/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14837183]

Literature that discusses this feeling?

[Anonymous No.14837236]

>>14837183
>one is mandatory
>other is voluntary
>hurf

[Anonymous No.14837237]

> surplus value

[Anonymous No.14837252]

>value produced by labor
El oh el

[Anonymous No.14837308]

>>14837183
Taxes and income are nominal individual costs and revenue whereas surplus value doesn't "really" exist at a micro level for Marx. Surplus value is an aggregate macro factor.

[Anonymous No.14837320]

>LTV
Thoroughly debunked. It cannot explain why non reproducible goods are so expensive, such as napkins signed by famous people, antiques, works of art, letters, and much more — Marx also acknowledges this, thereby shooting himself in the foot. It also cannot explain why assets bought on the secondary market have the prices they do. Thus, Marx's LTV is not a universal theory of price determination. Also, according to Marx, money must be a produced good with an actual labor value; otherwise, in Marx's view, the money could not have value because it does not have labor value. But if we move away from Marx's view, and into reality, we see that all modern economies function on fiat money, which can be created by central banks with a couple keystrokes; and this money can, indeed, buy goods with high amounts of labor value.
>Surplus value
According to Marx, exploitation happens because "the capitalist pays his workers less than the value their labour has added to the goods, usually only enough to maintain the worker at a subsistence level." But this, however, is completely false, as, in the long run, workers are paid much, much higher than subsistence level and their real wages do indeed rise. (If you would like proof of wages rising well above subsistence level in the long run, ask and you shall receive.)

[Anonymous No.14837328]

>marxist nomenclature of economic terms
HA

[Anonymous No.14837346]

>>14837320
>If you would like proof of wages rising well above subsistence level in the long run, ask and you shall receive.
I would, if only to use it when people claim that quality of life has decreased.

[Anonymous No.14837354]

>>14837320
>It cannot explain why non reproducible goods are so expensive
Because they have a fixed supply, it's called a monopoly. This is his whole theory of land rent which is in volume three.

>. It also cannot explain why assets bought on the secondary market have the prices they do
Huh? I don't know what you mean by this but you're probably just talking about monopoly rents but there's really no significant secondary market for capital goods, when machines get outdated they end up getting scraped. Try investing a billion dollars into making specialized machinery and trying to sell it after 10 years. The mainstream understanding of depreciation is even worse.
When it comes to fiat money Marx never fully developed a theory because it wasn't relevant but it can be understood ok with his theory of capitalization... and real wages rise slower than real output globally.

[Anonymous No.14837356]

>>14837354
>Because they have a fixed supply, it's called a monopoly.
You are brain damaged.

[Anonymous No.14837357]

>>14837320
Marx doesn't say wages won't rise, just that inequality will rise. (you might get paid more, but the gap between you and the wealthy only gets bigger). Most workers in the world are at barely subsistence level though. Even many in the first world aren't paid that much and end up living paycheck to paycheck and struggling.

[Anonymous No.14837368]

>>14837357
>Even many in the first world aren't paid that much and end up living paycheck to paycheck and struggling.
How much of that is the fault of evil capitalism and how much of it is people being generally awful at managing their money?

[Anonymous No.14837369]

>>14837356
Something that can't be reproduced is a monopoly good. That was everything he was getting at about the logic of land rent.

[Anonymous No.14837375]

>>14837369
You don't understand price determination, neither does the NEET retard whose stupid ideas you subscribe to.

[Anonymous No.14837377]

>>14837346
Figure 4.1. Regional averages of real wages of building labourers, 1820s-2000s
Number of subsistence baskets that a daily wage buys, decadal averages
https://www.oecd.org/statistics/how-was-life-9789264214262-en.htm

[Anonymous No.14837388]

>>14837368
You say it like they are completely unrelated. Capitalism needs people to be retarded with their money to work and encourages it

[Anonymous No.14837396]

>>14837388
You don't understand economics you fucking imbecile.

Capitalism relies on but one thing, freedom.

[Anonymous No.14837404]

>>14837388
More like "people are retarded when it comes to economics and the only thing capitalism does is use it to its own advantage by giving them what they want".

[Anonymous No.14837407]

>>14837396
Then use your freedom to come up with better bait and innovate instead of using these same tired cliches to try and get a (you) out of people.

[Anonymous No.14837414]

>>14837407
That's the beauty of capitalism, I don't need to innovate.

Now fuck off retard commie.

[Anonymous No.14837415]

>>14837354
>Because they have a fixed supply
Now you're admitting to supply and demand?! Why doesn't supply and demand apply to reproducible goods then?
>but you're probably just talking about monopoly rents
No. I'm talking about secondary market assets.
>no significant secondary market for capital goods
What? Billions get moved through the secondary market every day.
>When it comes to fiat money Marx never fully developed a theory because it wasn't relevant
He actually did develop a theory of money. He argued that money can only be the product of labor, which is wrong when we look at fiat money

[Anonymous No.14837419]

>>14837368
Costs have everything to do with capitalism.

>>14837375
I could say Mises doesn't understand anything about price determination since he predicted hyperinflation in Britain when they got off the gold standard which didn't happen. Try explaining why consumer goods are so cheap but the global money supply has exploded over the past 10 years lol

>>14837377
Real wages increased in the west for a number of complex reasons over the 20th century. Remember "subsistence level" is relative and it'll keep going up and I doubt the reasons real wages increased over the 20th century will be necessarily the same... real wages may stagnate in the future.

>>14837396
No it needs capitalization which requires curtailing freedom. Most property is intangible and requires a government to make sure it has a price.

[Anonymous No.14837426]

>>14837415
>Why doesn't supply and demand apply to reproducible goods then?
It does? Marx never says it doesn't....

[Anonymous No.14837429]

>>14837357
>Marx doesn't say wages won't rise, just that inequality will rise
He does say they'll rise, but remain at a subsistence level. And he is correct with regards to inequality; I would even go one step further and also argue that rising inequality is not a good thing either.
>Most workers in the world are at barely subsistence level though.
In the first world, most workers, if not all, get paid well above the subsistence level.

[Anonymous No.14837435]

>>14837426
So prices are determined by supply and demand, not LTV?

[Anonymous No.14837442]

>>14837419
>I could say Mises doesn't understand anything about price determination since he predicted hyperinflation in Britain when they got off the gold standard which didn't happen.
No you couldn't, because you're comparing apples to oranges.

Mises was not wrong, getting off the gold standard has done irreversible damage and the problems are being artificially suppressed until they can't anymore and when that day comes, you will see he was right.

As for price determination Marx, just like you, had no clue what it was, which is why no one above 80 IQ subscribes to your retarded theory.

>No it needs capitalization which requires curtailing freedom. Most property is intangible and requires a government to make sure it has a price.
How does capitalization curtail freedom? And in what world does government set prices on everything? Oh that's right, in your retarded commie countries and we all know how good they are doing.

[Anonymous No.14837455]

>>14837415
>Now you're admitting to supply and demand?! Why doesn't supply and demand apply to reproducible goods then?
If you're really this retarded at economic analysis and don't know why all the classical economists dealt with land rent differently than with commodities just give up.

>What? Billions get moved through the secondary market every day.
Do you know how machines corporations owned are valued on their balance sheet?

Also fiat money is just "backed" in a more complex manner.

>>14837435
Do you understand what the labour theory says? Prices are determined by supply and demand of course but what if all supply and demand equal?

[Anonymous No.14837458]

>>14837419
>Real wages increased in the west for a number of complex reasons over the 20th century.
Such as capitalism having the long run tendancy to increase standards of living?

[Anonymous No.14837460]

>>14837435
Supply and demand is one aspect but it doesn't explain everything. How would you explain differing prices for different goods at equilibrium?

[Anonymous No.14837468]

>>14837442
>ad hominem
The reality is with Mises you can't explain the weirdness of what's going on in exchange rates and such in the real world. Also under the gold standard the government literally set the price of gold lol

>>14837458
Capitalism should make consumer goods cheaper sure but real wages grew unnaturally fast during the mid-20th century in the West because of a lot of external political factors.

[Anonymous No.14837480]

>>14837455
>If you're really this retarded at economic analysis and don't know why all the classical economists dealt with land rent differently than with commodities just give
I wasn't even talking about land rent, moron. Why do you try to steer the conversation away from what I was talking about?
>Do you know how machines corporations owned are valued on their balance sheet?
What are you trying to say here?
>Also fiat money is just "backed" in a more complex manner.
LOL. Even if it is backed, it's certainly not by labor value.
>Do you understand what the labour theory says?
It literally states that the value of goods is determined by this mystical thing called socially necessary labor time.

[Anonymous No.14837491]

>>14837468
>The reality is with Mises you can't explain the weirdness of what's going on in exchange rates and such in the real world.
Don't see how this is relevant to anything.

>Also under the gold standard the government literally set the price of gold lol
And today the government set the price through other means, be that pegging to another currency or through something you will never understand, supply and demand of the money supply.

[Anonymous No.14837492]

>>14837468
>Capitalism should make consumer goods cheaper sure
It does indeed do this.
>real wages grew unnaturally fast during the mid-20th century in the West because of a lot of external political factors.
Nice job; you have just showcased your misunderstanding of economic history. Real wages grew fast in the West because of economic reforms .

[Anonymous No.14837505]

>>14837460
Consumer preference/demand

[Anonymous No.14837509]

>>14837183
Go ask /pol/ you stupid faggot. This is a literature board your thinly veiled political baiting isn’t fooling anyone or go pick up some of Marx’s works if you want to read some irrelevant ideologically-driven outdated, “”””””economics”””””” literature

[Anonymous No.14837519]

>>14837505
>how would you explain differing prices when supply = demand
>more/less demand

[Anonymous No.14837541]

>>14837519
Subjectivity you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.14837548]

>>14837541
>please answer the question without running in a circle
>runs in another circle yet again
Come on anon, you can do it i believe in you.

[Anonymous No.14837564]

>>14837388
>muh freedoms

[Anonymous No.14837566]

>>14837519
Your scenario doesn't make sense, if different products both have the same supply and demand they wouldn't have differing prices, and if they did it means that the demand isnt the same

[Anonymous No.14837569]

>>14837548
You don't understand subjectivity? You are a lost cause.

[Anonymous No.14837577]

>>14837396
>muh freedomz

[Anonymous No.14837588]

>>14837519
>>14837460
How can you misunderstand supply and demand this badly? You just need to look up the definition of equilibrium:
>At the equilibrium price, the quantity of the good that buyers are willing and able to buy exactly balances the quantity that sellers are willing and able to sell.
It explains why prices are different at the same equilibrium. Furthermore, equilibrium can happen at different levels of supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.14837592]

>>14837577
>implying you can dismiss one of the most fundamental and important aspects of human life and nature using a meme about a very specific group of people in one country and an outdated meme
And I don’t even believe in capitalism in its current form because it too limits freedom in many senses

[Anonymous No.14837608]

>>14837588
They’ve clearly literally never even taken a look at an introductory economics textbooks. Not that they provide the best picture of how the economy works and as an econ grad I think over reliance on theory is one of the fields primary flaws but if you’re going to argue based on theory at least understand the fucking basics

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14837610]

>>14837236
No. It’s not.

>>14837252
>>14837237
>how 2 econ¿

[Anonymous No.14838198]

>>14837480
You were talking about Marxs theory of land rent but you didn't know it.
Also the point is corporations could easily say what their fixed capital assets are worth if you had robust secondary markets for those goods, they're basically arbitrarily valued in reality to present for shareholders and taxation.

>>14837491
It very relevant because price fixing never works, it always fails in the long run. Talking about demand for money makes you sound dangerously Keynesian.

>>14837492
Look into changes in very basic things like financing home ownership and see how that changed during the FDR administration with so much other things. Look at the turn back in globalization that occurred from 1914 to the 1990s. Like I'm saying very unliberal century.

[Anonymous No.14838297]

>>14837320
>what is “exchange value”
>what is “capital”

It’s like you don’t even know what the LVT is. Literally all of your shitty complaints are answered in the first couple chapters of Capital vol 1. Open a book.

[Anonymous No.14838314]

>>14837610
> surplus value

[Anonymous No.14838604]

>>14838297
>exchange value
Lul dumb tranny

[Anonymous No.14838635]

>>14838297
>Literally all of your shitty complaints are answered in the first couple chapters of Capital vol 1.
Marx literally says that non reprodu goods, like antiques have high value because of mysterious reasons. He doesn't address shit.

[Anonymous No.14838650]

The problem with neoliberal logic is this: they want the State to exist with the minimum necessary influence, but this "minimum" always extends as far as they need it to extend.

An example: they need police and military power to guarantee order and property rights. In this case, they do not complain that resources and taxes are used to pay for military and police forces.

However, they do not consider the right to free higher education and free public health services as necessary, and that for the simple fact that they do not need someone to pay for these rights for them, since they are able to pay for it themselves.

Another example: they need a legal system to guarantee the validity and fulfillment of all sorts of business and commercial contracts, but the moment the State decides to create laws that regulate employment relations, they will raise criticism, since they do not need protection from abuse by employers (many of them being employers)

In the end it is just a way of deciding that the State must exist as far as these people need it to exist; any proposal that the state exists beyond what these people need will be seen as an exaggeration and violence.

[Anonymous No.14838678]

>>14837183

The amusing thing about this picture is that it accurately represents reality, and this representation is supposed to be used rhetorically to reject same perception of reality as stupid. It is a very efficiently self-defeating piece of rhetoric.

The only improvement to be made to the image, to sanitize it of its snark, is to remove the scare quotes.

[Anonymous No.14838797]

>>14838650
This. Besides the market needs the infrastructure provided by the state in order to exist: roads, electricity, water, etc but to the libertarians these things are theft. In the end corporations end working with and using the state and even if for some reason the state ceased to exist, another powerful organization would take its place. That's the nature of history: a pool where the biggest fish acquires power. Libertarianism, anarchocapitalism and akin ideologies are just plainly retarded.

[Anonymous No.14838905]

>>14837588
>It explains why prices are different at the same equilibrium.
But it doesn't?

[Anonymous No.14839018]

>>14837183
The feeling of sucking shit out of my ass-hole.

Go kill someone instead of whining on the internt.

[Anonymous No.14839029]

I honestly tolerate fascists more than lolbertarians. If you are a libertarian past highschool you need to be lobotomized.

[Anonymous No.14839078]

>>14837320
>It cannot explain why non reproducible goods are so expensive
Marx is only concerned with commodities. Napkins signed by famous people are completely irrelevant to the reproduction of capitalism, and there aren't factories making them. And even then Marx still explains their prices in the sense that he accepts that they're determined by the relation between supply and demand, like with any other thing that has a price.

>Marx's LTV is not a universal theory of price determination
Who gave you this idea that it pretends to be one? Marx wasn't interested in doing political economy and solving some irrelevant questions it poses. He was a communist doing a critique of the discipline.

>according to Marx, money must be a produced good with an actual labor value
Commodity-money is just one particular determination of money. It can evolve beyond that, and Marx already gave an example of this with credit-money.

>in the long run, workers are paid much, much higher than subsistence level
He wasn't talking about a bare biological subsistence level, but subsistence level as it is socio-historically determined through various factors, including class struggle. Subsistence level in a typical modern Western country involves for example a device connected to the internet and a cellphone plan.

[Anonymous No.14839161]

We really should stop engaging with commies. Their inability to understand even the most basic logic is just as evident in this thread as any other.

[Anonymous No.14839269]

>>14839161
libertarians live in an abstract logical world. if only that world really existed.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14839321]

>>14838314
Yer in over your head, Donny

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

[Anonymous No.14839343]

>>14839161
These threads are people that have not read Marx talking about things they don't know about getting BTFOd by people that have read Marx.

[Anonymous No.14839520]

>>14839078
>Marx is only concerned with commodities
Antiques, paintings, letters ARE commodities that can be bought and sold.
>Napkins signed by famous people are completely irrelevant to the reproduction of capitalism, and there aren't factories making them.
>Who gave you this idea that it pretends to be one?
Well, then the LTV cannot explain why capitalists profit off of selling art, antiques, and assets bought in secondary markets. He, therefore, cannot explain why profits occur in a large portion of the economy — and that's assuming the LTV is actually valid in other situations.
>And even then Marx still explains their prices in the sense that he accepts that they're determined
No. He invokes the "it's complicated" tactic. "[Non reproducible commodities] cannot be reproduced by labour, such as antiques, works of art by certain masters, etc. … may be determined by quite fortuitous combinations of circumstances."
>Commodity-money is just one particular determination of money. It can evolve beyond that, and Marx already gave an example of this with credit-money.
Why don't I just quote Marx? He clearly thought that money could only be a commodity with a labor value:
"Money – the common form, into which all commodities as exchange values are transformed, i.e. the universal commodity – must itself exist as a particular commodity alongside the others, since what is required is not only that they can be measured against it in the head, but that they can be changed and exchanged for it in the actual exchange process."
And
"[M]oney is in reality nothing but a special expression of the social character of labor and its products, so that this character, as distinguished from the basis of individual production, must present itself in the last analysis as a thing, as a peculiar commodity by the side of the other commodities."
>Subsistence level in a typical modern Western country involves for example a device connected to the internet and a cellphone plan.
This seems like you're just redefining to mean "the high standard of living that Western countries have." If you just keep redefining subsistence level to mean the average standard of living everytime you're wrong, you're making your theories and Marx's unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.14839864]

>>14837320
> It cannot explain why non reproducible goods are so expensive, such as napkins signed by famous people, antiques, works of art, letters, and much more
no, this directly proves the validity of labour theory of value. Labour theory of value states that the only thing that substantiates value is that human hands performed an action. It does suppose that there is some kind of fixed dollars per hour of each human hand. Labour theory of value does not say that per hour, an engineer designing a bridge produces the same value as a worker digging a ditch. It merely states that all of the value that each of these two produce is in totality the human component.

Imagine your example of the painting or the napkin. Imagine that these items were produced by machines. A mechanical hand programmed to sign a napkin "Billie Eilish" What would that be worth? Not even close to the same value.

[Anonymous No.14839870]

>>14838198
>It very relevant because price fixing never works, it always fails in the long run. Talking about demand for money makes you sound dangerously Keynesian.
Price fixing doesn't work indeed, hence why capitalism works and socialism doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14839881]

>>14839520
>Well, then the LTV cannot explain why capitalists profit off of selling art, antiques, and assets bought in secondary markets. He, therefore, cannot explain why profits occur in a large portion of the economy — and that's assuming the LTV is actually valid in other situations.
yes, he can. Again. What is the value of an antique? What is the value of a painting. It is HUMAN value. These exact same arrangements of molecules would change in value, depending on the quality of the human labour that was put into them. Reproduce these exact antiques, atom for atom, with an extremely efficient machine that requires almost no human labour power per unit, and its value becomes almost nothing. The value it would have would be the amount of human labour that went into designing and building that machine, its maintenance, and powering it. This is practically a proof of the labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.14839885]

>>14839864
>Imagine your example of the painting or the napkin. Imagine that these items were produced by machines. A mechanical hand programmed to sign a napkin "Billie Eilish" What would that be worth? Not even close to the same value.
Because no one sees any value in such items, not because they were mechanically made but because they are not authentic.

There are many famous paintings that have been copied, hundreds of hours of work by human hands, yet they have no value.

[Anonymous No.14839889]

>>14837236
How is working voluntary?

[Anonymous No.14839894]

>>14839881
Jesus christ this is a dumb fucking post. Your brain on anime and socialism I guess.

[Anonymous No.14839895]

>>14839885
>Because no one sees any value in such items, not because they were mechanically made but because they are not authentic.
>There are many famous paintings that have been copied, hundreds of hours of work by human hands, yet they have no value.
precisely. It is the human component of the commodity which substantiates its value. Labour theory of value does not claim that each and every person produces the same amount of value per hour of work. Its entire meaning is that all value proceeds human labour.

[Anonymous No.14839905]

>>14839895
No it's not the human component. There are many things that have very little human input that are worth huge sums of money. And there are many things with a lot of human input that are dirt cheap.

[Anonymous No.14839913]

>>14839894
Get this through your head righty, the meaning of labour theory of value is that all value of all commodities is the result of the human component of its production. READ CAPITAL.

[Anonymous No.14839920]

>>14837492
>>14837468

[Anonymous No.14839924]

>>14838297
Except Marx couldn't even economy.

[Anonymous No.14839929]

>>14839913
That is not how it works. The theory has been proven false.

Why would I read a stupid fucking books about a theory that has been completely and utterly btfo? Waste of my time.

Grow up, learn some basic economics and stop browsing the internet you fucking imbecile.

[Anonymous No.14839930]

>>14839913
which is dumb, the value of some material you find on the ground is not wholly due to you picking it up but its particular composition

[Anonymous No.14839960]

>>14839929
>that's not how it works, except, all of the examples I provide can easily be shown to conform to it! I have no argument! Im so mad!
sure kid
>>14839930
Its value is a result of the amount of labour required to possess that material. Lets take a simple commodity; iron ore. If it is buried deep in the earth under hard rock, and therefore requires immense amounts of labour to extract, then its value to the market is MUCH higher than if it were readily available on the surface to he hauled away. Why? Entirely the human labour. The hard to extract ore would require more hours, and more tools which required hours to make. All of the skills of the workers involved also took many hours of labour to learn.

[Anonymous No.14839968]

>>14839960
That's not true. If the ore is too hard to extract then nobody will bother precisely because just throwing labour hours at something doesnt imbue it with value

[Anonymous No.14839972]

>>14837369
I just signed a napkin. Can't wait for all my monopoly money to roll in since I've performed the same socially necessary labor and there is a limited supply.

[Anonymous No.14839984]

>>14837388
Mal investment is what wrecks the economy. Markets function in spite of stupid consumer choices.

[Anonymous No.14839985]

>>14839960
You are so incredibly stupid I am amazed you managed to start a computer.

[Anonymous No.14840003]

>>14837236
No. Just as you can choose to be jobless and die of starvation, you can choose to go to Somalia and die without taxation.

[Anonymous No.14840007]

>>14839321
LVT is associated with Marx because Marxians are still pushing LVT. A laborer exchanges his time for money. Theoretically he values the money (or rather, the goods you can buy with it) more than his time, and that's why he makes the voluntary exchange. The employer values the labor more than he values the money, so he is also willing to make the exchange. They both become wealthier (they both receive surplus value) because of this allocation.

[Anonymous No.14840030]

>>14839920
Stop posting this retarded image.

[Anonymous No.14840035]

>>14839985
Why can you show no contradiction? Why?
>>14839968
Yes, precisely. As more labour is required, the more valuable the substance must be, to be worth extracting. It is not that labour itself imbues values, but rather is a reflection of the value of the substance. Of course, it is the final utility of the commodity that is the entire reason labour is done to produce it. But, it is the labour itself which is the barrier to entry, to have that utility. Thus the labour theory of value.

If a commodity, such as iron ore, is highly valuable, then it is worth doing that hard labour to extract it. And, further, the less and less work required, the more the supply increases, the lower the value, and thus the price.

And finally, as the value of the commodity is less and less, then yes, if too much labour is required, then extracting is simply not worth it.

In every way, it is the human labour that substantiates the value. The less labour required, the more the value falls. The more valuable the commodity, the more it is worth doing labour to extract.

[Anonymous No.14840046]

>>14837548
If people have no preference for one good over the other and the supply of both remains equal then there is no reason for the prices to be different.

[Anonymous No.14840055]

>>14840007
>voluntary exchange
Nope. Working is no voluntary. If you do not work, you are on the street starving. If your defintion of "voluntary" is refusal means death, then you should not be mad if someone robs you. It was voluntary to give them your wallet and phone! You could chosen to be stabbed.

[Anonymous No.14840060]

>>14837592
Advocates for markets need to stop using the term Capitalism. It's a retarted communist term that is effectively used to describe all of modernity. "Marketist" sounds pretty clunky so I'm open to suggestions.

[Anonymous No.14840070]

>>14840035
You don't understand basic economic concepts such as supply and demand or subjectivity. Please read a basic economics book before you post here again.

[Anonymous No.14840073]

>>14840055
>commie fails to grasp negative vs positive freedoms
>commie equates having to work(which applies to every form of life in existence) with being robbed
WEW
E
W

do you think that society is some magic pot of resources that are supposed to be doled out to people

[Anonymous No.14840076]

>>14840055
Working is voluntary. There are many people currently alive without having a job.

[Anonymous No.14840100]

>>14837460
>How would you explain differing prices for different goods at equilibrium?
If you are asking why does bread cost less than beef, it's because there are different markets for bread and beef. Each market has it's own equilibrium - there's not one equilibrium price across all markets. There is a different willingness to supply beef compared to bread, and there is different willingness to buy beef. I am wondering if I misunderstood your question because it seems like you are starting with a bizarre misunderstanding if you believe that "supply and demand" means all goods in the economy should have the same price.

[Anonymous No.14840103]

>>14837610
>be me. Opressed because if I don't work at my job I'll starve
>communist revolution finally happens
>decide I don't really feel like doing anything
>start to get hungry but don't want to go get food (that would require my labor)
>realize if I don't input labor I will starve
>wtf my body is opressing me.
>kill my new master
>finally dead. Finally truly free.

[Anonymous No.14840111]

How do retards get memed into this "le surplus value of labor" bullshit?
A job is a contract.
You agree to do X for Y money.
You get Y money for doing X, regardless of how much money the company is making, which is why they can't go "Well, we didn't make enough profit this quarter, so we're going to pay you less than the amount of money we agreed to."

[Anonymous No.14840119]

>>14839920
>EPI
The article that, ironically, you ripped this from:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/03/us-wages-have-been-rising-faster-than-productivity-for-decades/#572485037342

[Anonymous No.14840125]

>>14840070
Nope. Supply and demand proceeds from labour. Whence the supply? Why is it restricted to a certain flowrate? The labour required for production.
>subjectivity
This only represents the utility of a commodity. The utility of a commodity being subjective does not change the fact that labour is the objective reflection of it. The amount of labour that producing a commodity is worth doing is the exact amount of value this subject thinks it has. Thus, all of its value comes from the labour. Read Capital.

[Anonymous No.14840127]

>>14838797
Holy shit you're right. Lolbertarians have never grappled with the notion that without taxes goods like roads will need to be paid for in a different way. This is a unique and unheard of criticism.

[Anonymous No.14840148]

>yfw gamer girl bath water BTFOs the labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.14840155]

>>14839881
I don't think this is actually what Marx meant. If human value is central because it cannot be removed from the production process then everything is central because you can't remove resources from the production process either.

[THE PROBLEM SOLVER No.14840159]

>>14837183
You get surplus value taken from you because you chose to be a slave. You get taxes taken from you because you chose to live a protected life.

[Anonymous No.14840164]

>>14840073
Yes I agree that work is not voluntary because all forms of life require it. Which is why my post was disputing the claim that it was voluntary.
>>14840076
Only to people who already own property. Seems kind of unfair that society is to them just something that dolls out resources for free.

[Anonymous No.14840165]

>>14839889
You are not compelled to work by other people.
>yes I am, because if I don't work I'll starve
This is a function of nature, not capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14840172]

>>14840125
>Whence the supply? Why is it restricted to a certain flowrate? The labour required for production.
Many different factors can change supply.

>The amount of labour that producing a commodity is worth doing is the exact amount of value this subject thinks it has. Thus, all of its value comes from the labour. Read Capital.
False. The price of diamonds is high because of an artificial supply choke, meaning demand is much higher than the supply, not because of the amount of labour needed to produce a diamond.

Many goods become cheaper during supply gluts. Meaning you can produce a billion t shirts and set them at a certain price, but if you can't sell a billion t shirts at that price you will have to lower the price or face the consequences.

Likewise goods rise in times of crisis for example, like today with the corona virus many people go to the store and stock up on all kinds of goods. Their value can double, triple or worse depending on the supply & demand.

Not everyone value the same things. Some people may value champagne a lot. The production of champagne is quite simple, you could even do it at home, and it doesn't really differ between all the different champagne producers. Yet the value between champagne bottles can go from $10 to $10000 but the same amount of labour was used to produce all of them.

[Anonymous No.14840183]

>>14840165
If you do not hand over your wallet and phone you will die. This is voluntary because you could choose to die. This is a function of nature.

[Anonymous No.14840192]

>>14840183
You are a mental midget, how can you be so utterly retarded?

[Anonymous No.14840195]

>>14840183
No, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.14840203]

>>14840165
>>14840183
fucking btfoed

[Anonymous No.14840205]

Paying taxes is voluntary. You could just choose to go to jail. And this is a function of nature, because it was other people who did it to you, and of course people are animals which is nature.

[Anonymous No.14840209]

>>14840003
Moving requires action while not working does not. Saying "move to Somalia" is like saying someone is responsible for getting punched because they didn't move out of the way of their attackers fist.

[Anonymous No.14840210]

>>14840205
This is your brain on socialism.

[Anonymous No.14840218]

>>14840192
>>14840195
Uh oh.. someone is mad his mode of thinking has contradictions!!! That's okay buddy. You'll eventually calm down and realize you were dumb.

[Anonymous No.14840221]

>>14840218
Retarded socialist doesn't understand human nature, gee what a surprise.

[THE PROBLEM SOLVER No.14840227]

>>14837308
The "micro" and "macro" are only arbitrary distinctions that you have misunderstood and now are rotting your brain with, like all degenerates and retards who stumble into books not meant for them.
>>14837429
The only people who would not love, and even drive as far as they can, the rising inequality between people, are the decaying and sick.
>>14839029
Fascists are more honest towards themselves, whereas the "libertarians" and anarchists live in constant hatred of themselves and so have little to no power of self-inspection. This includes Marx.

[Anonymous No.14840230]

>>14840125
You're a fucking fag jesus christ take econ 101

[Anonymous No.14840231]

>>14839864
I try to stay respectful, but the idea that that proves the LTV is fucking retarded. And the idea that value only comes from human hands is retarded; Karl Popper even pointed this out: "The strange thing about the value theory is that it considers human labour as fundamentally different from all other processes in nature, for example, from the labour of animals."

[Anonymous No.14840246]

>>14840183
Those who work, eat

[Anonymous No.14840260]

>>14840221
>human nature
Oh yeah? You know just exactly people are and how they should be? You possess the True Knowledge of humanity? You simply KNOW youre right just because?

[Anonymous No.14840269]

>>14839881
> What is the value of an antique? What is the value of a painting. It is HUMAN value.
No, it's not human value; even Marx acknowledged that it was not: "[Non reproducible commodities] cannot be reproduced by labour, such as antiques, works of art by certain masters, etc. … may be determined by quite fortuitous combinations of circumstances."
>Reproduce these exact antiques, atom for atom, with an extremely efficient machine that requires almost no human labour power per unit, and its value becomes almost nothing. The value it would have would be the amount of human labour that went into designing and building that machine, its maintenance, and powering it. This is practically a proof of the labour theory of value.
This serves as more of a refutation of LTV if anything, because surplus value cannot explain why capitalists can profit in an economy where machines or slaves did most of the work.

[Anonymous No.14840272]

>>14840246
Except the ones who own capital that provides a large enough return on investment to not work.

[Anonymous No.14840282]

>>14840260
We can get insights into human nature from evolution and observing animals. And with this we can conclude that humans and animals are actually cooperative by nature.

[Anonymous No.14840285]

>>14840183
You are the dumbest person on this thread. Please refrain from posting. Just watch as your betters defend Marx on your behalf.

[Anonymous No.14840296]

>>14840205
>If I let my car run out of gas that's because I was forced to do it. But if someone rams into me while I'm parked then that was my choice

[Anonymous No.14840307]

>>14840218
There is no conceivable system where you could live without producing some labor. There are clearly possible systems where people do not engage in violence with eachother (as in 99% of interactions).
Fuck commies are the stupidest people on the planet.

[Anonymous No.14840317]

>>14840272
Investing in capital goods that will lead to high profits because of meeting some demand is the work.

[Anonymous No.14840337]

>>14840073
>negative vs positive freedoms
A distinction without a difference.

[Anonymous No.14840362]

>>14840192
>>14840195
>>14840285
Lmao. Get a load of this seething imbecile.

[Anonymous No.14840388]

>>14840317
No.

[Anonymous No.14840422]

>>14837236
>don't pay taxes
>go to jail
>don't work
>starve and die homeless
both are mandatory/voluntary to pay but the fact is surplus value is by far the larger figure. corporations are fucking us in the ass more than the government is

[Anonymous No.14840426]

>>14840055
>You could chosen to be stabbed.
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.14840439]

>>14840422
The correct analogy would be for the government to refuse to give you government services if you dont pay taxes.

[Anonymous No.14840440]

>>14840422
You are mentally challenged.

[Anonymous No.14840500]

[Anonymous No.14840642]

>>14840127
I'm not talking necessarily about the taxes but the infrastructure and technology required to build things like roads. Such a thing can only be achieved by the state or, failing that, by another great corporation that would monopolize power. That's the natural tendency of organizations through human history and to imagine a world where organizations would peacefully live without using each other is childish. The ideal anarcho capitalism world would end in monopolies doing the same than the state. For that reason libertarianism is retarded... and hypocrite too, as long as the government pamper them they don't say anything, that's what they want.

[Anonymous No.14840746]

>>14837396
how is it freedom when the state forbids me to get someone else's property?

[Anonymous No.14840781]

>>14840642

[Anonymous No.14840841]

>>14840781
>Be in glorious ancap society
>Road goes through a bunch of private properties.
>One of the owners at some point for some reason decides that he doesn't want anyone passing through the road anymore.
>None of the neighboring owners wants the road to be deviated on their lands.
So what happens?

[Anonymous No.14840857]

>>14840841
flying cars
roads are obsolete

[Anonymous No.14840873]

>>14840857
Oh, right.

[Anonymous No.14840889]

>>14840857
>falling back on science fiction to avoid the problem

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14841255]

>>14840055
This.

>>14840076
People actually want to work. They don’t want bullshit jobs, they want honest work. Sometimes they know specifically what kind of work. What they don’t want is to have this be what keep them alive, clothed, sheltered, etc. bottom line. LTV still stands up fine.

>>14840103
Hurhurhur. So fünné, yer.

>>14840111
How come the right(liberal) can’t meme?

[Anonymous No.14841681]

>>14840296
yes, that's a really dumb argument. Just exactly as the idea that "work is voluntary"

[Anonymous No.14842416]

>>14837183
The Road to Serfdom obviously.

[Anonymous No.14842908]

>>14837396
you have no idea what freedom is. freedom from being plundered? in which case it requires a state to maintain the rule of law and in fact a military to guard against foreign threats, in which case the state must extract taxes, and no matter what form those taxes take, they will always favor and disadvantage different orders of people. if you mean absolute freedom, then it reverts to a "might makes right" situation where tribute is extracted from the weak by the strong. freedom cannot exist, as there will always be the powerful, and the weak, and those relationship dynamics preclude the existence of freedom

[Anonymous No.14842922]

>>14839920
>/thread
Adam Smith said it all, capitalists always seek a monopoly for themselves, they want the labor to be globally competitive, yet they want the market for their goods to be as restricted as possible. Capitalism needs to be reigned in to serve the interests of the people, not the monopolists

[Anonymous No.14842923]

"Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep." - Isaiah Berlin

[Anonymous No.14842930]

>>14842416
>social programs bad
>ignore all the countries with way more social programs and way better wellbeing metrics
>bu-but... NAZIS!
that book is legitimately trash

[Anonymous No.14842961]

>>14837183
who's initiating the action?

if i have bread and i watch you starve i didnt starve you

i didnt INITIATE the act to starve you.

surely .... morals should be determined based on points of origin.... and not... points of...............

[Anonymous No.14842992]

>>14837183
>feeling
You're right, your criticism of libertarian philosophy it's a feeling.

[Anonymous No.14843131]

>>14837183
Why are Marxists completely incapable of differentiating between productive+progressive economic activity and parasitic economic activity? Their entire conceptualisation of value is insane, in that it simply assumes all capital/management/leadership are one exploitative whole, whereas it is clear that some economic activity is fundamentally parasitic, rent seeking, and underproductive... and some is oriented toward growth, productivity, and progressive change throughout civilisation. This is why Georgism will always be the superior and underrated progressive socialism, whereas Marxism is made up of a (deeply ironic) brainless collection of idealistic retards who shit the bed and ruined everything because they wanted the perfect instead of the good.

[Anonymous No.14843193]

>>14839889
Here king, about to completely btfo you.
Working is voluntary in theory, but it isn't in practice most of the time, yes.
HOWEVER, exploitation IS voluntary.

When you agreed with the employer to get paid X for producing Y amount of money, he's not forcing you. It is a voluntary contract.
You could argue that, just like work, exploitation is not really voluntary in practice because if you refuse to be exploitated by the employer, you will have to find another employer, but since all employers will take your surplus value it will be the same.
But you're ignoring something commie, if you don't want to be exploitated and your surplus value taken from you, and you want to work on a company where workers own it, surprise retard: cooperatives are a thing.

If you do not want to get exploitated in a private owned company you can always 1) if you have the money for it, make your own coop or 2) join an already existing coop.

There are actually some really succesful cooperatives, in Spain for example we have Mondragon which is the most succesful cooperative worlwide, with international pressence.

[Anonymous No.14843209]

>>14843193
So, it is false to say that we live in a society where 1) the free market prevails and 2) everything is privately owned.

The first one because we do not live in a completely free market economy, but rather a mixed economy, where there is state, private and collective ownership.
That's the difference between ""capitalist"" societies and the communist attempts at history: in what you call a ""capitalist"" society you have freedom to decide what mode of ownership you want, whereas in the communist states that have existed you do not have that freedom, you have to work for the state always, FORCEFULLY.
The only relatively based form of communism might be libertarian communism though. But yours is retarded

[Anonymous No.14843224]

>>14837183
>Surplus Value

The wage you choose to work for says as much about your intelligence as it does about sense of self worth.

The easiest way to avoid the Marxist feedback loop is to realize that it's just a self-fulfilling theory and not tethered in any way to reality. There's a great big beautiful world out there; feel free to leave your construct once and a while.

You might learn something.

[Anonymous No.14843326]

>>14839889
If you get a fucking job you'll find out.

[Anonymous No.14844035]

>>14839520
>Antiques, paintings, letters ARE commodities that can be bought and sold.
They are not mass produced as such. We're talking one-of-a-kind items here. Paintings and postcards which are available at Walmart on the other hand are subject to the laws Marx described. Those are commodities Marx was talking about.

>Well, then the LTV cannot explain why capitalists profit off of selling art, antiques, and assets bought in secondary markets.
This is luxury consumption. They profit by appropriating part of the surplus value extracted by fellow industrial capitalists.

>>And even then Marx still explains their prices in the sense that he accepts that they're determined
>No. He invokes the "it's complicated" tactic.
No, what's complicated is discovering what determines the relation between the call and the offer in such cases, but not that the price is determined by this relation. And he was right. There can be no general theory of it that explains this.

>Why don't I just quote Marx? He clearly thought that money could only be a commodity with a labor value:
You don't understand dialectical development. What you're doing is like cherrypicking quotes from Volume 1 of Capital in order to prove that Marx thought that prices are equal to values. Money necessarily passes through the form of commodity-money, but that doesn't mean it stops there forever -- on the contrary, this form can be sublated and thus money can develop further.

>This seems like you're just redefining to mean "the high standard of living that Western countries have."
I'm not redefining anything because I don't care which word is used. I'm simply describing to you what according to Marx determined the value of simple labour power. If you don't care about it then that's fine. It's not like it was me who brought it up.

[Anonymous No.14844141]

Why are communists so pathologically opposed to contributing to society?
They lie about it being opposed to "le capitalism", but they more they talk, the more you realize that asking them to actually earn their keep in any way whatsoever is a fate worse than death to them.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14844159]

>>14844141
How about fiction? Would you read a fiction book? It’s really old and trad. C’mon. Just one.

[Anonymous No.14844185]

>>14843224
>There's a great big beautiful world out there; feel free to leave your construct once and a while.
>You might learn something.

[Anonymous No.14845241]

>>14844141
actually communism is about contributing to society. The USSR's economic productivity was immense. The ones who do not contribute to society are capitalists, because they are superfluous, in that they do not do work, and simply collect return on their investment for their property. If property were collectively owned, the same work would be done, except there would be no class to leech off of its workers. Have you tried reading any history, philosophy, economics, or political theory outside of your own little bubble?