdom
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6UXRZ2XwgU

>>12134122
>Discovering a diamond effortlessly doesn’t make it valueless.
>Digging a hole in the desert with great effort doesn’t make it valuable.

You have no idea what LTV even is. A ditch with no use is not even a commodity. A commodity is something with positive use-value, labor-value, and hence exchange-value. The exchange-value of a commodity, which is reflected in its price, is the average labor time need to reproduce its use-value.

>>12134125
nope.
https://mises.org/wire/three-arguments-debunking-marx%E2%80%99s-labor-theory-value

>>12134125

>>12134122
>Discovering a diamond effortlessly doesn’t make it valueless.
if every time someone needed a diamond they could just walk outside and pick one up they certainly would be valueless. I'm honestly not sure how you thought this was a good argument.

>>12134134
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.

Pete's batch of crops is worth more than Joe's, despite having the same or less labour expended.

>>12134148
he isn't saying diamonds are plentiful. just in that one instance someone happened to find a diamond effortlessly.

>>12134143
Not an argument.

>>12134139
That was a pathetic article. It doesn't even attempt a refutation, it just says "hey what about the subjective theory of value?, what about marginal utility?, what about collectibles?" None of these things represent a challenge to LTV.

>>12134148
Glad you're starting to see why LTV is bullshit.

>>12134148
that's literally the point, retard
it's all about supply and demand

>>12134149
this, further it could be with the same fertilizer and effort but the quality of land for crops could differ.

>>12133815
Your idea of economics is grounded solely in capitalism. Capitalism is multiple layers of abstraction added on to the base economy, which is really just based on energy. The base of every economy is energy, the more energy it costs to do a thing the more expensive it is. There's a lot of weirdness in the stock market with arbitrage and stock shorting, but those are just aberrations in the larger world of economic (energy) exchange.

>>12134149
>despite having the same or less labour expended
That's where you're wrong. Poor fertilizer is easier to reproduce than good fertilizer, so they two farmers are starting with resources with unequal amounts of labor content (i.e., embodying differing amounts of average labor time). The example only confirms LTV.

>>12134151
it does brainlet. because we value things by how much we want them., not by ltv which is:
>The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
i may value a lambo as just another car but the effort going into producing it is more than my rav4. if everyone did this, the demand for lambos would drop and the price would go down to make sales.

>>12134108
I actually don’t but I’m also 100% sure you’re too ignorant to grasp nuance

>>12134149
>>12134150
why are you idiots both trying to debunk an economic theory with examples which purposefully don't include economies.

>>12134170
define economy.

>>12134170
what did he honestly mean by this

>>12134150
LTV is about the AVERAGE labor time need to REPRODUCE a given commodity's use-value. On average, it takes more work to find a diamond than an equivalent amount of silicon; that labor difference is the basis for the difference in exchange value.

>>12134170
That’s how global markets work, retard
Do you think e.g. the reason countries with less technology and capital produce less is because they work less?

>>12133815
>Why are we "working" so hard for so little

i can push a boulder back and forth for days, this takes a lot of effort but no one will want to pay me for it. i can also sell lemonade from my lemon tree to people which some people will want to pay me for it and requires little effort. ltv is bs.

>>12134164
>Poor fertilizer is easier to reproduce than good fertilizer
Nope. Knowledge of better processes/chemical pathways/supply chains suffice.

>>12133967

a population that cannot read or write is only capable of subsistence farming or materials extraction, this still happens in many parts of the world
a population that can read but with no social security will probably have a lot of civil strife and secessionism
a population that can't go hungry won't rebel against the government, like many American workers attempted in the 1920s
a population that has reliable, stable access to housing, electricity and air conditioning won't kill each other for petty cash
a population that has reliable, effective transportation will be able to take jobs anywhere they can access, giving them a greater ability to survive economic shifts and downturns

so yes welfare does pay for itself, and much more

>>12134164
>Poor fertilizer is easier to reproduce than good fertilizer
“easier” labour-wise? not necessarily.

>>12134176
lol

>>12133815
Debt. Leverage. Look into it.

>>12134185
>>12134193
it could be sold at the same price.

>>12133815
people pay for things they need - food, housing, luxuries
Other people sell them for whatever price they're willing and able to pay
As large companies arise, people will lend their money for a stake in the company (stocks) and a guaranteed payout, leading to speculation
Likewise, both companies and individuals alike will borrow money for goods now, with the promise they'll pay later (debt).
Debt with interest is the basis for inflation.

When nobody is able to pay for their interest, and nobody is able to guarantee payouts, you get economic collapse.
Debts can only be cleared with the blood of civilians or control of the land. Debt with interest will eventually become collateral; the collateral is your country and your freedom.

>>12134176
Why do you think surgeons make more than janitors?

>>12134085
This retard...

>>12134185
Such knowledge is not endowed on all humans equally at birth. It is learned, and people differ in their levels of knowledge. The exchange-value is determined by the average amount of time needed to reproduce the commodity.

>>12134201
Pete's batch is larger

>>12134122
>Money represents marginal utility,

No, it actually doesn’t, that’s one of those idealized neoliberal economic fairy tales with no real basis in actual human behavior. I can’t believe anyone’s still teaching shit that’s been out of date since like 1911, neoclassical economics is such a stinking pile of propaganda and lies

look up indifference curve analysis at the very least
better, read Sraffo

>>12134212
pete grows crops, not fertilizer.

>>12134210
>The exchange-value is determined by the average amount of time needed to reproduce the commodity.
It isn’t. You’re literally contradicting empirical facts about prices.

>>12134139
>mises
lol suck dick

>>12134085
10/10 list

>>12134213
Marginal utility is mainstream economics, bunkercel.

>>12134193
Pick up a handful of dirt from the side of the road - congratulations, you have "poor" fertilizer. Couldn't be easier. Manufacturing good fertilizer is a bit more involved.

>>12134206
Because the service of cleaning a floor contains less labor content than the service of repairing a human body part. There is almost zero training needed to clean the floor, for instance.

>>12134216
>>12134085
have one on the house, useful idiots.

>>12134216
Commie intelligence in one post. The characteristic obsession with penises is just the cherry on the top.

>>12134222
you can also buy shit fertilizer.

>>12134215
Wrong. It has been empirically confirmed that commodity prices are correlated with their labor content.

>>12134222
You think everyone is equally capable of being a neurosurgeon?

>>12134218
mainstream economics is a bunch of ham-fisted bullshit designed to justify structural violence against the entire world

>>12134229
source?

>>12134230
No. Which is why per-hour salaries differ.

>>12134234
http://paulcockshott.co.uk/publication-archive/Talks/politicaleconomy/Brazillecture2.pdf

>>12134238
>more money for the same amount of hours
Thanks for proving my point.

>>12134244
Are you clinically retarded? It only corroborates LTV.

>>12133826
The labor theory of value leads to obvious problems theoretically and in practice. Firstly, it is clearly possible to expend a large quantity of labor time on producing a good that ends up having little or no value, such as mud pies or unfunny jokes. Marx's concept of socially necessary labor time was an attempt to get around this problem. Secondly, goods that require the same amount of labor time to produce often have widely different market prices on a regular basis. According to the labor theory of value, this should be impossible, yet it is an easily observed, daily norm. Thirdly, the observed relative prices of goods fluctuate greatly over time, regardless of the amount of labor time expended upon their production, and often do not maintain or tend toward any stable ratio (or natural price).

>this thread
How come internet communists still believe in the Labor Theory of Value? It’s like flat earth theory for economics. Is there a psychological explanation for this phenomenon?

>>12134257
>Firstly, it is clearly possible to expend a large quantity of labor time on producing a good that ends up having little or no value, such as mud pies or unfunny jokes.
Stopped reading here. You have no clue what the LTV is.

>>12134133
>read this other political screed that got us into the current mess

Surprisingly unconvincing to people with triple-digit IQs.

>>12134259
Not an argument.

>>12134261
>it's not real ltv
just like how it's never real communism either is it? lol

>>12134248
>more value with less labour
>value = labour
Yeah makes sense.

>>12134264
this current mess is better than your commie alternative.

>>12134272
We're talking about the LTV that Marx uses, according to which the exchange-value of a commodity is the average labor time needed to reproduce its use-value. None of what you said has any relevance to Marx's labor theory of value.

what do LTVists make of stuff like this

>it's not real ltv
>it's not real communism
commies just have the same argument over and over. when reality slaps them in the face they dig in their heels and says but it's not what i meant... at some point you'd think they'd understand they're just insane but nope.

>>12134275
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Next time learn what the theory is before chiming in with utter nonsense.

>>12134264
>these got us into the current mess
What do you mean?

>>12134288
define ltv and i'll show you why it's bs.

>>12134288
What do you think is nonsense about what I just said? Hopefully the second line.

>>12134288
>n-n-no that's not what I mean by communism
>n-no that's not what I mean by LTV
Why don't you define your terms once and for all, you slimy weasel?

>>12134296
>>12134306
LTV = the exchange-value of a commodity is the average labor time needed to reproduce its use-value.

>>12133815
Do you want to lose your tptb approved bio-survival tickets?

>>12133815
low iq post

>>12134306
Reread the thread, champ. Average labor time is different from the labor time used by a particular worker.

>>12133852
>>12134125
The value of a good is fundamentally situational. It's not an intrinsic property of the good itself, but rather of people's needs and wants in relation to the good. Hence the water and diamond "paradox" and situations like

>Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk illustrated this with the example of a farmer having five sacks of grain.

>With the first, he will make bread to survive. With the second, he will make more bread, in order to be strong enough to work. With the next, he will feed his farm animals. The next is used to make whisky, and the last one he feeds to the pigeons. If one of those bags is stolen, he will not reduce each of those activities by one-fifth; instead he will stop feeding the pigeons.

>So the value of the fifth bag of grain is equal to the satisfaction he gets from feeding the pigeons. If he sells that bag and neglects the pigeons, his least productive use of the remaining grain is to make whisky, so the value of a fourth bag of grain is the value of his whisky. Only if he loses four bags of grain will he start eating less; that is the most productive use of his grain. The last bag of grain is worth his life.

>>12134108
>>12134102
These people are from /pol/ and have never read the authors that were mentioned, but still say they are wrong and totally worthless. Isn't that interesting.

>>12134319
Pete and Joe expended the same amount of labour, yet Pete produced more value.

What gives?

>>12134208
You haven't read a single one of the books mentioned, but you think they're completely wrong and have nothing worthwhile to say. Why do people do this? Why are people so intellectually close minded?

>>12134346
Reread the definition, moron.

>>12134336
>average
Average over what? What's the numerator and what's the denominator?

>>12134350
Why don't you answer the question? What are you "averaging" over?

>>12134341
LTV is a theory of exchange-value for commodities. Not a grand psychological theory about what it means to value something.

>>12134319
so most agricultural products which are commodities take the same amount of effort yet have different prices.

>>12134257
>Firstly, it is clearly possible to expend a large quantity of labor time on producing a good that ends up having little or no value, such as mud pies or unfunny jokes.
I'm not a communist or a supporter of the LTV, but this is a complete strawman and tells me you haven't even read the basics of marxism. LTV only applies to "socially useful labour". Making mudpies has zero social use in our society, and probably in any society.
I really wish people would actually read widely, including differing views, instead of just concluding everyone else is wrong, except for people with their views, without actually reading about it.

>>12134344
>if you're not a communist you're a /pol/tard
shows how much your brain has rotten

>>12134352
Total labor content per unit.

>>12134363
Value is a function of psychology too, you know.

>>12134367
False.

>>12134373
Most of the people on that list are not communists, they're liberal democrats and centre-left.

>>12134374
Right. Pete produced more apples than Joe, yet expended the same amount of labour. So Pete expended less labor content per unit.

>>12133901
Money is created ex-nihilo by banks every time they loan money. When the state, a company or an individual borrow from them they create money on your bank account. It's a promise that they will print real money if you ever want it printed. Otherwise if you pay through bank transfer they just transfer the made up money between them.

>>12134382
True.

Some agricultural products, for example, grow only in relatively rare conditions and therefore command higher prices on global markets, despite requiring the same laboral input.

>>12134390
Exchange-value is a function of AVERAGE labor time. Whatever Peter and Joe do have negligible impact on the average, hence negligible impact on the exchange value.

>>12134319
https://www.seeker.com/rice-vs-wheat-people-crops-yield-different-traits-1768544227.html
>Rice farming requires much more time and is much more labor intensive than wheat farming. Rice fields must be irrigated, which requires the sharing of water. Rice paddies are bordered by dikes and canals that require frequent maintenance, so farmers have to work together constantly and share resources.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/rice-price
>RICE
>12.25
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/wheat-price
>WHEAT
191.75

ltv btfo

>>12134368
>I'm not a communist or a supporter of the LTV, but

>>12134397
That's because it takes more labor time to travel to and import from exotic locations, or to recreate favorable conditions locally.

>>12134368
>Making mudpies has zero social use in our society

>>12133815
Economy = If companies are increasing in value
At the top you have a bunch of rich jews who control all the banks and therefore don't need "money" or FIAT as they can get as much as they want through the banks/ gov't anytime through the use of bank bought gov't bonds, "printing monry", and interest. They're the ones causing all the inflation and all the BRRRing is just a different method of taxation.

New college grads only can't do anything if they don't have any experience which they need to aquire through internships. It's either that or they're unwilling to look for jobs further away than 1km from where they live.

>>12134402
I'm not. Does it frustrate you that I can read people with different views than my own because you can't?

>>12134398
You said the average = total labor / total units, right?

Pete's labor = Joe's labor
Pete's units > Joe's units
∴ Pete's average < Joe's average

Now it looks like you've decided to change the definition again.

>>12134408
>At the top you have a bunch of rich jews who control all the banks
This is wrong. Many banks are owned by non-jews, actually the majority of banks are.
Go back to /pol/.

>>12134405
like where rice paddies usually are? oh wait their prices are cheaper than wheat despite the work being more labor intensive.

>>12134405
>That's because it takes more labor time to travel to and import from exotic locations
Nope. It's because said exotic locations are rare.

>>12134412
The average is per unit produced by the entire economy, not per person.

>>12134420
Assume Pete and Joe are the only farmers in this market (you can add more farmers to the thought experiment if you want, scaling it up to entire countries, it doesn't make a difference).

Why is Pete producing more value *in this market* despite expending the same or less labour?

https://www.seeker.com/rice-vs-wheat-people-crops-yield-different-traits-1768544227.html
>Rice farming requires much more time and is much more labor intensive than wheat farming. Rice fields must be irrigated, which requires the sharing of water. Rice paddies are bordered by dikes and canals that require frequent maintenance, so farmers have to work together constantly and share resources.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/rice-price
>RICE
>12.25
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/wheat-price
>WHEAT
>191.75

ltv btfo

inb4 but but that's not real ltv or some other weasel excuse to uphold a bogus "theory" that leads to horrific disaster every time.

>>12134405
Can you guess why crop A might be more expensive?

(Hint: It's not because of transportation costs.)

(PS: Apologies for the crappy picture, lol)

>>12134401
>>12134416
>>12134426
>Quotes rice in dollars per hundredweight and wheat in euros per ton.
Well done, mongoloid. You really got 'em.

>>12134442
nope, it;s dollars.ounce. nice try tho.

>>12134440
It sounds like you think supply and demand are somehow overlooked by LTV.

>>12134447
Lol, no. Not even close. You don't even know how to read your own charts, brainlet.

>>12134462
Well, it looks like it.

>>12134415
They own the main banks effectively owning them all

>>12134477
LTV explains the origin of supply and demand for reproducible commodities. From your diagram it's unclear whether the supply of A is limited relative to demand, and whether it is possible to reproduce its use-value through other means. In the extreme case of inherent monopoly, it is impossible to reproduce a use-value other than via the original, and the LTV no longer applies. This is the case for original works of art, for example.

>>12133815
>Most jobs are essentially welfare with extra steps, or solely benefit a few rich people who are subsidized by their work and taxes.

The American system functions this way by design. I'm puzzled as to why some would say the economy doesn't work, where there is ample evidence that the it works beautifully for those it was designed to serve.

>>12134494
It sounds like your definition of LTV literally reduces to marginalism.

>>12134482
>They own the main banks effectively owning them all
Source, for them "owning the main banks" and your assertion that it means they "effectively own them all" if your first assertion is true.

>>12134510
No, marginalism doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of supply and demand.

>>12134494
>the supply of A is limited relative to demand
Yes.
>whether it is possible to reproduce its use-value through other means
What do you mean by "use-value"?

>>12133815
>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?
Some people are simply better at running large organizations than others, and the pool of people that can do so to the degree of quality acceptable for a major corporation is quite small. As a result, their compensation is high enough to compete with other organizations for top talent.

Meanwhile, if a person has a job that anyone else with a pulse can do, there’s no logical reason to pay them more than the bare minimum, as they’re easily replaceable.

As the specialized skills and necessary experience required by a position increase, so too does the difficulty involved in filling it. Competition for the limited pool of qualified candidates forces companies to offer better compensation.

>>12134521
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism#Application_to_price_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_rate_of_substitution

>>12134513
https://newspunch.com/complete-list-of-rothschild-owned-and-controlled-banks/

>>12134494
>>12134524
So I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value#Marx's_definition
>Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity. Wheat, for example, is a distinct use-value differing from the use-values of cotton, glass, paper, etc. A use-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption.
But the marginal utility of an instance of a commodity is subjective (situational/situation-dependent), one example being illustrated by >>12134341. And it is *these* marginal utilities, not some abstract notion of use-value, that determine the real, concrete supply and demand curves in a real, concrete market.

Furthermore, Marx says
>Price is the money-name of the labour realised in a commodity
so, unless I'm missing something, it seems like he is in fact making a direct claim about the *price* (which is definitely empirical and can be measured) being equal to the labour realized.

>>12134644
*in a real, concrete market and therefore real, concrete prices.

>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?
The federal reserve.

>>12134160
Mostly this

>>12134125
You need to hammer down some nails.
You can either do it with your hands but then it takes 30 minutes, or you can use a hammer and then it takes 10 minutes.

Does the nails get more hammered down if you use your hands and spent three times the labor?

>>12133815
>how this shit works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl9Y8ZhJP2s

>>12134349
You're clearly biased you retard.

Reminder Marxian economists are inherently conspiracy theorists. That's the only way they can explain why they got shuffled out of economics departments and into humanities. It's a porky plot of course and they also claim CIA is behind every failure of their system.

>>12133815
dont be a nigger, if you dont understand something then read a book on that topic, such as Basic Economics

>>12134893
also you are stupid for asking about it on 4chan, economics is a word which will trigger poltards to scream DAAA JEEEEWS

>>12134898
Read a book

>>12134898
just like it triggers commies to say da capitalists.

inequality has only decreased the past 50 years, if you look at it globally

>>12134905
The distinction between jew and gentile is no longer relevant since the advent of capitalism. Capitalism makes us all filthy merchants.

>>12134909
Bullshit.

>>12134911
bullshit? 1 billion chinese used to weight 100lbs on average, abject poverty has decreased massively. Now poor people are getting obese worldwide.

>>12133815
You have to realize that money when it was created,it was guarantee and just a guarantee that that amount of gold is available for that note.
People instead of going to the bank every single time they want to buy groceries they started trading notes(money) on the markets and then the seller would go and exchange these notes for gold.

>Who is creating all this "value"
You and me.
If you and me agree that something is worth 10 pieces of paper it is worth that much.

>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?
There has to be upper limit of how much pieces of paper that can be in ciculation.
You cant just go forever and print more,they would be worth nothing to nobody.
Some people have more of these limited papers than others and thus more poverty.

>Why are we "working" so hard for so little
Because the economic system is based on generating value,and something is valuable if its to use to someone other than you.
Workers are a dime a dozen they are worth nothing so they earn nothing.

>something is not adding up here.
Because you have learned nothing is school.
Didnt you have economy basics classes?
I had in high school.

>>12134909
Inequality is a problem, but main issue is poverty and the ease which the lower class can escape of it.

>>12133815
>who is creating value
At the moment not a lot. Value is driven by technological and engineering progress. Eg washing machines, lightbulbs, cars... a country is wealthier if it has a greater 'skillset' in tech manufacture -called economic complexity. Eg Angola gets most of its money from exporting crude oil, the uk has a lot of small high tech sectors (or used to, it's been a rough 40 years).

Now why does it appear 'value' is drying up. 1) economists confuse money flying g around with productivity. Eg say the uk buys and sells lots of cocaine in an internal market so everyone is high all the time. Lots of money is flying around bc cocaine is expensive, but has productivity, life quality and services gone up? No. This is the modern economy post 2008, lots of money is flying g round, but on unproductive things (welfare, bonuses, bogus investment, financial trickery...) so the total sum of real value is decreasing (it's like were hooked on a drug). Compare this to somewhere like singapore where they FORCE companies to reinvest a portion of their profits into exterior new tech, research and start ups- this way competition is maintained, new real services are provided...

2) lost manufacturing base and bogus jobs. The west has exported huge swathes of its manufacturing base to Asia so the ultra rich can get richer. Losing basic manufacturing is losing a key value producing asset bc these jobs are easy ie good for the teenagers, create an economic security (eg is some virus pops up you're not manufacturing your computer chips in some foreign country where bad shit could happen), and just gives your country more expertise. You could pay £20 for a shirt that cost £5 to make in a local community, knowing a teenager is getting a secure job bc of your transaction. Or pay £20 for a 20p shirt where someone you dont know has been treated like shit to make a millionaire richer- also if some crap happens in that place we run out of shirts. Apply same logic to cars..

>>12134978
Also, because we have lost these key jobs, we have to create a tone of bogus ones so whole swathes of the population dont feel unproductive! This slows down useful economic transactions, slowing real growth.

Eg if your country produces all parts for it's own cars your country has expertise in rubber, metal work, engine manufacture, product design, aerodynamics...if you export these jobs to another country you are exporting lots of potential (future and present) jobs.

If you ever play a tactical video game eg civ 5, our, hoi4...rule 1 is secure your own resources to make shit- you dont hire mercs, buy iron...if it is avoidable bc you become a dependent. Companies themselves use this logic. A transport company will branch out into different warehouse functions, retail, product placement (eg amazon) so they are not reliant on other companies for these things. But we're expected to believe western nations should become dependents on foreign goods, that 'importing stuff is good for our economy, look, its cheap' but it's only cheap bc we are a dependent- slaves didn't pay for their food. Independent nation should have as broad a manufacture base as possible this is how you maintain high living standards and a strong independent economy.

>>12134085
What a blue pilled normie tier list.

Also to all communists itt, you are wrong.

Communism is inherently flawed as some people are better than others and some seek power over others. There is no way to get around this as it is a genetic trait. Someone will always fight for a bigger share of the pie.

>>12134888
>You're clearly biased you retard.
How did you reach that conclusion, genius?

>>12135230
Have you read any books on libertarianism, classical capitalism, non-left wing material?

>>12133831
Basically this

>>12134350
Your malfunction is you think the surgeon works harder than the janitor

>>12134558
>newspunch
LOL
So you have no actual sources?

I love how you capitalists are desperately trying to pretend the system is working.

>>12134558
>newspunch
Wait, what? Your source is the conspiracy theory equivalent of The Onion?

>>12135237
>Have you read any books on libertarianism, classical capitalism, non-left wing material?
Yes. I've read Hoppe.
p.s.
People like Adam Smith are economically left-wing by the standards of today.

>>12135370
Ok. What was wrong with it?

>>12135370
Yeah I dont agree with adam so I think you mean he was left wing for HIS day. Which he was- thought everyone could fulfil their dreams with effort and there is not biological hinderence- he was positively bioleninist.

>>12135216
The only reason people are interested in communism is because of how shitty capitalism has been, well also monarchy. It's not a new thing. You still had nowhere to go and nothing to do other than make some rich dude richer a century ago. You could either starve or go work in a match factory where the phosphorus ate away your fukn face.

All capitalism needs is some protection and regulation to keep the rich from btfoing the middle and lower class

>>12135370
>People like Adam Smith are economically alt-right by the standards of today.
ftfy

>>12135421
National Capitalism.

>>12135421
>the only reason people consider anhero is because their life is shit
sounds about right desu.

>>12135431
Thats fascism

>>12135448
Lol

>>12135389
Well for one, libertarianism is impractical, despite what its adherents try to portray it as. There are some things only a powerful, large state, that takes in taxes from a populace, can do. For example, take computers and aerospace as examples. Both industries at the beginning of their lifespan were 1) too capital intensive 2) financially risky. No private individuals could realistically fund these projects, or take the risk of doing it, only the government. As cost falls, due to improvements in productions and other developments, overtime private individuals can involve themselves. Aerospace and computing are not the first industries, nor will they be the last, to benefit from a powerful government.

>>12135463
>For example, take computers and aerospace as examples
>first airplane was made by two bros with a bike company
>harvard mark 1 literally built by ibm (a private company)

>>12135463
>No private individual.
>Government is made of private individuals.
You already got owned, but I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy in your statement. Furthermore, government is supposed to represent the interests of the people, not an ideology.

>>12135486
>>first airplane was made by two bros with a bike company
>>harvard mark 1 literally built by ibm (a private company)
These examples are contradicting what I said rather than supporting it as you're conveniently omitting the rest of history after your examples. There would have been no space race without a big government. Get over it.

>>12135495
>>Government is made of private individuals.
That's not an argument any libertarian would make, nor would anyone with an interest in economics, so thank you for confirming yourself to be a troll, now I won't waste anymore time. Bye.

>>12135497
are not contradicting*

>>12135463
I agree. Basic research should be state funded also. But know technologies benefit from market discipline for the simple reason of making an affordable commodity cheaper. Also it's impossible to manage an economy top down, so while basic research is great for production of new commodities it is best left to companies (mainly just bc they require so many niche skill sets that no one can 'plan'for) to make an actual product. Eg NASA landed us on the moon, but it is musk cutting the cost of space flights.

>>12135497
>There would have been no space race without a big government.
waste of money.
>"weee we got to the moon guise after all these failures which include loss of life. but we showed them soviets who were also retarded."
this is exactly why the market should be in charge.

>>12135501
except they are. markets wanted planes and computers so companies made them. the space race was nothing but a waste of time that only got done by coercing people to give a shit about it.

>>12135500
You sound like a fucking cultist. Economics isn't even real you dumb mother fucker.

>>12135507
>Economics isn't even real
convert all your money into btc and put it in my wallet then.

>>12135502
>>12135503
You need a market to posit real physical value (bc humans individually or in a government cannot do this).

However markets are not some great truth finding mechanism or Oracle.
GPS, semiconductors and chemical clusters were all outputs of pure academic interest that have industrial use.

It's also about the size of the markets. Free markets started as nation size zones not global free trade zones. I think small national free trade zones are the way to go >>12134991
>>12134978

Economic theory is soft science. You don't need to read any books you just need to know that there is a law of supply and a law of demand (two different laws) and money is just a bartering token that gets its value from how it ends up being used within the economy. A healthy well balanced economy has money flowing through its parts like blood. But the blood money has no inherent value it is what it carries with it. If you're making money that means whatever you're doing has value which means keep doing that thing.

But you're right to be asking this from this "perspective". If you start hoarding tokens you can control people but eventually the economy or the country itself will suffer and people will revolt. Obviously there are plenty of models and theories but then there are the ones you are using. The ones we are using are not totally good lol. We borrow from the national treasure every dollar printed or something. Hitler didn't want to let the Jews back into the German economy and he was able to create a superpower without any externalish central bank so he had to go.

Pardon the anti-semitism in my post if I said anything incorrect go ahead and correct it

>>12135513
Literally, you made no point but hey, now I know why you think it's real. Because you use money to get shit. Wow wee, doesn't mean the system of economy is real. Observing mass behavior is just that. Economics is a term that describes that, but the system is made up of private individuals. No man has a right over another man's life, including his property. Governments are made up of men.

Your original argument is still wrong.

>>12135519
>However markets are not some great truth finding mechanism or Oracle.
that is true but it's much better than giving a few people control over everyone's money to decide what to do with it because of a popularity contest.
>GPS, semiconductors and chemical clusters were all outputs of pure academic interest that have industrial use.
transistors were from bell labs which is again owned privately. cluster compounds have been around since civilization. gps would've been created by private enterprise sooner or later as it is a sensible investment.

>>12135521
i interjected, but the point is economics is very real. the economy is just the system of management of resources. that is real.

liberals go squish under tank lol XD

>>12135551
commies go splat out of helicopter lmao

>>12135550
There is no system of management and governments that try typically get called communist. Private individuals with no relation to individuals elsewhere choosing which trades they want to involve themselves in doesn't make a system. Someone claiming there's a system also doesn't make it one.

>>12135558
>There is no system of management
yes there is. private individuals manage their resources all the time. and so does the govt..
>Private individuals with no relation to individuals elsewhere choosing which trades they want to involve themselves in doesn't make a system
except it does. just because something isn't centrally planned doesn't mean it's not a system. a system can be decentralized or distributed.
>Someone claiming there's no system also doesn't make it true.
ftfy

>>12135543
I dont know why you replied with this its evident you didn't read the posts linked in my post.

Fact of the matter is some invention comes from private companies with a little to medium investment, while some also comes from larger government scale investment. You can say 'well someone will do x eventually bc it's a sensible investment' without really understanding the scale of capital required for something like gps (which was for military use btw, just like most of our advanced electronics). Gps requires satellites, loads of transmitters and receivers, general relativity knowledge, telecoms tech... the idea someone would just 'do satilites bc its profitable' is preposterous!

Maybe a large company or monopoly would have that cash but they dont want to rock the boat with a new potentially competitive technology.

>>12135543
This is the problem with libertarians everything is just a 'sensible investment', it's such a low resolution response to ' billions of dollars have literally been invested into the things your using rn by a government'.

>>12135580
the scale of capital increases with time. eventually a private individual or corporation would have the capital necessary to fund such a thing, or a set of them building on top of each other to get to gps. historically the east india company was considered the richest company around but by today's standards they would be 2.4 billion dollars worth of assets. apple is what? 2 trillion? how much did gps cost?

>>12135593
see: >>12135600

>>12135600
But growth is not infinite. Its bound by population, resources and random crap that just happens.

Have the last 50 years of economic stagnation not shown you this already? Also some companies flout a large economic value but oftentimes, as in >>12134978
It's like cocaine flowing round. A company trying to get its users hooked on product brand, apps or anything else is not a real economic product in the way a lightbulb is! Please tell me when apple next funds a real innovation bc at this point just looks like they want to roll in cash with minimal effort and no real advance (same for Bezos, Microsoft, drug developers...)

>>12135619
if money loses value indefinitely then perpetual growth is possible in nominal terms

>>12135600
If you believe apple is actually 'worth' 2 trillion you are retarded, are you unaware of the huge price up inflation of megacorps so they can exert more influence? It's just like banks claiming they have lots of 'stable investments' that amount to 100s of billions of dollars. It's not true.

You just have to look at it functionally. What did the east empire company do:
1) economically control a whole subcontinent
2) build the railroads still in use in India today (some of the hardest places to build such things with monsoons etc)
3) increased arable land 3 fold in India allowing the population to grow
4 increased pig iron and steel production 9 fold
5).increased textile manufacture 10 fold
And you claim apple is 'richer' than the east india company! Bc numbers...right? Look at functional results not what corporations tell you. I'd wager in real terms east india company far out ranks and modern company.

>>12135626
Ooh look everyone. This guy can dream of infinite growth so it must be true.

>>12135626
Money cannot lose value indefinitely

>>12133832
Where Does Money Come From? Richard Werner.
Pay it by being a good anon out there.

>>12135619
growth has limits ofc. but if govt can grow enough to pay for gps so can private enterprise.

>>12135642
last i checked the voc didn't have iphones. ;p jokes aside apple seems to own a lot more than trade routes and spices.

>>12135642
East India company controlled only British India with a fraction of current population and with less developed technogies
Apple controls a significant part of the whole world with way larger population and with modern tech.

>>12135619

Growth cannot be infinite, but we are still very far from true limits to growth. When entire solar system is colonized and trillions of humans, we can perhaps talk about limits to growth (even then, generation ships could enable colonizing other star systems).

>>12135679
>trade routes and spices
See>>12135642

>>12135506
>except they are. markets wanted planes and computers so companies made them
They made some cheap prototypes that were practically useless until the government got involved.
>the space race was nothing but a waste of time that only got done by coercing people to give a shit about it.
You're a fucking retard. The space race advanced the entire planet.

>>12134125

LTV is bullshit. Value of things is clearly subjective, since its determined by people. There is no objective value of things, only aggregate of subjective values (market value). Just like there is no objective morality, no matter how much it makes moralfags uncomfortable.

Marginalism > LTV.

>>12135759
Well morality does exist. It's just feelings controlled by genes. Doesnt mean everyone can or will have the same morality tho.

>>12135745
>They made some cheap prototypes that were practically useless until the government got involved.
lmao nope
>You're a fucking retard. The space race advanced the entire planet.
yeah leaving footprints on the moon really did a lot. retard.

>>12135928
Satellites, rocket tech, advanced water filters, advanced systems technology

Yeah just a footprint. No new materials or anything.

>>12134054
>investing back into your population absolutely gives you massive returns, they become more educated and live longer healthier more productive lives

Bruh this dude actually believes this

>>12135958
Oh yeah. Hasn't read' the welfare trait' has he.

>>12135922
Morality is a social tool for social cohesion.

The universe proves there is are no morals. There are laws of physics which cannot be broken or bent, but there is no such thing as morality in the grand scale of things. Also, morality can be programmed into you despite not being part of your genes. What do you think religion is?

>>12136048
Religion is a group selection mechanism. People take group selective strategies and call it the will of God. "Go forth and multiply" "dont eat pork" and " crush the false gods" are all group selective routes of yonder days. This is why religiosity is a heritable trait, it's a form of implicit knowledge to keep order in larger groups.

>>12136061
It's nothing more than a tool of control and programming.

Without religion no one would smash a statue. Religion is basically political subversion. Claiming credit for the way people just happen to be whilst espousing that you gave them the morals is a straight lie and exploitation of the ignorance of the masses.

>>12136080
But it is a heritable trait. we have found individual genes that correlate with religiousness. It doesnt have to be true, it just has to work, that is the evolutionary principle and religion fulfills it in many ways.

>>12136089
No dude. It just shows that the genes are modifiable. Religion isn't a heritable trait, anything you do is a heritable trait. Like how drug users tend to produce more drug users.

>>12136109
No you just dont know what you are talking about. Just read the frickin wiki page on heritability of religion!

People are selected to believe in god in pre industrial societies as people who think they are being watched produce more trust worthy and coherent groups.

>>12133834
this. that's literally all it is.

>>12133815
>Who is creating all this "value" while income disparity and the threat of poverty is so high?

value is created when work converts raw materials into a good or performs a service

>Why are we "working" so hard for so little

You should compare that in the context of human history. You're not.

>and becoming so "educated" while most new college grads can't really do anything?

College is a subsidized scam, you're asking the right question.

>>12133815
value is subjective
read ASE

>>12136117
Yea, a bunch of people coming to a conclusion about an observation in the span of time that's truly insignificant is meaningless to consider. If you do meditative work on yourself, that too becomes heritable. Anything you do to yourself in life becomes heritable. Just depends how much of it you spammed into yourself. I bet you if you observed people who disconnect from their religious programming tools you'd find their genes would change over the course of generations and you'd see the opposite correlation.

There's a reason the current largest religions in the world had a foundation of blood and killing unbelievers. Because they're fool of shit and turns out, you can impart those "heritable" impressions into people via force. Morals truly do not exist.

>>12136280
YouTube has moved on from 2009 man.

>>12133815
Work, present and especially past work, create value. That value is distributed acording to arbitrary rules that set ownership to certain persons in certain circumstances and doesn't necesarily goes to the people who made the actual present work (much less past work because they are dead).

For more deep explanations, step into sociology.

>>12135269
>Your malfunction is you think the surgeon works harder than the janitor
You're a literal retard with zero reading comprehension skills.

>>12135759
You're conflating use-value with exchange-value because you know you're wrong.

>>12134085
Back to plebbit

>>12133815
>Who is creating all this "value"
workers

>>12133826
Every animal has to "work" to have food and shelter.

>>12133815
I swear to fuck I have NO CLUE how anything actually happens. Living in a city is a fuck, no one I know makes food. No one I know builds things (objects for sale, or buildings). Literally everyone I know is some office jockey. WTF!

>>12137399
... not if your a politician.. an actor, a model. Or a good singer.. as long as your popular in the public eye. Why work?

>>12137803
Exactly. Not very many "contribute to society" in any way.

>>12133832
Read basic economics by thomas sowell
If you read the wrong shit your foundation you will have a warped sense of reality, this explains as if you were 5 and purely reasonably

>>12133815
The economy is entirely made up. It's designed to keep people believing in it, because as soon as people don't have faith, it collapses.
The purpose of the economy is social control. It exists to keep people doing labor which is valuable for society rather than twiddling efforts away on pointless shit. Engineers especially will prefer to do the latter if not economically incentivized to do something useful.
As automation has taken hold, the importance of keeping everyone on track has faded, so the system can handle way more slop before falling apart now.

>>12137803
They are meaningless tasks designed to simply perpetuate the system because if the truth was exposed the leverage the people in power use to stay in power would vanish.