At what age did you guys grow out of Austrian/Chicago school

die commie

>>1576484
Around 19 honestly

>God tier
>Marxist economics

Kek you need to be 18 to post here

>>1576484
>debunks homo economicus

at the end of the day if you run with austrian and reject all socialism you won't have a problem exploiting people who are dumber then you as you owe them nothing and it is thus morally just, nigh responsible, to exploit them.

godtier corp examples:
knights of malta
hanseatic league
dutch VOC

fuck i hate nation statism... literally only a legitament example in like 2 places in the world (only works for island empires - australia, britain, antarctica, the moon, mars etc)

>>1576484
WE ARE MARXISTS

WE BELIEVE IN HOMOSEX AND BAD ECONOMICS

sorry dude

You have to be 18 to post here

AUSTRIAN MASTER RACE

File: Via-i.imgflip.com_.jpg (198KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 750x500px

2008.
Capitalism utterly fails.
Governments around the world property up system.
Failure guaranteed sooner than later.

Is this picture a trolling attempt or was it done by someone who is completely ignorant about economics but wants to teach others about it?

Most economists don't think about schools.

>>1576484
Right when I found out they are both bourgeois attempts to refute Marx

Read complexity science desu, it will cure you from communism and anarchism (among other stuff).

>>1576590
It's obviously a troll image

>>1576484

>muh labor

>>1576484
When I was like 22. And I was only a fan for like two weeks before I started seeing the holes.

Marxism is great, but only when you realize it's a categorically distinct way of viewing economics from what modern economists do. Neoclassicism fails, liberalism is a failure, neoliberalism is the worst, and Marx is right.

>>1576494
*tips*

>>1576590
Many economists are aware of the different schools and sway sympathies different ways.

File: image.jpg (212KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 712x840px

The only people here who support Austrian economics are the kinds of people who paraphrase ReasonTV and Stefan Molyneux and think they are well versed in economic theory.

>>1576580
Capitalism didn't fail. The idea of big government failed.

>>1576484
Marxist economics in a nutshell "GIMME DAT"

>>1576755
Capitalism literally had to be bailed out by the government. It would have collapsed otherwise.

File: 1469965953284.jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

That thing about the invisible hand from Adam Smith on the wealth of nations kek.
Bringing religious arguments in order to justify your economic model kek.
People still believe that crap 200 years later top kek.

>>1576590
Most economists also think that human beings act according to mathematical models.

I don't get why the surplus value should belong to the workers.

>>1576484
16

File: socialism dindu.jpg (143KB, 960x770px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 960x770px

>being socialist in 2016

>>1576764
Big government bailouts had induced a false sense of security in the banks to increase the rate of loans to risky and unreliable sources. These sources inevitably could not pay back the money effectively losing billions. The result of this was again more government bailouts resulting in further government control of finances and a "too big to fail" attitude with the banks. Capitalism does not endorce bailouts.

>>1576776
>Most economists also think that human beings act according to mathematical models.

In aggregate, they do.

File: image.png (222KB, 833x1252px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 833x1252px

>>1576484
Fixed your image, OP

File: 1468553784297.jpg (72KB, 613x888px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 613x888px

>>1576786

>>1576788
These are some unprovable mental gymnastics.

File: image.png (187KB, 833x1252px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 833x1252px

Wrong image OP

Fucking commies never learn. Show me a country that's communist thats also thriving. Come on show me.

File: image.jpg (66KB, 373x523px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 373x523px

>>1576751

>>1576801
Nice counter argument

>>1576804
None of those arguments even make sense.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x320px

>>1576815

>>1576812
I don't need to argue with someone who is delusional. It'll be like winning the special olympics.

File: image.jpg (72KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x600px

>>1576801
>>1576823
Dumbass leftard would probably fail this. Kek

>>1576819
"Artificial capital account deficit = artificial current account surplus"
First, how does this even make sense?

Second, what exactly is artificial? What is natural?

>>1576484
im sorry you feel that way OP, I hope things get better for you

>>1576826
government is a corporation you bluepilled jackass

OP does your teacher by chance have a picture of Che on his wall?

we want origi

we want origi

>>1576808
The only so-called communist countries that ever existed involved the state stepping in to take control of the means of production as a surrogate bourgeoisie. The leading "communist" state exported this ideology world-wide. Most of them were also poor as shit even before this. To boot, mismanagement and inefficiencies ran rampant due to their peculiar way of doing things.

This does not mean that there is no merit to the idea that we should not let some guy take 90% of the profits from the things we make because he claims to own the tools we used and the state will shoot us if we say otherwise.

>>1576826
>Hmm, the government isn't doing such a good job controlling corporate abuses because of how much influence they have, I wonder what we should do? Oh, I know! Let's let them do as they please! Surely with no rules in place, everyone will act fairly and we'll all get rich.

File: marxism.jpg (126KB, 788x1024px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 788x1024px

>>1576853
It's almost like communism never seems to work.

Really makes you think.

>>1576853

So to summarize, only poor countries turn to communism and the government always fucks it up.

>>1576853
>i only behaive right if i have the threat of force at the back of my neck

why not follow government through to its logical conclusion and just remove all these types of people from the genepool fullstop

>>1576830

This kind of bullshit is why no one takes you seriously

>>1576853
>Hmm, the government isn't doing such a good job controlling corporate abuses because of how much influence they have

"Lets make the government bigger so their influence is even higher! Now those who lobby will anihilate all competition and the free market!"

>>1576786
>they must perish in revolutionary holocaust
I hope some day you gigantic retards realize that you are constantly questioning established historical facts that have huge evidence behind them, and yet post fake quotes from neonazi sites without even checking them. You literally chose to believe infographics and fake quotes over history. How do you faggots not understand how retarded that is? It's mind boggling.

>>1576793
This

>>1576484
>Redistributing wealth back into 'the mass of people'
>Means of production controlled by the society as a whole
>A good idea
When these memes die?

The amount of Marxist shills on this board boggles the mind. Even a cursory reading of history shows that Marx was wrong about nearly everything.

>>1576877
Communists don't want a "bigger government".

>>1576607
Maybe not a troll image but the creator had the intent of provoking a low level of discussion.

>>1576755
Big government wasn't giving shitty loans, anon.

>>1576828
don't fucking post in these threads if you're completely ignorant, gommie.

>>1577116
Nice argument.

>>1577089
KEK HOLY SHIT I DONT THINK IVE EVER SEEN SOMETHING SO FUCKING HILARIOUS AS THIS POST. SERIOUSLY GUYS, GET IN HERE ITS HILARIOUS

>>1577089

not even you believe that shit, fuck off.

>>1577177
>>1577180
>i've never read the definition of communism

File: 1467156142171.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>Austrian
20
>Marxist
Failure, just look at my home country (Venezuela).

>>1577185

yeah, and Islam is a religion of peace.

File: Ash Williams' hand and Thing having a blast.webm (698KB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1920x800px

>>1576793

>>1577194
How the fuck is this an argument? If being peaceful was part of the definition of being a muslim then islam would tautologically be a religion of peace. If that is not the case, your analogy is garbage.

>>1577177
>>1577180
>muh big gobment wanna tak muh guns and gib me tagses becuse dey be communist!!

>>1576580
>capitalism fail

Confirmed for having absolutely no idea what capitalism is.

Pro tip: 2008 was not capitalism, it was socialism through and through.

File: 1445893817174s.jpg (28KB, 613x533px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 613x533px

>>1577231
>2008 was not capitalism, it was socialism through and through.

>>1577231
Ah yes, 2008, the year the market crashed due to workers owning the means of production.

>>1577237
>governments securing loans
>capitalism

>government buying up massive amount of loans
>capitalism

>government then using taxpayer money to bail out any company that goes south during this socialist experiment
>capitalism

Not capitalism.

>>1577245
You have to explain how it was "socialism through and through"

>>1577243

The year [no year ever] when socialism worked.

>>1577248

I just did, if you can't understand then that's on you.

>>1577256
Except nothing you just said is socialism.

>>1577243

so now socialism IS communism?

>>1577266
Traditionally socialism was used either interchangeably with communism, or as a step previous to it. In both cases, workers are supposed to own the means of production. In both cases >>1577256 has absolutely no idea about what he is talking about.

>>1577275

no no

you red bastards have pushed the dogma that they're not the same for decades you don't get to backtrack on that

>>1577280
It's irrelevant in this argument, anon. I don't know who "you reds" is referring to either.

>>1576484
cringe, /her/ at it again

>>1577245

the state functions as an organ of the bank in this case. governance is merely the means of production of a highly lucrative commodity called debt.

>>1576863

>socialism in one state = communism

150 years later and people still don't know how to read

File: image.png (153KB, 752x1668px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 752x1668px

>>1577089
You can't separate marxism from statism

>>1577365

>"worldwide workers revolution"
>happens in multiple countries, different approaches to the ideal
>fails catastrophically every time
>nod real gommunism ok :DDDD

>>1577243
A federal reserve bank was one of Marx's planks of communism and they were the ones who caused the crisis with their artificially low interest rates which spurred misinvestment

>at what age did you grow put of the only viable economic system, the one that is responsible for all the technology and advances that separate us from our ancestors

Marxism should be reclassified as a form of mental illness. You retards are on par with the flat earthers and alchemists

>>1577467

i won't take responsibility for your secondhand misreading of a text you haven't read.

>>1577485

/thread

>>1577485

the audacity of thinking the only present system is the only possible is mental illness, especially when the entirety of human history proves precisely the opposite.

>>1577496

ah yes, the "you just don't get it" escape route.

see you next week, moron.

>>1577505

the entire human history proves corporate merchantilism and capitalism is what brings about greatness and usurpassed progress.

>>1577525

not for you

>>1577466
you missed the part where a violent, coercive authority (the state) is necessary to enforce property rights in the first place because otherwise no one would respect them (they would have no reason to)

>>1577505

Show me something better then fucko

>>1577544

i believe the pudience i'm displaying by spending wealth slacking off on the internet while feasting and masturbating to the finest porn all day speaks for itself.

>>1577545

>the lazy uneducated fuckabouts who are unwilling to work or apply themselves wouldn't respect private property rights

Ftfy

>>1576484
explain to me why
if Marxism is so wonderful
people must be forced to share
that which they produce
by a ruling class

GOD TIER

Keynesianism
Monetarism

MID TIER

Classical

CRACKPOT CULTIST TIER

Austrian

50 IQ TIER

Marxist

>>1577550
they wouldn't, nor would anyone else

>>1577557
>Monetarism
>God tier
wow

>>1577561
Fuck off Peter Schiff

>>1577553
That's not what Marxism is. People keep what they produce. They only share the capital.

>>1576796
>Capitalism killed more than socialism

In the same way car accidents killed more than the Nazis, maybe

not even the working man wants marxism

it's dead

only leftypol teens want it

>>1577566
>cars (invented by capitalists) kill people
>airplanes (invented by capitalists) kill people
>trains (invented by capitalists) kill people

wtf I hate capitalism now!

>>1577564
> People keep what they produce.
Tell that to the millions of farmers starved to death by Stalin.
Or was this a purely academic question?

>>1576755
>Capitalism didn't fail
Capitalism is inherently unstable.

>>1577574
that wasn't real marxism, you idiot.

Don't bother replying to me. I have no time for you imbeciles.

>>1576792
offt aggregating individuals into a society is not possible. You cannot aggregate individual demand curves into the market demand curve, and in fact the market demand curve can be any shape at all. There is no data to support aggregation, only theory..

>>1577580
>I have no time for you imbeciles

The smug arrogance of Marxist NEETs never fails to amuse me

>>1576828

Artificial as in achieved through govt intervention.

And yes that makes complete sense. It's about the balance of payments, which must add up to zero.

A current account deficit means that you are buying more goods & services abroad than you are selling.

But that requires a capital account surplus, because the deficit in current account purchases is causing a net rise in the ownership of national assets.

>>1577083
>Even a cursory reading of history shows that Marx was wrong about nearly everything.
>Even a cursory reading of history
>history
ha ha ha ha!

Shouldn't that be "cursory reading of Marx"? have you even read his major works?

I'm not a Marxian economist though.

>>1577593
>Even a cursory reading of history

Are you so retarded you don't understand what he meant? Or are you just autistic? Or both?

>>1577559

>not understanding the concept of dignity and gentleman's agreement

When we go skiing at Vail every year we spend a lot of time in the lodge or at one of the many restaurants in the village. Skis and boards are always left outside, unattended and unlocked. Yet no one ever steals anything. In 9 years of vacations my family has never had so much as a helmet stolen. Why? Because everyone there is accomplished, hardworking and mature. It's called the gentleman's agreement: one gentleman does not steal from another. No state or police are standing by to enforce anyone's property rights.

>>1576484
Marxist theory of value can be debunked by anyone who actually thinks about for two seconds.

Great b8 btw

>>1577580

>muh pure ideology can do no wrong

Christianity is a hangman's metaphysics

Marxism is a hangman's economics

>>1577592

>What is a floating currency

File: white_american.png (11KB, 241x263px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 241x263px

>>1577245
>government equals socialism
American education everyone

>>1576484

Libertarians are morons but if you seriously think marxist economics are more mature or make more sense you're delusional.

File: cap.png (789KB, 1200x1740px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1200x1740px

>>1576796
ftfy

>>1577632

>it's a mixed economy is the best economy episode

You faggots are the fucking worst

>>1577580
(He shoots; He scores!)
Listen up, Junior: you and your kind are always the first up against the wall.
Every.
Single.
Time.
Regardless of who got it "right", or who got it "wrong."
If not by those with no further use for you, then by the unwashed masses you claim to champion but delight in spitting upon.
At this point, your only value is to die a miserable death, thereby serving as a warning to others.
Hop to it, bitch.

>>1577640

I'm undecided: should you a call you an idiot for believing in the LTV or because you unironically accept praxeology?
I don't know, you choose.

File: 1471719548068.png (861KB, 1200x1740px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 1200x1740px

>>1577639
ftfy

>>1577640
>it's a strawman post

>>1577640
It sucks having to argue with people that are right, doesn't it?

>social capitalism for life

>>1577601
okay so basically you're saying a bunch of rich people can leave relatively cheap items unguarded around each other and not have to worry about having them stolen? that seems fairly obvious. but see how far "dignity and gentleman's agreements" get you when not everybody is rich and the property in question is much more valuable (eg land)

File: Marx_old.jpg (205KB, 444x593px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 444x593px

Marx insights:

1) Production as viewed by Classical Capitalists was (Commodity)->(Money)->(Commodity), where money is simply a means to exchange commodities of equal value. If this were the case, how do firms make a profit? the answer Marx determined was that rather than a C-M-C cycle, Capitalism worked by an M-C-M*, or in an expanded form a M-C-Production+Labour,etc-C'-M* cycle where M*>M. This is the origin of profit, since money begets money. The Capitalist starts production with money, and then ends the cycle with more money. This is unsustainable writes Marx, I agree for different reasons.

2a) Economy as a dynamic system. He, like other Classicals of his time understood that the market was inherently unstable. His LTV was wrong, for reasons I won't go into, but he saw that the economy did not tend toward some fixed equilibrium, rather, it engaged in dis-equilibrium cycles. Much of the obsession with equilibrium a la Jevons and Marshall was a response to Marx. Since Marx used the classical economics of Smith to critique capitalism, Classical economics became "toxic" for the mainstream, and the neo-classicals came into being.

2b) Crisis and depression are INHERENT to capitalism. Depressions kills off the weak industries, and allow the successful companies to take a larger share of the market. The cyclical nature of capitalism that is inherent to capitalism is the reason we have entrepreneurs. (For more about this see Schumpeter). The argument of Austrians and Neoclassicals is that all crises occur due to exogenous shocks. There is some external shock, whether that be the government, the weather, etc that causes the market to be thrown out of equilibrium. Marx showed that the economy was never in equilibrium to begin with. Depressions and crises are endogenous, the reason economists have had such a hard time with 2001 and 2008 is that they all model crises and great-depressions as impossibilities in a "free" market.

I am not a Marxian economist.

>>1577658

>state capitalism for life

Hello Russia

>>1577602
Historical materialism is also debunked by reality when we have technologically very developped and modern countries in the Persian Gulf but they're still absolute monarchies with a very strict hierarchy and aristocracy.

File: image.png (74KB, 698x1105px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 698x1105px

>>1577466

>>1577663

Skis and bindings cost thousands of dollars. But the point I was trying to make is that not everyone needs the threat of authority to behave themselves. Obviously the rich need protection from the poor who will otherwise steal whatever they can because of course they don't believe anyone deserves to be wealthy and secure. But you were trying to argue that there are no other grounds on which people would respect private property rights, and there are. You don't trash your neighbor's yard, because he works just as hard to maintain it as you do yours.

File: 175.gif (27KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x400px

>>1577676

>people can't defend themselves

>>1577600
>Even a cursory reading of the crusades shows that the authors of the Gospels were wrong about nearly everything
>Even a cursory reading of the French Revolution shows that J.J. Rousseau was wrong about everything
>etc

If you use "wrong about nearly everything" at least use it in reference to what the author ACTUALLY WROTE.

Dismissing one of the greatest minds and authors of recent times without even bothering to read their work makes you a candidate for pseud of the century.

File: ancom.jpg (171KB, 720x696px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 720x696px

>>1577676

>>1577602
Why do people always use Smith's LTV to "debunk" Marx's LTV, when Marx corrected many errors in classical LTV, and no one gives Smith shit for subscribing to LTV.

>>1577705

Nobody gives Smith's any shit because nobody nowadays believes in smith's ltv.
People do however believe in the garbage that is Marx's LTV

>>1577705
>Why do people always use Smith's LTV to "debunk" Marx's LTV

They don't. This is actually a typical Marxist strawman that modern economics "obsess about Smith" while Smith is actually pretty much forgotten and dismissed.

>>1577699
nevermind

I thought you were attacking him for using "cursory reading of history" implying you can't read history

>>1577699
>Even a cursory reading of the French Revolution shows that J.J. Rousseau was wrong about everything

Honestly, can't argue with that.

File: 1427995346922.jpg (46KB, 720x604px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x604px

>>1577676
>this is what an coms actually believe

>>1577701
Well why can the worker and capitalist just have a workers cooperative and both can share there profits based on there work? I mean Jesus Christ m8 am I telling Poeple to starve?
Also
>GoAnimate
Ew

>>1577677
>Obviously the rich need protection from the poor who will otherwise steal whatever they can
so basically you're saying there needs to be a state

>>1577716
Yes, they do. Most of the people using LTV to debunk Marx can't even distinguish between Marxian and classical LTV.

File: turgot2.jpg (83KB, 1036x252px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1036x252px

>>1577705
... because they start with the Classicals and not with the Physiocrats.

"Production 'aint free, economic production gotta be littered with the exploitation of the sun's energy. Adam "irn-bru" Smith is not my moral philosopher and he's probably a grubby industrialist too. Turgot and Conservation of Energy, not Smith and Division of Labour, OKAY?"

File: image.jpg (53KB, 960x733px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x733px

>>1577685
>>1577728

>>1577729
Because removing the government is fucking stupid and I honestly hope you get kicked the ever loving fuck out of you by the government for coming up with such horseshit ideas. Both ancoms and ancaps are the same brand of retard.

>>1577735
>WHY DO CAPITALISTS USE LTV TO DEBUNK MARX EVEN THOUGH YOUR IDOL ADAM SMITH USED LTV TOO? CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
>Nobody gives a fuck about Adam Smith, this isn't the 1830s and his ideas were shown to be retarded
>NO YOU CARE ABOUT ADAM SMITH! I SAID SO! ADAM SMITH ADAM SMITH ADAM SMITH!

File: 1471452003638.png (63KB, 198x221px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 198x221px

>>1577746

>pic of balding man with funny face and facebook prompt

deplorable form.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 396x303px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 396x303px

>>1577676
>starting a farm on somebody else's property
Stopped reading there. Too much Autisto-Marxism for me today

>>1577729
If the poorfag saved up or took out a loan so he had enough to buy into a share of the property then sure, they can do whatever the fuck they want but their hipstery 2-man restauraung would go out of business so quickly anyway

>>1577751
>WHY DO CAPITALISTS USE LTV TO DEBUNK MARX EVEN THOUGH YOUR IDOL ADAM SMITH USED LTV TOO? CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!
>Nobody gives a fuck about Adam Smith, this isn't the 1830s and his ideas were shown to be retarded
>NO YOU CARE ABOUT ADAM SMITH! I SAID SO! ADAM SMITH ADAM SMITH ADAM SMITH!
Are you retarded? I said you don't give Smith shit for LTV. Which clearly you don't. Marx on the other hand, gets your panties in a bunch. You still haven't shown you can differentiate between classical and Marxian LTV.

>>1577676
>man shoots the nigger who tries to steal/operate from his farm
>jury of his peers finds him innocent

Problem solved. No government required

>>1577781
We don't give Adam Smith shit for anything because nobody gives a flying fuck about Adam Smith you single digit amoeba moron.

>>1577796
Adam Smith gets name dropped in economic publications, journals and magazines way more than Marx, and has been used as the poster boy for Reganomics. Keep making shit up. If you don't even know the difference between classical LTV and Marxian LTV, how can you debunk it if you just think about it a little. Why can pick and choose what's good about Smith, and discard the rest, but not do the same for Marx who must be discarded wholesale?

>>1577832
>Adam Smith gets name dropped in economic publications, journals and magazines way more than Marx, and has been used as the poster boy for Reganomics.

Literally nothing you just wrote right now is true. You can't actually form a valid defense of your moronic ideas without bringing up "the other side" and EVEN THEN you cannot do it without a strawman.

>>1577832
>poster boy for Reganomics

That was Friedman.

>>1577796

people care about smith historically, and generally a lot of his stuff about trade and markets can be seen to be alright and not amazingly wrong

>>1577832

i'd marx gets more shit for his ltv because there are enough dumb marxists about who maintain it's right whereas nobody is arguing for classical ltv and praising smith

i;m not sure what you would really pick out of marx and keep today from an economics point of view, he has more legitimacy(for now) within sociology

>>1577847
You're delusional. It's accepted that Smith can be right about some things but wrong about other things, disproving LTV doesn't mean everything Smith said is wrong, but Marx can only be wholly and completely wrong.

>You can't actually form a valid defense of your moronic ideas without bringing up "the other side" and EVEN THEN you cannot do it without a strawman.
Yes I can, you've been avoiding it. I've been asking you to articulate the distinction between classical and Marxian LTV, because the point of Marxian LTV is it attempts to fix some of the more glaring flaws in classical LTV. I never even said Marx was right about LTV, just your "Marxist theory of value can be debunked by anyone who actually thinks about for two seconds". I'm not even saying Marx was right.

>>1577849
https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/AdamSmith/
>Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman, who regularly wear Adam Smith ties.

Yes.

File: libertarianparadise.png (40KB, 1169x392px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1169x392px

How will the common man protect his rights in a Libertarian society?

>>1577886
Smith is obsolete and outdated. He pioneered the field but any economist giving a fuck about Smith now is like any physicist giving a fuck about Aristotle.

>>1577897
Probably the bill or rights enforced by the courts set up by the limited government they favor

>>1577873
>i'd marx gets more shit for his ltv because there are enough dumb marxists about who maintain it's right whereas nobody is arguing for classical ltv and praising smith
Most of those dumb Marxists don't even know what LTV is. LTV is usually brought up by capitalist apologists who think that disproving classical LTV disproves every word Marx has ever said. Most modern economics praise Smith, except the edgy ones. No modern economist praises Smith for LTV, but then again, economists don't treat Smith like he was wrong about markets just because he used LTV either.

>i;m not sure what you would really pick out of marx and keep today from an economics point of view, he has more legitimacy(for now) within sociology
Because there's inherent long term problems with the distribution of profits and capital.

>>1577904
You must be literally retarded. No one is using Smith's methods and treating him like he's 100% accurate and the cutting edge of economics. No shit retard. They're working with newer economic models built upon concepts he espoused. He's still quoted with some frequency, like every time an economist says invisible hand.

>>1577907
What prevents a rich guy from basically setting up an extralegal cartel with it's own enforcers that has more capability for violence than the government, like in South America?

>>1577923
>le invisible hand

Oh good thanks for finally proving you actually know nothing about economics and you're here only to spout memes.

>>1577910

The point remains there are still people who support marx and his ltv, there aren't those doing so for smith (or ricardo etc) so it seems quite obvious why marx will thus get more flack for it. It was also fairly central to a lot of his ideas and criticising the nature of capitalism and its distribution of wealth, ownership of the means of production etc.

>Because there's inherent long term problems with the distribution of profits and capital.

Maybe, maybe not. This doesn't mean anything Marx wrote should be included in a modern understanding of economics though. If you have an example of something you think should be then i'd like to know, genuinely.

>>1577945
Literally all you've been doing is being in denial.

>>1577953
Most criticisms about LTV are about it's accuracy, not claiming employers hire employees to reduce profits because it costs more to hire a worker than the exchange value of what is produces with their wage-labor.

>>1578025

most criticisms are about the nebulous nature of 'socially necessary labour time' being able to pin down any sort of theory, it takes on far too many normative ideas to be considered useful for economics

even well regarded left wing types like joan robinson or sraffa can see the uselessness of it

>>1578049
The calculation problem is just a calculation problem. It matters if you're actually calculating, like with a centrally planned economy. The majority of real economists that debunk socialism in articles and books are really doing so about non-market economies. Modern economics that attempts to calculate for the purposes of policy intervention built upon much vaguer ideas. Modern economics doesn't build upon Marxian ideas in the same way. Of course Marx isn't the end-all-be-all of economics, anyone who treats him as such is a moron. Neither is Smith. That doesn't mean economics wasn't built on nebulous ideas.

>>1577731

Yes, but a very limited one.

>>1577945

People like you should be shipped to North Korea

>>1577934
a state army and an armed citizenry.

Also any state can fail and fall into that kind of situation, not just a limited state.

>>1578132
> not just a limited state.
But that's wrong unless you're talking about foreign influences. If it falls into that state, it was be definition too limited.

>>1578139
Socialist contries have collapsed into warlordism. If a government is too big to pay for itself it will soon collapse. If it oppresses its people to the point were they rise up and overthrow it, it will collapse.

>>1578099

there's literally nothing of use from his ltv for economics, many concepts may well have been nebulous to begin with but marx's ltv remains so and nobody has come up with a version that is of any use for economics

marx's ltv is useless with ideas of marginalism, puts too much emphasis up labour and will never be able to be proven because of how vague it is

economics has moved past it, the reason economics hasn't built upon marxist ideas is because they are either a) wrong or b) not useful for economics

>>1578158
The reason why economics hasn't built upon Marxist ideas is because the west was ideologically opposed to it, and the USSR was backwards, with limited freedoms, and revisionist in ways that weren't Marxist.

It's also ironic you're talking about how vague something is when you mention marginalism. But here you go, the tiny wiki blurb on Marxists and marginalism.

>Some economists strongly influenced by the Marxian tradition such as Oskar Lange, Włodzimierz Brus, and Michał Kalecki have attempted to integrate the insights of classical political economy, marginalism, and neoclassical economics. They believed that Marx lacked a sophisticated theory of prices, and neoclassical economics lacked a theory of the social frameworks of economic activity. Some other Marxists have also argued that on one level there is no conflict between marginalism and Marxism: one could employ a marginalist theory of supply and demand within the context of a “big picture” understanding of the Marxist notion that capitalists exploit labor.

>>1576809
Said nobody ever

>>1577188
Someone post the response to this

>>1577467
Strawman much?

>>1577485
>political views can be mental illness
Hi Brezhnev

>>1578110
Not an argument.

>>1578194

Why are plenty of marxs ideas accepted by other academic disciplines then if the west was so opposed to it? Why does your conspiracy theory only seem to apply to economics?


Notice how your wiki quote doesnt mention ltv btw. Its because not even modern Marxists, eg a prominent one such as Richard wolff do not use it, because it is useless for economics. Also note attempted, it is not as though many intelligent people haven't tried to reconcile Marxist ideas and s modern economic understanding, but they haven't done well enough to hsve sny impact or provided evidence of its use.

I agree with the bit about neoclassical economics not having good models for social frameworks, but this area is better explored by sociology and marxs ideas can be useful here. But not economics and especially not his ltv.

File: image.png (2MB, 2441x2362px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2441x2362px

>>1578260

>>1578277
Racist and sexist much?

>>1578322
>Why are plenty of marxs ideas accepted by other academic disciplines then if the west was so opposed to it?
They aren't, and most of those are corrupted idea.

>Notice how your wiki quote doesnt mention ltv btw.
LTV is your strawman that you brought up, because you said disproving LTV disproves Marx. Of course it doesn't mention LTV, it's the blurb on marginalism and Marxism you retarded fuck. Why would it mention LTV? The entire point was to show Marx minus LTV.

>but they haven't done well enough to hsve sny impact or provided evidence of its use.
People are ideologically opposed to Marxism, like you.

>I agree with the bit about neoclassical economics not having good models for social frameworks, but this area is better explored by sociology and marxs ideas can be useful here. But not economics and especially not his ltv.
See, you keep bringing up LTV, even when presented with non-LTV Marxism, and then you complain that LTV isn't included in non-LTV thought that is built upon Marxism. What the actual fuck is your problem? Do you have brain damage?

>>1578390
All of my comments have been about marxs ltv. I continued tslking about it because that is the point ive been making in this thread. It was key to understanding marxs economics too.

I asked earlier, maybe you are a different poster, what of marxs ideas do you think economists should take more seriously? Because most are generally away from the purview of economics. Marxists are taken about as seriously as austrians in economics, was there a grand anti austrian conspiracy too? Wikipedia quotes about how marxist economists exist and have considered things don't really explain much.

I am not particularly opposed to marxist ideas, I have held pretty radical left beliefs in the past and still see it as a useful framework in many disciplines, but not really economics. So you can quit the tiresome strawman.

>>1578483
>All of my comments have been about marxs ltv.
Exactly, YOU brought it up.

>I continued tslking about it because that is the point ive been making in this thread.
All you've been doing is complaining against a strawman.

>It was key to understanding marxs economics too.
It's key to calculating labor exploitation, it's not key to the actual concept of labor exploitation itself. This is only an issue when you attempt non-market solutions, instead of changing the nature of what the market is regulating.

>I asked earlier, maybe you are a different poster, what of marxs ideas do you think economists should take more seriously?
His views and observations on capital, no he's not the only socialist that ever existed, but he might as well be in when discussing it.

>Marxists are taken about as seriously as austrians in economics, was there a grand anti austrian conspiracy too?
Austrians were literally propped up by the red scare.

>Wikipedia quotes about how marxist economists exist and have considered things don't really explain much.
Because you keep insisting that LTV is the only economic thought Marx had. It isn't. Marx wrote with LTV because marginalism hadn't been developed. His analysis is about value, so naturally it's going to be deeply intertwined with whatever theory of value he uses. That doesn't mean you could not complete a similar analysis with marginalism.

>I am not particularly opposed to marxist ideas, I have held pretty radical left beliefs in the past and still see it as a useful framework in many disciplines, but not really economics. So you can quit the tiresome strawman.
You are the one being a literal retard and strawmanning.

>god tier
>marxist economics
delusional

>>1576760
>GIMMIE DAT BACK

ftfy

>>1576786
>they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust
Edgy as shit. How can adults follow this shit and be seen as sane individuals?

>>1576760
Property is a spook

>>1577231
Uhhhh, the 2008 crash happened largely because men in tophats were abusing their freedom, handing out loans at ridiculous interests rates and encouraging people to buy things with money they didn't have.

I'm a capitalist but it only works well when your society is educated and has good values. Regulation is needed in a mixed bag country like the US. Better yet, let States decide their own economic laws so long as the issue being voted on doesn't harm its neighbors (eco-laws should be federal, as pollution in one place directly affects another).

>>1578659
>cold war between commifornia and american chile

>>1577466
Left Libertarian doesn't exist.

Socialists are just trying to steal the word libertarian like they did with Liberal.

>that dude is rich, so we will overthrow him and totally get the money for the poor people, not for myself i swear guyse
marxism in a nutshell

>>1578653
Almost everything about Marxism and collectivism is a spook.

>>1576786
>LE CURRENT YEAR

>>1578686
>Socialists are just trying to steal the word libertarian like they did with Liberal.

............. You do know that left-libertarians came first right? They existed before the American libertarians. Christ are poeple this ignorant

File: image.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>1578639
>wikipedia

>>1578691
Socialism isn't necessarily collectivist. In practice, it's collectivist because collectivism has actual tangible benefits for the participants, such as partaking in common rule of law and property rights. It becomes a spook when you elevate those forms of collectivism above your own self interest. If you are a collectivist, you should do it for your own self interest. Socialist collectivism is to end exploitation caused by capitalist property right collectivism.

>>1578718
What's wrong with Wikipedia?

>>1578713
Give us back Liberal and we'll give you back Libertarian.

>>1578728
Nigga socialist didn't steal the word liberal, it was the progressives.

>>1578639
>we're gonna end up being democratic by installing a dictatorship
>we're gonna end up living in a stateless society by creating a strong state

Marx was literally dumb

>>1578713
Left libertarians never "came" because as explained left libertarianism cannot exist. "Left Anarchists" of the past were divided into the "burn down the whole fuckin village!" edgy philosopher anarchists and the autistic utopian pseudo-intellectual Murray Bookchin-Noam Chomsky types

>>1578742
Those are Bolsheviks

>>1578639
>that "capitalism" picture
>a bunch of armed RED thugs confiscating the wealth of working people at gunpoint

That sounds more like socialism to me

>>1578751
Marx was the first to come up with the idea "dictatorship of the proletariot"

>>1576484
>Dictatorship of the proletariat
>Literally translates to killing everyone competent in power and giving that power to useless fucks

>>1578748
>Left libertarians never "came" because as explained left libertarianism cannot exist. "Left Anarchists" of the past were divided into the "burn down the whole fuckin village!" edgy philosopher anarchists and the autistic utopian pseudo-intellectual Murray Bookchin-Noam Chomsky types

wtf am I reading? Left-libertarians have existed when ideologies poped up. Even the first person to ever called himself a libertarian was an anarcho-communist. How can they not exist? Libertarianism doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they want, even if it harms others or society. Likewise, any form of violence isn't automatically authoritarian. Protecting oneself from an attacker does not make you authoritarian, just as enforcing laws against private property in a hypothetical communal society does not make that society authoritarian.

>>1578791
Quiet down goyim! Don't let those 150 IQ hipsters learn about our plans

File: 1459284593794.jpg (54KB, 488x254px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 488x254px

>>1578742
>dictatorship of the proletariat means a literal dictatorship

>>1578775
He meant a dictatorship that was ruled by the proletariat, not a dictatorship that ruled the proletariat.

>>1578791
Pretty bad desu. Most CEOs are already actually extremely glorified labor, not capitalists. You would just need to renegotiate their contracts. They would world for half as much.

>>1578603
I didnt strawman anything, I first posted responding to what someone said about marxs ltv and I msde about 5 posts about it, I just kept on the topic I csme to respond about you idiot.

Glad to see you provide fuck all else you think are worthwhile marxist contributions to economics because there aren't any and its not because of the west reacting against the red menace. His views on capital lol, very specific. What about them do you think mainstream economics should take on board or it unfairly dismisses? Go on be specific please.

>>1576484
>All value is created through labour.

Economics is the study of limited resources which have alternative uses. Labour is only one of those resources, as is knowledge, raw materials, time, energy, space, and a number of others. Which is to say the first and most fundamental rule of actual economics is completely contradictory to the first and most fundamental rule of communism.

TL;DR Marxist economics is a contradiction.

>>1578959
>Labor is not the source of all wealth.
Literally the first sentence of part 1 of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme.

>>1577188
You don't try to force communism or socialism.

Look up Historicism.

>>1578808
>we call it a dictatorship but it's not a dictatorship

Besides, the way he describes it it's obviously a dictatorship, complete with class genocide.

>>1579496
He was saying the proles should collectively be the dictators, not that some guy would be dictator of the proles.

>>1578959
Name one bought and sold commodity that is not produced through labor.

>>1579532
Deeds for land and property rights for extraction of natural resources.

>>1577567
This. Didn't it ever occur to the "intellectuals" (Trendy Lefties without jobs/forever students) that if Marx was right then they wouldn't be alive?

>>1576484
Struggle forges men.
Marxism is only good in that it fails and gives way to a better society, one that knows suffering. -See Solzhenitsyn
Capitalism is good in the sense that it leads to prosperity for some, we must keep the people struggling, capitalism does that.
If they do not struggle they become decadent.

>>1579620
>not knowing the difference between markets and capitalism
lol idiot

>>1576484
On the one hand, the austrian and chicago schools are terrible
On the other
>Marxism
>We replaced your capitalist overlords with a one party state, everyone we define as "not a worker" gets killed, this includes academics who earn fucking peanuts, in the case of the russians; literally anyone who owns land or a shop as opposed to working in the fields, along with everyone who opposes us for just about any reason.

This all proposed by a jackoff who had never worked a day in his life, but was rather supported by a good friend whose father owned a factory, filled to the brim with people slaving away for pittance. Also take one look at the schisms caused by the internationals and how marx reacted when people thought they could take his ideology without putting him as the top dog.

Literally spoilt brat throwing a tantrum tier.

File: 0f04815d0796776dedc37ca66374f3868a21b0ac.jpg (199KB, 867x989px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 867x989px

>>1576786
communism did nothing wrong classcuck

>>1579496
>complete with class genocide.
[citation needed]

>>1579573
This is more like buying an IOU or money itself as land is useless without the labor to extract something from it.

I can sell you the planet Venus if you want. But you won't be able to do anything with it. Won't even have the proper labor to approach it.

>>1576484
The Chicago school and Keynsian school are both god tier. Austrians, Marxists, and MMT are all retarded contrarians

>>1579830
What if I have robot slaves?

>>1579705
>marx proposed a one party state

>>1576793
Then what do you believe in? MMT? Post-Keynesianism? What are you fucking gay?

>>1577231
>Pro tip: 2008 was not capitalism, it was socialism through and through.
Yes clearly it was unregulated greedy socialism that caused all the mortgage insurance and shit-tier debt repackaging fuckery.

>>1576484
Austrian economics is best economics.

>>1579891
Kys. Austrian economics was okay until Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe ran it into the ground.

>>1579845
Who built the robot slaves? Who maintains them? Who designed them? Who presses the on button for the robot slaves?

Can they accomplish any of this without "working"? Is it robot slaves all the way down?

File: 7ef.jpg (29KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x600px

>>1576484

Socialists and Libertarians are BOTH shit eating retards. The only reasonable system is a keynesian mixed-economy that allows free enterprise to flourish but also protects the environment and provides a social safety net (housing, healthcare, food) for people who aren't super rich.

>>1579921
Yeah, but that's basically just like, Hayek, who modern Austrians disowned, so if you mean Hayek, you can just say Hayek. I don't think Schumpeter ever was really counted as an Austrian.

>>1579932
>Who built the robot slaves?
Other robots

>Who maintains them?
Other robots

>Who designed them?
Other robots

>Who presses the on button for the robot slaves?
Me, that's my labor contribution.

>Can they accomplish any of this without "working"?
They're slaves, I'm not going to pay robots for their slave labor.

>Is it robot slaves all the way down?
Yes. I own a computer that manages robot production, maintenance, organization and operation. This computer has seven layers of encryption and advanced biometrics so II can defend it as my property. No revolutionary proles will be able to seize my robots.

File: manhunt-toad.jpg (44KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 420x420px

>>1579941
All leftists need to eat shit, regardless, honey.

>>1579941
>Keynesian
I love me some stagflation

>>1579941
Why can't you have a non-mixed economy market socialism, like Ricardian socialism, which predates Marxian socialism, and Sovietism? You know centrally planned economy isn't the same as socialism right?

>>1579945
Yeah basically just Hayek. After him, things went full retard real quick. Personally neoclassical economics is the best but Keynesian economics is also fairly respectable. Marxists and Austrians not so much...

File: consider (3).png (880KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 720x720px

>>1579941
Nothing suggests that Keynesianism is a good idea.

Ideally, the government would not bother with Keynesian recommendations.

Not protecting the environment would qualify us as brain-dead, so we should do that, but that social safety net should very minimalistic. It could consist of tax credits or a negative income tax.

There's no justification for the government running hospitals, providing food, or building houses when the markets can do that much much better in every aspect. All the people at the bottom need is money to pay for it.

>>1579957
>Me, that's my labor contribution.
Then you could not accomplish all that consequential material wealth without labor. It is insanely magnified by technology to the point where one button click is equal to hundreds of hours of pre-robot human work, but the robots still need a first mover.

I am fascinated how capitalists apologists always have to resort to incredibly fantastical scenarios to defend the supposedly pragmatic real world institution of capitalism. We do not live in a near post-scarcity robot utopia and very well may never do so.

>They're slaves, I'm not going to pay robots
I meant the people that originally designed and built the robots, or the robots the built the robots. etc. They expelled labor to create wealth/commodities. They had to, there is not other way.

>Yes.
Well at least you admit it but you realize "it's turtles all the way down" is a joke about flawed logic haphazardly said to hide from uncomfortable considerations, right?

>I own a computer that manages robot production, maintenance, organization and operation.
Who built this computer, designed it, powers it, etc? Same problem. Someone has to start the labor no matter how fantastically you magnify it.

>No revolutionary proles will be able to seize my robots.
You are the proles. You are describing a fantastical world where you own the means of production (robot slave army) and all the fruits of your own labor (button pushing and management of robots/computers). You are describing a post-scarcity communist utopia.

>>1580031
>There's no justification for the government running hospitals, providing food, or building houses when the markets can do that much much better in every aspect. All the people at the bottom need is money to pay for it.
What are you even strawmanning. Affordable housing vouchers and EBT are government building shit now?

>>1578798
Shhh, you're triggering the idiot.

>>1580043
The meaning was ambiguous.

My apologies.

>>1580042
>Then you could not accomplish all that consequential material wealth without labor. It is insanely magnified by technology to the point where one button click is equal to hundreds of hours of pre-robot human work, but the robots still need a first mover.
I changed my mind, it was my parents that turned on the robots, and then I was born, then they died. So I personally contributed no labor.

>I meant the people that originally designed and built the robots, or the robots the built the robots. etc. They expelled labor to create wealth/commodities. They had to, there is not other way.
Dead of old age and natural causes in their McMansions

>Who built this computer, designed it, powers it, etc? Same problem. Someone has to start the labor no matter how fantastically you magnify it.
Mostly robots and people that have been dead for 100 years.

>You are the proles. You are describing a fantastical world where you own the means of production (robot slave army) and all the fruits of your own labor (button pushing and management of robots/computers). You are describing a post-scarcity communist utopia.
No, I also have a manservant named Jeeves, who I pay wages derived from my wealth from being a robot owner, and pay him wages high enough to live, but not enough to save up money to buy a robot. He is the prole. It's his fault for not being born to robot owners.

>>1578356
>m-m-muh Venezuela
Nice strawman.

>>1580055
This is the politest man to ever visit 4chan

File: Lemay.jpg (16KB, 366x150px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 366x150px

>>1580068

>A real country that actually exists is a strawman

>>1580082
DPRK is proof that democratic republics do not work.

>>1580066
>parents
Then the labor is so magnified as to become nearly a force of nature that requires very little to no upkeep, like the sun itself. This is akin to godhood and at this point in your absurd scenarios you've broken all need for an economics system at all because you have near omnipotence. Still, if it's constructed it will probably decay and the eventual maintenance will require labor. Preserving the knowledge of the system for future generations when the time comes will require labor.

>I also have a manservant named Jeeves, who I pay wages derived from my wealth from being a robot owner, and pay him wages high enough to live, but not enough to save up money to buy a robot
If robots are so ubiquitous that they build, design, and power themselves even beyond human life why would it cost a penny to buy more robots? Supply and demand and the supply here is insane. It's like trying to charge for a bittorrent.

Let's say a small group of people "own" all means of producing and maintains the world's robot population and despite the fact it means no sacrifice to themselves whatsoever to sell robots to the have nots and even the smallest price they still refuse to do so. Out of sheer spite or will to keep the majority of the world poor and robotless. Who's going to protect you from Jeeves poisoning you in your sleep? Protection is labor. Intellectual planning a la criminology and safety profiling is labor. These are then connected to everything you have of value and if you don't pay the price of the labor Jeeves will come and take it all from you.

>>1580184
I didn't want to get direly into this since it's a mouthful and it's hard to express, but the logic contortions are getting too much so let's get down to what this is really all about.

>the point
Labor is in essence transformation. It is when a human looks at something and desires but knows the desire will not or can not realize itself without interference from personal power. A man wants a rock in point A at point B and knows it will not roll itself there. He picks it up and moves it in an act of willfully transforming the environment to his will to make it more "valuable". This is labor. And this is why it is forever attatched to value. Anything people normally value requires transformation to realize. Otherwise you live in a blissed out state and desire for nothing that does not happen naturally.

What you are trying to think up with these crazy scenarios is a world where commodities transform themselves (labor) into subjectively valued (by humans) wealth without human direction or initial transformation in any way. A self replicating miracle.

There are things that produce wealth without human transformation, but they are generally not considered in common conceptions of wealth and economics because they are so easy and free. Such as the sun or air. Incredibly important, but the sun will continue regardless of human presence. No transformation is required to ensure life giving sun rays will come each morning. If you don't believe this try to bottle and sell air. It won't work because breathing in air, while one of the most valuable things in the world to most people, is so easy in labor that no one would ever exchange something that takes more effort to produce/acquire.

Anything that is not that is not in this taken for granted box of nature requires a man to express his will through transforming the environment i.e. using LABOR. There is no escape from this. Bird nests don't build themselves, and if they do then they're not called nests.

File: economics.png (571KB, 863x1200px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 863x1200px

>>1576484

>>1580184
>If robots are so ubiquitous that they build, design, and power themselves even beyond human life why would it cost a penny to buy more robots? Supply and demand and the supply here is insane. It's like trying to charge for a bittorrent.
Because I own them. Why would I sell them for nothing when I can keep them and bathe in more goods myself?

>Let's say a small group of people "own" all means of producing and maintains the world's robot population and despite the fact it means no sacrifice to themselves whatsoever to sell robots to the have nots and even the smallest price they still refuse to do so.
It's called opportunity cost. It's the cost of owning capital versus not owning capital.

>Out of sheer spite or will to keep the majority of the world poor and robotless.
They're not my problem

>Out of sheer spite or will to keep the majority of the world poor and robotless.
My robots and the fact Jeeves will starve when he returns to the slums because he has no robots and no one to feed him.

>Out of sheer spite or will to keep the majority of the world poor and robotless.
Robots.

>These are then connected to everything you have of value and if you don't pay the price of the labor Jeeves will come and take it all from you.
It is not in Jeeve's interest to do that. Me and Jeeves have forms a union of egoists. He knows he's fucked over if he kills me. He knows he can live a decent life as my manservant if he doesn't.

>Labor is in essence transformation. It is when a human looks at something and desires but knows the desire will not or can not realize itself without interference from personal power. A man wants a rock in point A at point B and knows it will not roll itself there. He picks it up and moves it in an act of willfully transforming the environment to his will to make it more "valuable". This is labor.
So by existing and owning robots, I'm doing labor. Great.

>>1577107
no they were subsedizing them

>>1580031

Keynesianism seemed to work in the 1940's and 1950's.

And to be fair, you have to have some government interference because there are market failures in many areas.

It is unlikely that a anarcho-capitalist society would be able to deal with an impending asteroid impact.

They would die arguing who would pay for the space program.

>>1576484
yeah dude communism is the answer
hey wanna smoke a blunt behind the gym after school ends?

>>1580289
nice meme did you draw that yourself?

>>1576853
heh, listen here cuck. if we take all the power away from the government and give it to the forces influencing the government, the forces influencing the government will have nothing to hide, so they'll abide by a code of ethics chosen by the free market.

>>1580184
>>1580194
I can't believe you actually wrote all that shit to argue with an absolute moron who just keeps moving the goalposts into way past the realm of feasibility and reality.

I'm actually impressed.

>>1580537
But he's wrong, not all wealth is derived from labor.

>>1580595

Ok. Give an example then.

>>1580613
I did. You decided to disagree with Marx about it.

File: 1442797322564.png (485KB, 680x523px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 680x523px

>>1580031
>when the markets can do that much much better in every aspect

this fucking meme

>>1580620

I'm not that person. I'm not reading the whole thread to find your point when I'm not the original guy you replied to.

If its that simple just say what can be created without labor.

>>1580635
This is basic Marx. The Gotha Programme's
>Labor is the source of all wealth
got him upset

>>1580640

I'm not a marxist, but its true.

You can have gold bars, but it took labor to mine it out of the ground and make it into gold bars.

I guess you could talk about financial derivatives, but technically they are all backed by productivity (labor) of companies.

I suppose there raw land, but its not useful unless you do something with it, which requires labor.

I guess you could make it into a nature reserve, but that doesn't really create wealth.

I'm looking for wealth that doesn't require labor.

What is it?

>>1580654
Are you really that fucking lazy that you can't look up the relevant part of the critique? Just because you need labor at some point in time doesn't mean the value itself was derived from the labor. Resources, or the rights to them, can be traded as a commodity because of this potential to create something useful with labor input.

>>1580668
Are you really arguing the most stubborn and ridiculous semantics ever? If you failed to adequately express yourself, it's your fucking fault, since everybody is talking about producing commodities. Either you decided to jump into a tangent and pretend you were arguing something different all along in order to save face (impossible by now) or are really just plain stupid.

>>1580668

Both are useless with labor.

In fact it took labor to determine their valuables.

Do you think people buy random lots of land and go "Oh I think there is gold or oil there!"

No. Someone had to go out and labor to prospect for that valuable resource.

>>1580686
I was making fun of you for trying to advocate a LTV even Marx didn't even defend.

>>1580687
As long as the potential for land is always above zero, and never below zero, land has some value on average, without prospecting.

>>1580694

Land has to be surveyed before its sold. Also owner's usually inspect it.

And a lawyer has to sign off at some point with the transaction.

So there is always labor in wealth and wealth transfer.

I guess you could randomly sign a napkin saying you give all your land away for a dollar, but that's still technically labor.

>>1580694
>I was making fun of you for trying to advocate a LTV even Marx didn't even defend.
Uh huh

>>1580705
Here's what you asked
>Name one bought and sold commodity that is not produced through labor.

Here's your bail out
>any human transaction is labor hurr durr

>>1580712
It's amazing you didn't get it with the post-scarcity robots references, but you really are that dense.

>>1580716

Can you not read. In order for land to be sold it has to be surveyed. In order to be useful it has to be farmed, prospected, or built upon.

If you are in the business of buying unsurveyed land, then you most likely won't be in the business for long.

>>1576484
16 more or less.

>>1576786
Don't forget kiddies! Socialism killed eight hundred thousand million trillion billion gazillion innocent kulaks. And that's just Stalin!

>>1580735
>If you are in the business of buying unsurveyed land, then you most likely won't be in the business for long.
If you could buy the rights to 10,000 acres of land for $0.01, would you do it? There is therefore an innate value to even unsurveyed land.

>>1580720
Thank goodness I was not the recipient of that feverish rant, frankly speaking it's contrived at best and at this point I don't know if you were also working under the same misconception and then rectified (on >>1578959, you called the all value statement "marxist economics"), or you had that other guy running in circles all along just for funsies

I don't care, do what you will.

>>1580754

Legally, since medieval times, you need the boundaries demarcated, least there be a dispute where your property begins and ends with your neighbors.

>>1580759
>you called the all value statement "marxist economics"
No, that guy quoted the picture, even though Marx disagreed with that. He went as far as to make a point publicly to disagree with it. The proper response to that is say that Marx said the opposite, not to unironically try to defend it. You are one of those useless idiots that makes socialists look bad.

>>1580761
But it's an island.

>>1580768

Your neighbors complain about fishing rights in the middle of the water.

>>1580769
The deed is only for the land, no water.

>>1580766
Yeah that guy quoted the picture and refered to that quote as marxist economics, and all we are left here is the assumption that he was baiting all along, or whatever.

I don't particularly give two flying fucks about dishonesty with oneself so bye, have a good life and toodles.

>>1580777
You sure are mad

>>1580774

You know... Out of curiosity I checked Alaska and they require land to be surveyed before it is sold.

So out of all the states that you'd think it wouldn't be required, they require it so I'm pretty sure all other states require land survey.

>>1580792

Oh I suppose you want me to cite that:

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/landsale/sale_faq.cfm

"If the land is determined suitable for such programs and after it has been properly surveyed, subdivided and/or appraised, it can be offered for purchase. "

>>1580803
>program
You're taking it out of context. It's a specific program for selling land for cabins.

>>1578356
>When there is other people's money to spend
Venezuela's main source of income has always been oil (about 90% of their budget), not income tax, which the state controlled way before Chavez.

>>1576786
wtf i love marx now

>>1578639

>workers owning the means of production

What does this even mean? does it mean it's the state ran by the vanguard party which owns it? or that literally any man can walk off the street and tell a factory how to run shit?

>>1577040
The original says "revolutionary terror". I don't see how that's any better.

The big problem here is nobody is looking at the distinction between use-value and exchange-value, which is literally fucking page one of Capital. Labor is certainly the source of all use-value, because the moment water has been scooped out of the river, it has become useful, it has been labored upon. But exchange-value, which is "the source of wealth" is something quite different, and that only arises when objects which have been labored upon are traded for other like objects. Now you have commodities, of which labor soon becomes one.

>>1582609
The problem is retards who think they can quantify use value objectively.

>>1582609

but before some orthodox econ head tries to undercut me, i'll add that new use-values, which have by now acquired an exchange-value, can still only be created by labor.

>>1582623

to a *certain degree* you can, and that is largely marx's argument throughout the working-day chapter. the use-value which labor power represents, that of transforming one use-value into another, can be quantified and sub-divided down the the second with careful attention to the exchange-value paid for it versus the duration of the labor. but yeah, the use-value of a broom refuses quantification, the use-value of a laptop refuses quantification, use-value is almost quality as such. or vice-versa.

>>1581382
It means workers running there own workplace..... What else does it mean?

If you have trouble paying your bills, you're a communist.

If you're rich, you're a capitalist.

If you have trouble paying your bills and you still believe in capitalism...

YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON

>>1582954
UPVOTE!!!!!!1111