/biz/ - Business & Finance

Intro for faggots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypJ_tcnfaWA

>>17505599
But Link is still going up, I'm cozy as shit

capitalism doesn't need profits to go up. but central planners do

France, rn.

>>17505599

>>17505675
The incentive to accumulate and gain more profits are literally at the heart of capitalism, you moron.

>>17505677
it's due to the meme of the coronavirus, but nothing will happen as usual, believe me i would like to see a collapse more than anyone but it's ain't gonna happen

Switzerland, rn.

>>17505675
Lel

Carrefour supermarket (French Walmart) in Aubervillers (a relatively big city in the Parisian suburbs).

>>17505704
>Communist China still has supplies after 2 months of spread
>Capitalist France and Switzerland doesn’t

>>17505695
yes, it punishes those who misallocate capital and rewards those who deploy it more efficiently. central planners are going to get severely punished, and they are going to encourage plebs like you to support even more socialism so they can stay in power

>>17505704
Corona just triggered the crisis sooner, literally all major Marxist economists were telling us that a global crisis is coming in 2020 akin to the 2008. Capitalism literally can't function properly any longer, not that its fucking "proper functioning" was that great. We are getting major crises sooner and sooner. The fucking economic system expired. It should be replaced.

>>17505599
All profits in the future will come from Chainlink.

Its dead jim

https://youtu.be/w_NVddYKYXc

>>17505599
What aspect of centrally planned interest rates and and an artificially propped up stock market is capitalist?

>>17505766
>we will eat zeroes and ones from harddrives

>>17505758
>all major Marxist economists were telling us that a global crisis is coming in 2020 akin to the 2008
Sources? I'm interested

>>17505778
The stock market part dumb ass

>>17505758
>The fucking economic system expired. It should be replaced.
You might want to pick up a bag while you still can there commie fren

>>17505738
Amazon is centrally planned
Wal Mart is centrally planned
The problem is motivation. How do you create that kind of ruthless efficiency without a profit motive?
I don't know if it's possible, but this book argues that technology has made central planning much more feasible than it was during the Soviet era

>>17505807
>reading comprehension
centrally planned interest rates are what is causing the artificial boom in the stock market. If the market was deciding interest rates and not central banks, the rates would be much higher creating less incentive for corporate buybacks of stock.

>>17505675
All Capitalist firms centrally plan internally; the majority of firms that are collapsing under the weight of the retail crisis are those who haven't done so effectively. The market fundamentalism on display in a firm like Sears played a massive part to their downfall.

The stigma against "Central Planning" is a form of neoclassical propaganda and anyone who has ever actually been involved in the internal running of business knows this. There's a very accessible book on the real nature of Central Planning in the Capitalist economy, it's called the People's Republic of Walmart by Leigh Phillips, unfortunately /biz/ is fucking retarded and doesn't allow .pdf attachments but go to LibGen

>Capitalism is entering its final series of crisis. The rate of profit reaches near zero by year 2030.
There's a decent potential for a few dead cat bounces to keep dragging it out to around 2050 or even 2060

>>17505599
>posting this thread
>again
>after getting intellectually annihilated by passing conservatives, libertarians, and ancaps in every other thread he's made
fuck off cultist

>>17505812
Ah yes, the neo-Socialist pinkos are now turning to technology to justify implementing the most murderous and destructive failed government policies of all time. Certainly since we can't predict the ongoing evolution of capitalism, that means it's evil and we should all become Marxists.
Please contract a horrific disease and die slowly and in great pain.

>Central banks
>Capitalism
uhh, you got something mixed up son

>>17505812
cringe

>>17505675
>>17505843
Also, what those other replies said, the profit motive is quite literally at the core of Capitalism; it needs constant accumulation & growth to function efficiently as a system. Centrally Planned economies don't need profit because they can account in kind through Labour Time. Please learn some economics.

>>17505812
>>17505843
Many competing centrally planned organizations isn't the same as having one main centrally planned organization. Competition and freedom to move between organizations makes a big difference.

>>17505794
Michael Hudson, David Harvey, Michael Roberts, and Richard Wolff called it the last year at different times (in lectures on youtube, on their sites, blogs, in publications). I didn't save the articles, because it was fucking obvious, desu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXK1m3uOAvU

discord trannies with a chopped off dick seething at it again

>>17505843
>I read one book by a commie professor, now I know everything.
The other part to 'central planning' is that when you do it in ONE CORPORATION in a free market, there are a million other external elements you CAN'T CONTROL you
MOTHERFUCKING
RETARD
YOU NEED TO DIE

>>17505812
>comparing the central planning of the actions of voluntary actors the the central planning of the actions of involuntary actors
you fucking brainlet

Every organism is centrally controlled by itself.

>>17505842
You're a dumbass. Without state intervention, there is no stock market.

>>17505899
Without a state there's no capitalism. You literally have to enforce private property.

>>17505898
>Every organism is centrally controlled by itself.
Nervous systems are inherently centrally controlled

>>17505729
yeah cauz you are not allowed to buy too much stuff in china, indeed they don't even allow you to get out from your house, and if you got infected you go to the gas chamber

>>17505758
Capitalism has some sort of crisis about every 10 years, it's part of the way it works.

>>17505859
>>17505863
>>17505869
>>17505888
Seethe harder brainlets.

>>17505870
Based, thanks.
I am not a Marxist but I want the billionaires hung and I want hard socialism riding on a heavily tamed capitalist economy

>>17505677
crétins

That's actually good for grocery stores to meme it up about the apocalypse.

Also if there really is a shortage of food someone will just make its way into these normies homes and burglarise the shit out of them, how are they going to defend themselves?

>>17505927
>Capitalism has some sort of crisis about every 10 years
Not at this fucking scale and severity, this is historically unprecedented.

>>17505791
Fucking nolinkers have noooo idea what’s coming when Chainlink / smart contracts gets mass Adopted.

>>17505937
>I am not a Marxist
Are you a reader? I could recommend some books if you are interested in changing your mind.
>I want the billionaires hung
based and redpilled

>>17505869
When did I say anything to the contrary? I was pointing out that the other poster is a fucking moron who doesn't even understand what Capitalism is, not discussing the comparative merits of Central Planning. It's a fact that it exists and can exist in a system of Capital accumulation and is in fact, massively integral.

>>17505876
Lol

>>17505952
>this is historically unprecedented
Brainlet squared

>>17505599
>rate of profit
15 year old detected

>Charts not adjusted for inflation

Completely worthless. The rate of profit hasn't declined, the nominal value of currency has declined.

>>17506001
>>17505629

>>17505967
I'm about to read Das Kapital but I'm open to suggestions. I have a strong understanding of standard economics so if you want to attack there go for it..I think Marx is very wrong about LTV and MCM from what I understand of them, but I have not read the source text yet obviously

>>17506001
Lol yes the Rate of Profit isn't important so it doesn't actually matter where I invest. I don't know what the Organic Composition of Capital is I'm so smart profits are just generated from the ether

>>17505677
>only food leftover is italian food
mama mia!

>>17505812
It is a categorical error comparing an entire economy ('centrally planned') to individual companies within an economy.

>>17505937
good thing coronavirus will cleanse retards like you

>>17505599
Why is /leftypol/ raiding every board?

spamming ur memes here doesn't make me respect your ideology more, it does the opposite, kike.

>>17505972
That's reasonable, sorry for jumping to conclusions too quickly.

>>17506009
If Marx is wrong about the LTV then you're also arguing that Smith & Ricardo are wrong about the LTV since that's where Marx got it from. Don't jump into Capital headfirst; instead get more of a foundation in Classical Economics because Orthodox Econ is a fusion of Neoclassical & Keynesian and a lot of what Marx writes won't make sense unless you understand Smith & Ricardo.

Anwar Shaikh has an intro to the history of political economy class on Youtube which goes over Smith, Ricardo & Marx and all of their key economic theories and he also has a university course on his book which is basically him taking every economic school and attempting to synthesize a totalizing economics that doesn't rely on any of the presuppositions within Neoclassical, Keynesian, Marxian etc schools

History of Political Economy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTMFx0t8kDzc72vtNWeTP05x6WYiDgEx7

Capitalism: Competition, Conflict & Crises:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

Since you know Orthodox Econ I assume you also know Math & Stats so you will be able to follow along with all of the course material for the 2nd one, just grab it off LibGen

>>17506009
If you are already into economics I recommend you pic related (can be found on libgen.io) before reading Marx. It systematically compares classical economics to the neoclassical schools and shows convincingly that on each single issue the classical school is superior.

Another recommendation would be Anwar Shaikh's Capitalism Competition, Conflict, Crises (2016, Oxford University Press) that shows that Marx's method is completely applicable to the current year.

>>17506074
>If Marx is wrong about the LTV then you're also arguing that Smith & Ricardo are wrong about the LTV since that's where Marx got it from
They are. Marxists are stuck about 150 years in the past and haven't heard of marginalism.

>>17506040
You realize that 'central planning' inside the USSR didn't happen in a single building in Moscow, right?

>>17506101
and it failed every time lmao

Imagine actually believing in Labor Theory of Value in 2020 when there's so many hilarious modern contradictions to it.

>>17506069
The bit about socialist countries getting CIA'ed is true.

>>17505952
lol how is it worse?

>>17506071
That's ok senpai, most people have a kneejerk reaction to the idea of Central Planning but in reality it's not really exclusive to Communism at all and not all Communist ideologies endorse Central Planning. Honestly the dichotomy between Planning & Markets is a completely false one that is borne out of ideology rather than political economy.

In terms of arguments for Central Planning from a Communist Perspective, the best ones I've seen are from Paul Cockshott, who is a CompSci professor from Scotland, his whole thing is Empirical Evidence for Socialism which is actually quite accessible and interesting even if you don't agree with him.

>>17506113
Name three.

>>17506111
Like that time the USSR beat fascism

>>17506074
>If Marx is wrong about the LTV then you're also arguing that Smith & Ricardo are wrong about the LTV since that's where Marx got it from.
Then they're all wrong. I don't blame then for being retarded though it was a long time ago.
I will take your recommendations. I think I'm at the point where I can survive diving in to kapital due to other reasons but a proper primer makes sense. Saved your comment

>>17506081
Excellent thanks. That comparison sounds very appealing to me,I might start there then

>>17506097
I bet you don't even know what the LTV is or how any of them argue for it. Marginalism is literally psuedoscience

>>17505859
>most murderous
>most murderous
>most murderoius
like you give a shit for dead people, anon
stop virtue signaling

>>17506138
No worries dude, i'm happy that you're at least willing to engage rather than succumb to dogmatism even if you don't think your mind will be changed

>>17505927
>Capitalism has some sort of crisis about every 10 years, it's part of the way it works.

lol autistic system

>>17506132
>horrible kill/death ratio
>massively inefficient machine, strategy was effectively overwhelm opponent with numbers with no regard at all of casualties
>multiple allies attacking nazis from every front
>italy was worthless
>the USSR beat f-fascism guys

>>17505812
>>17505843
>>17505972
i was obviously talking about the central planners who control international banking and government, not corporations who have to operate in that space

>>17505859
>neo-Socialist
Nothing "neo" about us, dude. We've old school smash the bourgeois state, establish a system by the workers for the workers "type" socialists.

>>17505860
>only true capitalism if the market is 100% free and I can buy kids as slaves
>central banks not true capitalism

where did I heard this before?

>>17506142
I know exactly what LTV is and I know Bohm von Bawerk destroyed it 130 years ago.

>Marginalism is pseudoscience
Marxism and dialetical materialism are pseudoscience. Read this.

>>17506165
Capitalism is literally a giant autist manchild that as his age progresses starts having worse and worse meltdowns, taking casualties.

>>17506171
>>massively inefficient machine, strategy was effectively overwhelm opponent with numbers with no regard at all of casualties
This literally is retarded propaganda and anyone with a passing interesting in warfare would clown you for being a nazi cocksucking ideologue.

>>17506215
lol mad at facts

>>17506171
>it didn't happen because I don't like how it happened

>>17506207
>Austrian Economics
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>17506130
faceberg, twitter and tiktok
define 'socially necessary'

>>17506234
>proposed "victory" of red army was a comically mishandled one
cope

Lithuania

>>17506238
Not an argument.

Von Bawerk predates the existence of the "Austrian school" and is well respected among mainstream economists.

>>17506159
I appreciate the recommendations a lot, you are obviously not a retard which is rare on both sides.
I would still support a Marxist movement on the grounds of simple revenge against the elites and the landlords. I voted Trump in support of the working class and he's delivered nothing. Now we try Bernie...
Fyi the thing that started to sway me was /r/stupidpol. I fucking hate wokies so much I'd vote for Hitler himself to get rid of them. When I found out Marx wasn't one of them, communism became much more palatable

>>17506255
Marxists can't defend LTV because the qualifier "socially necessary" is a value judgement, meaning that subjective socially necessary labour is what creates value according to marxists. "socially necessary" is intentionally left ambiguous and vague in Marxist literature to obscure poor circular reasoning.

So LTV is reduced to a meaningless tautology, essentially saying “labor that creates value creates value.”

>>17506255
/pol/fags have no arguments as usual

>>17506394
>still can't define "socially necessary"
oh nononono look at this dude.

>>17505845
this. it's most likely going to be a s fast (by historical standards) collapse, but slow in terms of an individual. I'd say not much fundamental will change for at least another 20 years. when western roman empire collapsed it was over a couple of hundred years 400-550/600. I can't see it taking that long this time but I can't see it ending tomorrow, there is still energy & vitality (link cough cough)

>>17506356
You have no idea what you are talking about. "Socially necessary labour-time" is a totally valid concept: shit take time to create. To create a gun took more time under Feudalism than in capitalist factories. It's observable, measurable, and quite frankly, completely obvious.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/l/a.htm

>>17506445
He didn't ask for you to define "socially necessary labour time", he asked for you to define what "socially necessary" means. You dodged the question.

>>17506467
In what context is "socially necessary" used? The statement "it is socially necessary to kill this idiotic poster" is a value judgment but "shit take socially necessary labor time to create" is a statement of fact.

>>17505899
>doesn't know what a market is
unironically reported, holy fuck what the fuck are you doing here just leave

>>17505937
again,
>comparing a central authority's planning of the actions of voluntary actors to a central authority's planning of the actions of involuntary actors
you didn't even attempt to refute the relevancy of my observation, because you can't. you think that reality should not work the way it does, because by nature, it does not benefit you—and meanwhile you think capitalists are selfish because they simply best learn and capitalize on the rules of the reality in which we exist, respect the natural rights of other people, and accrue modest to massive amounts of wealth in doing so.
i doubt you idiots have ever even engaged in a private transaction outside of buying things from large institutions—which you take entirely for granted.
any person who has become extraordinarily rich primarily because of taxation and currency redistribution, by the way—jeff bezos among them—abso-fucking-lutely loves retards like you, because your voting to enact collectivist policies, redistribute money to municipalities with retarded politicians and retards on welfare, and increase government spending unfairly puts them even immeasurably further out-of-range of any kind of competition.
collectivism is predicated on the enslavement of working people, through the act of taxing them and then taking away any option they may have to disassociate from you economically. marx, lenin, stalin, mao, che—all of them were extraordinarily manipulative, cultist assholes. che literally executed children, as he did adults. the average, indoctrinated collectivist idolizes him.
you are a worthless, contemptible little pissant who will live an unhappy, and ultimately pointless life all because he cannot accept facts of the reality in which we exist.
we all get what we deserve, no matter what. capitalism allows us to, more often than any other system, get what we earn.

>>17506496
It's what Marxists use as a copout for explaining why digging holes and filling them up isn't valuable -- they say this is not socially necessary labour. But they fail to actually define "socially necessary" as a concept. They intentionally leave this qualifier vague.

You are stalling and deflecting because you cannot define "socially necessary" without people realizing it's just a reformulation of supply and demand. Lol!

>>17506549
>still haven't posted the context
Billy, how are we supposed to judge what you are saying if you are not able to actually point us to the text we are supposed to judge?

you are, at this point, just
>dude, trust me

But then again, you haven't read a single line from Marx and you can only post parodies of Marxism.

>>17506513
Is this a copypasta? Because it's hilarious.

>>17506576
>Billy, how are we supposed to judge what you are saying if you are not able to actually point us to the text we are supposed to judge
Hahaha. The "Socially necessary" qualifier was originally used by Marx.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

Please ctrl+f "socially necessary" and note that Marx never actually defined what this means because it is a subjective value judgement. And a trick to obscure poor circular reasoning.

Very ironic of you to accuse other people of not having read Marx when someone references a concept that he created.

>>17506657
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
All instances literally talk about socially necessary labor time, as I correctly predicted. You just googled "Marx socially necessary" and linked the first result here without even reading the text, lol.

>>17506513
Damn dude I asked you to seeth hard and you did it! Absolute madman

>>17505952
Every crisis is unprecedented to people who only remember the current crisis. We're not even at 2008 levels yet

>orthodox marxism is the year of our lord 2020
I'm sure it will happen this time gais

>>17505791
The zeroes and ones will eat custodial middle management jobs. Industrial Revolutions tend to eliminate the lowest tier of jobs, the 4th Industrial Revolution will come for the jobs of the managers and desk jockeys who normally escape.

>>17506719
the context of 'socially necessary' is 'socially necessary labor time'. as you seem unwilling to define 'socially necessary' i will ask you to define 'socially necessary labor time' instead. can you do that?

>>17505599
I think it's more than possible to be in a forever bull market, but it's up to us to seize it. I mean there's an endless number of things we can improve on. Drastically improving medicine, the upcoming quantum computing boom, automation and AI, mining the moon/asteroids, and a fuckton of more mundane things. If all goes well people 500 years from now will look at us like how we look at people in the middle ages; the sky is still the limit. Granted I'm sure there are certain parts of the current system that stymie this kind of progress. Corps can snuff out competing developments so they retain their place on the top of the hill (like how oil corps are fighting nuclear power), "modern" education is a mess and doesn't train well enough to do any of this, and the rich subverting elections is a recipe for disaster. Maybe shit needs to crash a bit to bring attention to the fact that it needs to be refined.

>>17506719
They all talk about SNLT because Marx never defined "socially necessary" because the qualifier has a subjective value judgement nested within. Marxist theory contradicts itself. It says that subjective value does not exist and that all value comes from labour, but then adds the qualifier of "socially necessary labour" to get around having to explain why digging holes in your backyard is not valuable.

That socially necessary qualifier imbues a subjective valuation onto the product of labour, which is just a roundabout way of admitting that value is subjective in the first place rather than strictly bound to labour.

I'm there old, tribal days, retarded greedy libertarian types were forced to share what they had under threat of violence. This kept them from destroying the tribe that was essential for the survival of the entire group.
The modern libertarian retard does not understand this, because he is autistic and angry. Collectivism is natural and for the benefit of all. The greedy antisocial element in our society has been given too much credit for our success. They should be imprisoned and made poor for their own safety

>>17505599
>implying this isnt just ebb in the credit cycle
socialists are morons

>>17506909
>naturalistic fallacy

>>17505677
don't be so sure

>>17506939
> the way things are
> fallacy
God you +1 SD brainlets are insufferable

>>17506777
knock yourself out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time

>>17506840
You don't understand what the rate of profit is or what consequnces of the tendential law of the rate of profit to fall implies: >>17505629

>>17505599
my roommate is like this comic.
>haha it serves you right for playing the stock market IT'S ALL A SCAMMMM

yeah, what's so wrong with that? Doesn't understand what any of it is, but thinks anyone who buys into it and tries to grow their money by betting on solid companies is a retard. I think she'd prefer if stock market didn't exist, of course people like that would mean retail traders tare the only ones who get shut out, IE like the retarded pattern day trader rule.

>>17506989
That link doesn't have a definition of what "socially necessary" means.

How come you can only link to wikipedia instead of defining what "socially necessary" means?

Surely you can define what "socially necessary" means since it's apparently so simple. Marx used the term in isolation (i.e. not attached to the words "labour time") so surely a self-proclaimed Marxist can define what "socially necessary" means to us dumb capitalists if it's such a simple concept, right?

>>17507041
You failed to show one (1) instance where Marx discussed "socially necessary" outside "socially necessary labor time".

>>17505857
>china is communist
Please tell me you don't actually believe this anon

>>17507080
>We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary
t. Marx

Tell me, dear Marxist, what makes labour "socially necessary"? How do we measure this social necessity? Is there a unit we can use to define whether some forms of labour are more socially necessary than others? How do we compare the social necessity of two different jobs?

>>17506989
From your link
>Mirowski (1989) for example accuses Marx of vacillating between a field theory (labour-time currently socially necessary) and a substance theory of value (embodied labour-time). This kind of criticism is due to a confusion of the process of labour in general (adding use to a product, which under capitalism equates adding value to a commodity) with the task of quantifying the exchange value added. The general process affixes labour time to a commodity, and providing the commodity functions as such the quantity of labour time is immaterial—an abstract unknown, so to speak—and can be expressed in many ways, e.g. "embodied in", "attached to", "associated with", etc. Quantifying the amount of labour time associated with commodities requires focus on the social, shifting character of socially necessary labour, and specifically recognition that the quantities are 'current' i.e. incessantly changing. Today's value is different from yesterday's and tomorrow's, and the amount of value can only be determined numerically on the basis of a given point in time at which values are realized simultaneously at specific prices. Thus Marx's theory is best interpreted as a field theory, but for the reasons just stated, modelling the determination of value by socially necessary labour time mathematically is a difficult exercise if not probably impossible.
Lol your own link BTFOs you. Marxism is pseudoscience.

>>17507118
Not the anon you're replying to, but If I remember my Das Kapital, Marx meant the amount of labor needed given the current technological capabilities of society. So, if the society has technology that can manufacture thee yards of linen in an hour, then if you spend two hours making three yards of linen, you didn't produce more value than you would if you spent one hour. Different individuals can put different amounts of labor into a commodity, but the minimum amount of labor needed to produce said commodity is that commodity's actual value, which changes as productivity increases. As productivity increases over time, the value of all commodities goes down, which is why the rate of profit falls.

>>17505758
>major marxist economists
R.I.P. MY SIDES

>>17506648
read below you gasoline-inebriated insatiable fueltank slurper, because all the same applies to you and your absence of self-reflection

>>17506732
exactly the response i would expect from a cultist. no arguments, just "haha you actually elaborate on your thoughts—i'm the best!!!"
it's like your ego's defense mechanism—if you WERE to attempt to critically elaborate on your thoughts, it would all fall apart because none of it makes any sense at all. you are running on failure—and your living conditions, and indeed, the state of your life probably reflects this.
i call you worthless and a pissant not because i want you to self-destruct—quite the opposite. i want you to attempt to critically evaluate your ideology; collectivism is the essence of self-annihilation, and collectivist ideologies are the doctrines of suicide.
i call you horrible things because i want you to see how other people see you. truly, you are a parasite—but you are human. you can change, anon.

>>17507220
Yeah but what in that story precludes me from digging a hole in my backyard and filling it up and saying I created value via labour? My labour is not "socially necessary"? Impossible to know since Marxists have never rigourously defined what socially necessary means under their theory.

It's not a commodity? What about if I was working in a factory that produces a useless widget? Again, Marxists would say that this is not a commodity but fail to realize that their definition of commodity hinges on subjective value which they don't think exists.

>>17505599
>uuuh aaah yess i'll have so much power once it all crashes down i'm going to be in charge yes yes please
You will never build real-world connections, resources, and influence. The same way porn addicts rarely go out and marry an Oxbridge-educated girl with 10/10 looks.

>>17507315
It's like you didn't even read my post. Socially necessary does not mean labor that is necessary for society. Socially necessary labor means the average amount of labor required to make the commodity.
As for your second point, all sorts of useless commodities have value. use value is separate from exchange value. if it wasn't, the most useful things would be the most expensive, which isn't the case. A useless widget can absolutely have value on a market, although it is unlikely anyone would buy it for that value. Pic related.

>>17505599
Profit rates going to zero will not change anything for the elite. You'll get to live in a smaller apartment, though. That's the way it's been for all of human history, including periods where people were literally dying of hunger and disease.

>>17507239
Have sex

>>17507414
>Socially necessary labor means the average amount of labor required to make the commodity
Averaged across what groups? And how does this account for differences in quality between producers of commodities?

So if one group A takes longer to make a widget than group B. Group A's widgets are more valuable than group B?

>>17507495
Another example:

Group A produces a commodity with high quality
Group B produces a commodity with low quality but takes the same amount of time as group A.

LTV would say that by averaging these two groups' SNLT, we can transform this labour time into objective value and say both commodities have equal value based on the amount of labour put into them. This is very obviously not true.

This is why socialism never works lol.

>>17507495
If Group B can make a widget using less labor than Group A, then yes, Group B's widgets will be cheaper, and they'll be able to sell them in the market at a lower price than Group A. This honestly seems self-evident. And because Group B will be more successful, the price of the widget will go down, and other businesses will either adopt to Group B's more efficient methods or perish. This is why the value of commodities goes down and the rate of profit falls.
>>17507562
>higher quality
define this. It seems subjective and meaningless to me.

>>17507118
That's literally from the paragraphs talking about socially necessary labor time. You have no case and you know it.

>>17507599
>>17507599
>If Group B can make a widget using less labor than Group A,
No, Marxist economics states that more value would be created through more labour. So the group that used more labour time would be creating more valuable products.

>>17506117
I agree that it was morally wrong, but during the cold war, what choice did they have?

>>17507710
>More valuable products
They would be creating more expensive products. That's what exchange value is. It has nothing to do with how "good" it is in the subjective sense.

>>17507442
no rational person will have you suffering outrageous fortune over your expressed inclination to pose an actual response, anon—the only time rational people will make you the subject of their ridicule is if your ideas should be so terribly oblivious to reality as to warrant it.
as i'd said before—if you, yourself, find that your responses to criticism fail to register as meaningful or coherent upon numerous attempts at elaboration, then perhaps you are facing ideas that more closely adhere to reality—our natural world—than your own.

>A) the value of goods is determined by the labour that is used in their production
>B) the value of labour is determined by the value of goods produced

Can communists really not see their circular reasoning?

>>17507793
So labour alone is not responsible for a product's value and there is some external factor (like demand) that dictates value?

>>17507840
>>17507414
see pic

>>17507878
That picture conflates exchange value with use value, but Marxists told me those are two different things?

>>17505738
What kind of retarded pants on head magic logic is this? “Le market will reward true capitalists and punish socialists” fucking wut m8?
Is this the best lolberts have?

>>17506513
People itt make fun of the long angry post without actually engaging the ideas therein.

I actually agree with angry AmericaBall poster. Bunch of little kids running around crying out for communism like fucking mongoloids will do that to a man.

>>17505811
>Capitalism goes into crisis because of its own inherent flaws
<Time to kill commies, lel
Class cucks.jpg

>>17505927
>Our System nearly collapses every decade, that’s just an inherent part of it :)
You’re a fuckin retard

>>17507562
>Group A produces a commodity with high quality
>Group B produces a commodity with low quality
You are either talking about two different commodities, one with actual use value and one that is a fake, or your statement doesn't make much sense. Producing a fake PS3 obviously takes much less time, resources, and tech than producing a real PS3.

>>17505599
as long as I've got my own house to live in paid off I don't give a fuck
>b-but they'll take your house
guns tho

>>17506467
Time needed?

Time needed generally across the sphere of the industry, i.e., the time generally needed to produce a chair and a chair of specific type in the furniture industry? It’s not that hard to grasp.

>>17507981
Capitalism doesn't "nearly collapse". There are contractions and fluctuations in the business cycle, sure, but it's not that extreme. Even in 2008-2010, peak unemployment was only 10%?

How can you people seriously say that capitalism is what causes systemic crashes when starvation is a common occurence in every socialist country?

They're still eating rats in venezuela in 2020.

>>17506549
It’s obviously not valuable in terms of commodities (what matters within capitalist society) because you cant really exchange a filled hole, if someone paid another to dig a hole and fill it up again then the service was valuable because it was exchange for money.

>>17508039
Your system can't even account for the difference of quality in kitchen knives and pretends it doesn't exist. Yikes. No wonder socialism is a failed system when it can't even properly centrally plan the production of basic consumer goods.

>>17507918
>engaging the ideas therein
"I'm successful because I'm a genius and the masses are poor because they are not."

Deep, deep, ideas.

>>17508091
>if someone paid another to dig a hole and fill it up again then the service was valuable because it was exchange for money.
So exchange value is what dictates use value? The usefulness of an activity is dictated by market prices? Sounds like you're arguing for capitalism bro.

Unless you want to simultaneously argue that exchange value dictates use value, use value is only created by socially necessary labor and that exchange value is derived from exploitation of surplus labor, I don't see how you can resolve those contradictions.

>tfw marxists still can't resolve the transformation problem because their ideology is intellectually bankrupt

>>17507814
lol, Marxists ignored this post. Very funny.

>>17508231
>debunk an attributed, but not actually said statement

>>17508056
Even when the current world economy produces enough food to feed 10 billion humans, it fails to feed everyone. According to the UN over 7 million people starve to death every year -- efficient (sarcasms)

Just in a few years and capitalism already dwarfs all numbers, where socialist countries supposedly starved people.

>>17508257
What about that statement is incorrect?

Marxists argue that value of goods comes from labour, and that the value of labour is determined by the value of goods. It is circular reasoning.

>>17508231
It's not a very coherent post. A is correct, and B is not correct. no one in the thread ever argued for B, because it would be a stupid claim to make if you believed in A. It's making up a belief, and then claiming your opponent is a hypocrite for supposedly believing in it.

>>17508262
You're comparing capitalism in practice to an idealized socialism.

The more fair comparison is capitalism in practice vs socialism in practice. And socialism has an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to "feeding everyone" so I wouldn't invoke that metric.

>>17508280
It's called a strawman.

Lolberts: When in doubt, use bad faith debate tactics.

Typical...

>>17508280
>no one in the thread ever argued for B
People are saying that digging a hole in my backyard and filling it up again is not valuable and therefore my time spent doing it is not valuable.

That is arguing for B. They are saying my labour is not valuable because the product of my labour is not valuable.

>>17508314
I just made the in practice comparison. Even if socialist countries supposedly killed over 100 million as is falsely claimed, it would be still much less than capitalism.

>>17508318
So if I dig a hole and fill it back up, that labor is valuable?

>>17508341
That argument was defeated by the very same person who made it, in the same post no less.
>>17507315
It's not a commodity. Labor determines the value of commodities. Digging a hole is not commodity production.

>>17508386
>Digging a hole is not a commodity
What defines a commodity? It has use value, right?

>>17508314
hmmm

>>17508396
"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference. Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production."
literally the third sentence of das kapital vol 1.

>>17508396
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#commodity

>>17508420
essentially, when discussing commodities, they are things that are produced to be exchanged, and satisfy a use value. This is why they have a use value, and an exchange value

>>17507089
it's is an oligarchy just like every other communist nation in history kek

>>17508314
Also, already the premise of constant starvation falls on its face, when you look how socialist countries like the USSR and China had steady population growth.

Tsarist Russia had constantly famines. The Soviet Union had one in its infancy and then never again till its dissolution.

The CIA admitted as well that the Soviet people had occasionally higher calory consumption than their Murican counterparts.

>>17507710
If one group can produce a commodity with less labor than another group, the "socially necessary labor" to produce that commodity has fallen, and therefore the value of that commodity relative to others must fall and other producers must also reduce the amount of labor they use to at least the "socially necessary" level or go out of business.
"Socially necessary labor," in other words, is distinguished from "individually necessary labor." The market doesn't care if it takes a frail old man 20 hours to drive enough steel for 20' of tunnel, and John Henry 2 hours to do the same. It cares about the average amount of necessary labor to produce a commodity at scale.
Digging holes in your backyard is not producing commodities, unless your backyard is an oilfield and your holes are oil-wells. This is because nobody is willing to exchange the products of their labor for your labor. The exchange rate between different commodities in a market that is not distorted by outside factors (the enforcement of monopolies such as with "intellectual property" laws, subsidies, etc) is set by the minimum amount of labor generally required to produce them. If it were otherwise, capitalists would simply direct their workers to produce undervalued commodities. Remember that the amount of socially necessary labor includes the amount of labor necessary to train the average worker and to equip him with the tools he will need.

>>17507801
cope

>>17508420
So
1) labor determines the value of commodities.
2) Labour is only valuable if and only if it produces a commodity.
3) something is a commodity if and only if it has use value.

So by 3, if something has use value, it is a commodity. Then by 2, we can only assert labor is valuable if it produces a commodity. So, the use value determines whether or not the labour is useful. The value of a good is what determines the value of the labour.

Which is the premise B you are disputing

>>17508121
Thanks for the (YOU)!
Also straw man, that’s gonna be a ‘yikes’ from me bro.

>>17508420

>>17508408
Hmm

Nice try moving the goalpost by the way.
Lolberts: When in doubt, change the subject.

>>17508439
>oligarchy
Based on what? Wealth?

In communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

Based on nobility?

The communists overthrew the Tsar and ended class society, inherited aristocracy, etc. Representatives of the soviet people were by large % had worker and peasant backgrounds. Now compare that to the US, where politicians never worked a single day in their life and were created in incubators of private universities designed to train the elite to rule.

>>17508556
i'm not reading any of that and you're a faggot for typing it all out kek

>>17508492
>It cares about the average amount of necessary labor to produce a commodity at scale.
Kinda funny that a Marxist would bring up scale considering their ideas completely collapse when you change a few variables, i.e. increasing returns to scale instead of constant returns to scale.

>>17508520
A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else, and as such, is the material form given to a fundamental social relation - the exchange of labour. For Marx, products of labour may be either goods or services, but in the way Marx understands the term, remain commodities provided only that they are produced for the purpose of exchange. It is not important whether they are foodstuffs, clothing and suchlike, satisfying very basic human needs, or we are dealing with labour which meets more ephemeral needs, such as with designer labels, romantic movies or tarot-readings. Labour is a commodity, provided only that the producer works to meet the needs of someone else, as a means to satisfy their own needs. A good or service produced for the labourer’s own immediate consumption may be a use-value, but it is not a commodity. Likewise, if a woman produces a meal for the consumption of her loved-ones, as part of a domestic contract, whether made before God, before the law or out of simple love, she produces not a commodity, but labour directly to meet the needs of another person, but not just so as to satisfy her own needs, not for payment. It matters not whether the person actually proffering payment is the ultimate consumer, nor what may be the manner of payment, nor whether payment is made before during or after the labour is carried out, only that the good or service is provided in exchange for payment, to earn a living.

So things in general and products of labour in particular are not necessarily commodities and do not necessarily have value.

from >>17508436
I don't understand what you don't understand.

>>17508520
It is only productive labor if it produces a commodity, yes. and yes, a commodity has use value, if it didn't have any use value, it would either not exist, or be something impossible to desire, which is something hard to imagine.
But the use-value of the commodity doesn't determine how much value the labor creates. The amount of socially-necessary labor does that. Use-value exists in all commodities, but it cannot be measured as a quantifiable vector, and therefore it cannot determine its own exchange value, which is quantifiable.

>>17508613

>>17508649
So for 3) An item is a commodity if and only if it has an exchange value

So exchange value determines whether something is a commodity. By 2, whether something is a commodity determines whether labor is useful/valuable or not.

So exchange value determines the value of labor. Good job.

>>17508702
>So exchange value determines the value of labor.
It's called a wage.

Body Bags for Commie Fags

>>17508314
Capitalism in practice is mostly the Third World retarded ass nigga

>>17508671
LOL Someone really unironically wrote that?

Lolberts are the personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>17508721
No, exchange value of the commodity determines the value of labor. According to Marxist axioms. Because you said labour only has value if and only if it produces a commodity and the criteria for a commodity is whether or not it has an exchange value.

>>17505629
Complete BS
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/a-long-term-look-at-roic

>>17508734
>Cope

>>17508613
>Watch how the lolbert shrieks in terror at the sight of knowledge

>>17508727
Tell me why people like you don’t deserve eradication when all you’re capable of is primal outbursts of violence?

>>17508764
Are you too fucking retarded to understand that this is in the context of capitalist society? Are you that much of a fucking moron? Obviously labor is only valuable as far as capitalists are concerned when it’s used in the production and distribution of commodities, how isn’t that so difficult to understand?

>>17505677
France here, just went buying some milk at 6PM,, everything was full but the queue.

>>17506948
Not surprised, medias are spreading psychosis.

>>17508767
Your source uses only 40 years of data and looks only at the USA. Also, return on investment isn't necessarily the same as profit. ROIC deals with the money you invest in the company and the return you realize on that money based on the net profit of the business. Profit, on the other hand, measures the performance of the business.

>>17505629
For /biz/bros who don't bother to read.
ROIC is mostly stable over time.
If you run your business based on commie lies, you'll get driven out faster than a rabbit by a beagle. Commies can say whatever they like, but in the real marketplace they lose everything. Don't invest based on lies.

>>17508880
He's trying so hard to intentionally misunderstand it, it's hillarious. He's basically contorting himself at this point.

>>17508932
Also note that intrafirm differences for return on capital are far greater than differences over time. When investing, you need to pick industry winners in the top quartile. Opposite of the convergence one would expect if labor drives value instead of intelligence.

>>17508884
>medias are spreading psychosis
...to make a profit. Media companies compete for views. The bigger the claims, the more tragic the virus, etc. the more views, the more profit. It's just capitalists following the profit motive and regular people suffering for it, as usual.

>>17505898
How about octopi? Their tentacles are not centrally controlled and they behave almost independently in some ways.

>>17508932
>>17508963
already addressed
>>17508926

>For /biz/bros who don't bother to read.
That's a great demographic to address.

>>17505599
>coronavirus starts spreading unchecked in America
>to save face, Trump continues to pretend nothing is happening
>meanwhile, countries worldwide go into quarantine
>global trade slows to a trickle and shortages of basic goods becomes common
>many states begin to enforce some level of quarantine and rationing
>workers have to stay home, missing out on the wages they need to keep their homes and feed their children
>Trump finally addresses the crisis in June, but by then the country is simmering with discontent
>the only thing preventing revolution is that mass gatherings are banned, officially due to "public health concerns"
>the existing healthcare system is totally overwhelmed and it is almost impossible to get adequate care unless you can pay hundreds of thousands out of pocket
>the healthcare industry is raking in profits
>Bernie Sanders is elected in a landslide
>just as the collective trauma of WWII let to the creation of new public health systems across Europe, this crisis unites the public behind systemic change
>profiteers are publicly tried and executed
>a coordinated response begins to have some success, and the domestic outbreak is contained
>unfortunately, by this time at least 30% of the boomers have died off, leaving all their hoarded wealth to their white millennial children, who can suddenly afford to have children of their own
>the white birthrate explodes
>workers who have been brought to the brink of starvation and homelessness demand housing and a living wage
>massive protests, supported by the Sanders administration, lead to the nationalization of the banks and significant reductions in private debt
>Sanders creates a new Committee for National Industry to manufacture essential goods after collapse of international commerce
>tens of millions of Americans are put back to work rebuilding our industrial sector
>still un-contained outbreak in Mexico necessitates a border wall
>mfw Corona-Chan brings us National Socialism

>>17505723
>Burb mom doing what they do every-time the news say "it's gonna be a big snow!"

>>17508884
>France here, just went buying some milk at 6PM,, everything was full but the queue.
What's been asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Couldn't be bothered to make a picture of those supposedly full stores, huh? Anecdotes are a terrible source, since they are so easy to fake.

Moving on...

>>17508926
>ROIC is money you invest in the company
Outright lie, or pure ignorance.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestmentcapital.asp
>Return on invested capital (ROIC) is a calculation used to assess a company's efficiency at allocating the capital under its control to profitable investments. The return on invested capital ratio gives a sense of how well a company is using its money to generate returns.
ROIC is a measure of what rate of return a company earns on its invested capital. It has nothing to do with stock/bond prices, except indirectly. Many other factors affect stocks prices such as speculation, cash flow, price to earnings, dividedends, regulatory outlook, and much much more.

You are ignorant of basic economics anyone would learn in an entry level business course. Your ideas are fundamentally wrong, and that prof in the video is lying to you.

>>17508880
No need to get upset. This is what Marxists are arguing, not capitalists:

1) If something has exchange value, it is a commodity
2) Labour is only useful if and only if it produces a commodity

Therefore, exchange value is what determines the usefulness of labor.

So you are simultaneously arguing that

A) Socially necessary labour is what determines exchange value (according to empirical Marxists like Cockshott)
B) Exchange value is what determines the value of socially necessary labour

Either resolve this contradiction, find a general solution to the transformation problem, or accept that your ideology is incoherent.


According to Marxists. Feel free to dispute any of the axioms, because these axioms are what the Marxists in this thread argued.

>>17508824
>>17508844
>>17508880
You can multi quote newfag

>>17509112
>1) If something has exchange value, it is a commodity
>2) Labour is only useful if and only if it produces a commodity
nobody said these, except you

>>17509169
These people are raiders from /leftypol/ 100%, not surprising to see they don't "get" /biz/

>>17509112
Repeating your strawman doesn't make it better.

>>17509184
You said 1) in >>17508649
>A commodity is something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else,

Someone else said 2) in >>17508386
>It's not a commodity. Labor determines the value of commodities. Digging a hole is not commodity production.

>>17509201
What is there to get? Your religion makes no sense? (Not that any religion would)

We are here to educate you.

>>17509270
>We are here to educate you.
Glad to see you admit to being from /leftypol/

>>17509282
Mises is just as bad as marx. Both sell horse hockey.

>>17509112
It's honestly not that complicated, anon.
>the product of your labor only has exchange value if someone is actually willing to exchange the value of their labor for it
>the exchange rate at which these commodities tend to be exchanged in a capitalist market is set by the average amount of necessary labor
>if one hour of labor in one sector could produce enough to buy five hours of labor from another, capitalists would direct more of their workers into the more profitable sector, bringing up supply and reducing the price until an equilibrium of hour=hour is achieved
You can disagree, but there isn't an internal contradiction here.
>Exchange value is what determines the value of socially necessary labour
No. Socially necessary labor is equal to socially necessary labor. But it must be used to produce something for exchange, or it has no value on the market.

>>17509298
I don't really agree with Austrian schoolers on a lot of things but their criticisms of Marxism were pretty on-point.

>>17509201
What is there to get? Your religion makes no sense. (Not that any religion would)

We are here to educate you.

>>17509266
Which are completely different from your
>>1) If something has exchange value, it is a commodity
>>2) Labour is only useful if and only if it produces a commodity
as you are perfectly aware.

>>17509303
>>the exchange rate at which these commodities tend to be exchanged in a capitalist market is set by the average amount of necessary labor
I like how this is just asserted prima facie. lol

>Socially necessary labor is equal to socially necessary labor.
A tautology unless you define what "socially necessary" means and how it's quantified.

If I produce something with 0 exchange value, is it socially necessary labour? If not, then you are saying that exchange value is the determinant of what socially necessary labour is. Otherwise, digging a hole in my backyard would be valuable under LTV.

>>17509319
>we are here to educate you
>Hands out fake data
>Ignores empircal evidence
>Handwaves legitimate philosophical concerns
>Repeats same tiny set of talking points
Yeah, you're educating us all right. Just like most elementary teachers in public schools.

>>17509282
that's the biggest strawman i've seen

even a cursory glance at the wiki or a marxist glossary reveals how this is intentional misrepresentation:
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/h/i.htm#historical-materialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

>>17509333
Nope, 1 is equivalent. The definition you gave of a commodity is "something that is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else", i.e. something with exchange value. Therefore, if something has exchange value, it is by definition a commodity.


2 was a response to the backyard-hole question. He stated that a hole in my backyard is not a commodity, therefore my labour in producing it was not valuable.

So it follows, from the argument in >>17508386 that 2) holds: for my labour to be useful, it must produce a commodity. Ergo, labour is only useful if and only if it produces a commodity.

>>17509358
>prima facie
It's not prima facie, really. It's observable and quite obvious, as was for Adam Smith and Ricardo.

>>Socially necessary labor is equal to socially necessary labor.
Who are you quoting?

>>17509373
-What of our provided data has been fake? Can you refute it?
-Where have we ignored empirical evidence? You've been mostly only screeching so far.
>Handwaves legitimate philosophical concerns
Where?
>Repeats same tiny set of talking points
Speak for yourself!

Communists and lefties are fucking stupid. They should all be raped to death by a horse.

>>17509414
This is basic logic, mind you.

The statement "ducks have feathers" (our statement) is not the same as "if something has feathers, it's a duck" (your statement).

You are a drooling moron.

>>17509453
>It's observable and quite obvious, as was for Adam Smith and Ricardo
If it's quite obvious, you should be able to well-reviewed studies that back up this assertion.

But you can only cite Adam Smith and Ricardo who have been dead for 200 years? Lol, okay. The field of economics has moved on.

>>17509108
I can go tomorrow morning but I don't really care if you believe me right now desu. Noone takes photos of full stores btw because it's the normal thing.

I will tell you what will happen though: hospitals and emergency services will be overcharged in the coming weeks not because of coronavirus but because every hypochondriac with a stuffy nose will believe he is in a life threatening situation at the expense of people with actual urgent medical conditions.

The biggest problem is that people don't have a sense of scale when we're talking about deaths, they think few hundreds of deaths over a month in a population in the dozens of millions is a big deal when it's not;

>>17508844
>>17509469

>>17509391
I know, right?

You know, you're on the right side of history, when your opponents constantly misrepresent you, to make you attackable at all.

>>17509480
So the only qualification for a commodity is that something is produced for the purpose of exchanging for something else?

I dig a hole in my backyard and fill it up with the intention of exchanging it for something else. Or I make a useless widget with the intention of selling it. It's a commodity, according to your definition. So it still holds. 1) and 2) still hold.

If it's not a commodity, then you are admitting the exchange value determines the inherent value of my labour. And that exchange value dictates whether something is produced with "socially necessary labour"

If it is a commodity, LTV says I should be paid for producing useless widgets.

Which is it?

>>17509493
Cute, can't even bring up a single point supporting your nigger retard "philosophy". All commies must die. They are not people and should never be treated as such.

>>17509552
You keep mentioning "the value of labor" throughout this thread, and I'm confused what you mean. Do you mean the amount of value created by an amount of labor? Or do you mean the exchange value of labor when labor is treated as a commodity in the market?

>>17509556
>>17508844

>>17508613
Kek based as fuck

>>17509595
The value of labour that LTV espouses is congealed in items produced by labour, so the first one.

>>17509493
They're not wrong. Communists and most lefties display a surprising denial to change their perspective. Humans and many other lifeforms on this planet have shown the ability to learn new things and andapt to changing environments, while you and your ilk demand the environment to change to your wishes and whenever your arguments are countered you resort to screeching like babies.
t. "liberal" non-white immigrant who's tired of your shit

>>17509485
Pic related book from 2019, see Ch. 4.3 Estimates of Price-Value Deviation.

>>17509552
Think of it like this.

The value of a commodity is determined by the average amount of labor time society has to invest to create a commodity. This includes the time to create the materials, the time to educate the workers and the time to actually create the commodity.

Labor is the substance of society, it is the thing that the market is designed to move around and allocate. You can see this with demand. A product becomes more in demand, the price goes up, and labor is moved towards the creation of that product bringing supply and demand back in line and bring price back in line with value.

>If it's not a commodity, then you are admitting the exchange value determines the inherent value of my labour. And that exchange value dictates whether something is produced with "socially necessary labour"

Use-value is subjective, so yes, you could say that "Demand" determines if something is "socially necessary" or not. Just like in the example I gave above, where demand reallocates labor. Does this contradict anything Marx said? He never exactly gave a definition of "socially necessary" and I thought most people would agree he meant something like "in demand". He even acknowledges that whether things are considered useful or not has changed throughout history, therefor making it obviously subjective.

>>17509358
It's not asserted prima facie.
I'll use a simplified explanation with no hidden labor costs in terms of education or equipment.
Suppose Mr. Porky can pay five men to work eighty hours each digging ditches or stacking crates in a warehouse.
Suppose that if he pays them to dig ditches he would receive $2000 in profits, and if he pays them to stack crates he would receive $4000 in profits.
Why in this situation would any capitalist pay anyone to dig ditches?
Unfortunately for Mr. Porky, all his friends also recognize this opportunity, and they all start paying people to stack crates.
There are only so many crates that it would be useful to stack, so profits fall, and Mr. Porky decides to invest into ditch-digging instead, which is now more profitable than crate-stacking.
Where will this system reach an equilibrium?
It will reach an equilibrium when paying five men to work eighty hours digging ditches is exactly as profitable as paying five men to work eighty hours stacking crates.
Paying five men to dig holes in your backyard for eighty hours will never be profitable at all, because no one is willing to exchange the products of their labor for it. In other words, you must produce things with some exchange value in the first place.
>define what "socially necessary" means
This has already happened repeatedly in this thread. "Socially necessary" means how much labor is required on average to produce a commodity. If a commodity can on average be produced with an hour of labor, that is the amount of "socially necessary labor," even if if takes old Mr. Johnson 2 hours. Mr. Johnson can not demand twice as much for the commodity just because he requires twice as much individually necessary labor.
>you are saying that exchange value is the determinant of what socially necessary labour is
Labor has no exchange value unless it produces goods that can be exchanged for other goods. But what sets the rate of exchange between those goods? The average amount of labor.

>>17509685
>He never exactly gave a definition of "socially necessary" and I thought most people would agree he meant something like "in demand"
So labour theory of value reduces to a useless tautology

If "socially necessary" means "that which creates value", LTV essentially says
>labour which creates value creates value

>>17509641
I used to be a capitalist. I wasn't born believing in social ownership of the means of production. It took a lot of time, reading, and reevaluating my long-held beliefs before I became a communist. I don't believe very many communists were raised communists either.
Communists in my experience tend to be very open-minded and willing to change their views, changing from ML's to leftcoms, or from ancoms to bookchinites and so on and so on. It is pretty uncommon to see communists adopt capitalist views again, which I honestly think is an indictment of capitalist views and not of communist views.

>>17509728
> It is pretty uncommon to see communists adopt capitalist views again, which I honestly think is an indictment of capitalist views and not of communist views.
yeah, you sound very rational and not like a cultist at all.

>>17509641
>im stronk because i like what's going on
>you weak because u don't like it
muh deek

read a book

Munger is spot on

https://youtu.be/AbGooX4ZPZY

>>17509722
No, the LTV says that the different amount of labor in different valuable things is what determines their exchange ratios. Labor which is considered necessary to society creates value.

>>17509806
>the LTV says that the different amount of labor in different valuable things is what determines their exchange ratio
Funny that Marx was never actually able to resolve the transformation problem and Marxism will forever remain as unfalsifiable pseudoscience as a result.

>>17509824
The transformation problem only starts to be a problem is you run simple reproduction in a very particular way, something that doesn't happen in real life. Also I'd say Reclaiming Marx's Capital made a pretty compelling argument against the entire Post-Keynesian transformation problem.

>>17509806
>Labor which is considered necessary to society creates value.
considered necessary by who?

>>17509873
Considered necessary by /leftypol/ of course :^)

>>17509824
>Marx was never actually able to resolve the transformation problem
The supposed "problem" hasn't been brought up in his time. Several solutions are posited in this book under chapter 3 to the nothingburger that is the transformation "problem."
>>17509667

or see the recommended lit here debunking this horseshit here: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/transformation-and-realisation-no-problem/

or watch vid if you are illiterate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBdKZddeOk

>>17509873
By "The Market" if you like. If its being bought and sold, its considered socially necessary. Not up for the theorist to define what is socially necessary and what isn't, society already does that.

>>17509728
I'm neither a capitalist nor a communist. I believe in free markets as well as social programs (as long as they are a net benefit to society). Caviar/armchair socialists like that screeching retard >>17509767 just want free stuff bc they are not willing to put in some effort. They also tend to regurgiate the stuff their college professors or reddit classes are shoving down their throats. Ironically enough the only commies that have managed to get me BTFO were a few dock workers (yes, I work minimum wage with a STEM MSc - bug off) I worked with as well as the company's accountant. Commies and lefties like OP and his dicksucking posse itt are just a bunch of spoiled cunts who just can't accept defeat or their place in this bitch of an earth.

>>17509685
Good post generally, but "socially necessary labor" means "the amount of labor required on average to produce a commodity," not "labor which produces use-value" or "labor which is necessary for society to function."
In other words, caring for your children is useful labor, but doesn't produce exchange value, and you don't get paid for it. If you pay someone to care for your children, you will pay as much as you would for similarly trained labor in any other industry. The price of the service is set by the amount of labor "socially necessary" to perform it.

>>17509765
>Reads Darwin
>Disregards the Book of Genesis
“Yup, sounds like a cult”

>>17509893
>Society has no use of chairs, cars, cooking implements, weaponry, etc.
Fuck you people are retarded
Is the idea of society existing also difficult to grasp?

>>17509922
>I'm neither a capitalist nor a communist. I believe in free markets
You are for capitalism then.

>free stuff
/pol/-tier retarded meme

>the stuff their college professors
Have you ever been to a university, dude? Wast majority of professors are explicitly anti-Marxist. Uni is not like how paranoid boomer republicans paint it.

>>17509270
>We are here to educate you.
Hey!
Lefties!
Leave those kids alone!
another brick in the gulag

>>17509900
>Cockshott and other fringe non-economists
yikes, dude is a crank even in his own field and most of his papers have been annihilated by mainstream economists. I think I'll pass.

>>17510012
All of them are proper economists. The fact that you don't like them, because they debunk your horseshit, doesn't mean jack shit.

>>17509909
if we can use the market prices as a guide why do we need a labour theory of value?

>>17510025
>Marxist economists are proper economists
Sure, in the same way that flat earthers are geophysicists.

>>17508121
no, anon—the success that i've seen in life has been attainable because i have been observant of the strengths and weaknesses of my person, and have chosen and approached objectives with these observations in mind. being somewhat of a social outcast who initially had very low tolerance to criticism, i understood that trying to participate in canada's keynesian economy (in which you must make social connections to flourish) would be a very painful, and ultimately risky way to proceed with attempting to make enough money to eventually reinvest in whatever i could—and so, i have taken a different approach. for years, i have lived in relative squalor, saving all the money that i can and investing it in the crypto projects that i saw as the most promising—and i have seen success.
it is merely a matter of carefully managing my funds. i work for next to minimum wage, at a job that i hate. plenty of people—who you might think i am one of—would think that i am a loser, or that i am lacking in ambition. there are plenty of rational arguments to make against such positions—but until asked for such arguments, one response is perfectly good enough.
we all get what we deserve.

as a side note, you totally strawmanned me. either that, or if what you got out of >>17506513 was "this is me proclaiming that i am a genius" and not something along the lines of "deductive reasoning and understanding principles of the natural world on which we and our world exists are the keys to success" then your observational skills are very poor. not only that, but you and every other collectivist has STILL, TO THIS TIME, utterly ignored the observation:
>implying that there is no difference between a central authority planning the actions of VOLUNTARY actors and a central authority planning the actions of INVOLUNTARY actors
if this is such a shallow idea, then why is it that neither you, nor any one of the collectivists in this thread can refute its relevancy?

>>17509960
>You are for capitalism then.
Yes but I also believe that social safety nets should exist in moderation, not to the extend we have nowadays and what US and EU politicians try to impose
Have you ever been to a university, dude?
If you read my previous post you'd read that I have an MSc in STEM, CS to be precise and both unis I went to were VERY left leaning. Being anti-marxist doesn't mean you're not a commie or a lefty for that matter.

>>17510026
Understanding the actual source of value enables us to understand the source of things like the falling rate of profit. If you took out the LTV, you could still make the observations Marx made but you couldn't understand the market relations behind them. That said, you could still make a more general argument that Capitalism is fucked without the LTV. Have a look at Post-Keynesian theories.

>>17510090
There is a difference between being small-L liberal (aka believing in capitalism with a social safety net and a mixed economy) and a full-on retard Marxist who believes in retard creationism-tier economics.

This is why /leftypol/ tends to hate liberals more than right-wingers/conservatives btw, because the last 70 years of capitalism being reformed completely invalidates their entire revolutionary worldview rather than just acting as a foil like the far right does.

>>17510131
but it isn't the source of their value, and therefore it has no predictive power, which makes it useless as a theory

>>17505599

"There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian" - Murray Rothbard

Keynesianism != Capitalism

Rather, Keynesianism distorts price signals with government funny-money, leading to bubbles, debt spirals and cyclical busts.

>>17506132
Like that time when capitalist America kept the USSR economy from collapsing.

>>17508519
for most, ignorance is a choice. you—as we communicate, in this moment—have so far chosen ignorance, because you will not attempt to critically question your own ideas through elaboration.

you have implied that there is no difference between a central authority's planning of the actions of voluntary actors, and a central authority's planning of the actions of involuntary actors. can you elaborate on why this is?

you can literally choose to be rich, right here, right now.

>>17510224
which happened when?

>>17510328
>you can literally choose to be rich, right here, right now
Pure idealism, honestly. Just think about it hard enough and you'll become a magnet for money!!!

>>17510455
Gee anon I dunno, what major event do you think I'm referring to here?

>>17508056
Who said businessman are useless? Guys in business suits make me rock hard. I want to bully a cute businessman's prostate!

>>17510467
well, obviously, if you can rationalize concepts that adhere to reality for yourself, then you won't necessarily have to rely on people who do understand why a car or a farm works the way it does to simply allow you access to their goods and services for free; you can find something that you are good at by observing the strengths and weaknesses of your person, and then setting and approaching objectives with those observances in mind.

now, i must ask—is there some rule of collectivist doctrine that mandates that any time you are faced with questions whose logical answers invalidate the integrity of your position, you try to change the subject?
even if this isn't the case, why would you want to avoid facing objective truths this hard? do you want to be a poor, invalid pissant for the rest of your life?
why choose this?
i repeat an earlier statement of mine, given its relevancy to this discussion—collectivism is the essence of self-annihilation, and collectivist ideologies are the doctrines of suicide.
you are not impressing anyone of good nature. quite frankly, i am appalled by your approach to debate—which is why i am trying to enlighten not just you, but every other collectivist in this thread. i repeat another earlier statement, from the same post i'd drawn from earlier (>>17507239); i call you worthless and a pissant not because i want you to self-destruct—quite the opposite. i want you to attempt to critically evaluate your ideology.

anon, if you keep this up, then the things that you love in the unique ways that you are able to love them will go on as neglected subjects—all because you choose to believe and spread cultist doctrines of lies without critically evaluating, in practice, how they are supposed to work and why they would work. you're dooming yourself to a life of delusion in which you only grow attributes that work in opposition to those attributes that yielded man his most significant achievements, and his personal victories.

>>17505927
kek, I am buying whatever I want as much I want. You know shit westerner.