Just think why would anyone stay in business if they could sell all of there stuff and put the money in the bank and earn more from the interest accrued. On the other side people will see that you are making money and get in there and raise production.
Short term profits and losses come from uncertainty: you see an opportunity that others don't see and you get to it first, this type is self defeating as others will emulate profitable activity
Long term profits come from time preference (the payment you get for paying for the factors now and receiving a good at some later time) and profits will tend toward this rate. They don't really ever reach it though because of constant changes in the data.
if yields does not exceed material costs, then the time put in is worthless. In truth, yield equals costs, because part of the costs is the time put into producing the product or service.
Profit is so great it cannot be measured? Thats what you say Mises said but it is not. He says that profit is not the sole motive because satisfaction can't be measured. A good economist and a reasonable person measures money in money terms and blessing and graces in poetic terms. Mises also abides in an idealistic place where people must follow good business practices. If you blow up his definition of profit too far it becomes meaningless. Blood diamonds=chopped off arms=happy wives?
@DrakeDorosh It can be measured. Did you listen to the video? Mises makes a distinction between profit that CAN be measured, i.e. monetary profit, and profit that cannot be measured, i.e. psychic profit. Monetary profit is a manifestation of psychic profit, in that it is the collective evaluation, in monetary terms, of the contribution of a person to social cooperation.
@Austrolibertarian I listened to your video first. Then I listened to the video you responded to. That guy sounds just like you. Reading someone else's thoughts. How did you answer his questions about slavery?
In the real world the costs and benefits psychic or tangible are not evenly distributed. The business person may rejoice in social cooperation but most people just work.
What did people do before money? Did they say "I have psychic profit" when they were happy? Monks peasants slaves?
Ppl can experience psychic benefits from countless actions in daily life. Yet we don't stretch the term "profit" to describe them because, unlike u or Mieses, we don't have an ax to grind (intended to defend capitalist *profit* ironically).
Everyone knows "the profit motive" refers to money. Since I explicitly mentioned creativity "for our own satisfaction and that of the community" as an alternative, u knew I meant "profit" in precisely that sense. Therefore your whole video attacks a straw man
@mr1001nights It is also ironic that you claim I am attacking a strawman when, in fact, that is precisely what you did in the video I am responding to: you described profit in purely monetary terms. I am sorry that the economic theory you want to criticize doesn't turn out to be what you'd like, but to criticize a position you actually have to criticize IT, not one you prefer.
Well, if Mieses claims that people can work for "psychic benefits" other than the money the capitalist gives to the workers, then he shouldn't have any objections to anarcho-communism, which has as a motivational incentive precisely those benefits. But no, his capitalist ass-kissing can't compete on those terms. Supporters of capitalism defend wage slavery by pointing at the great monetary incentive embodied in those crumbs of capital that the capitalist throws to the workers
@mr1001nights I don't think Mises would have any objections to anarcho-communism if that is what people wanted within a small community. He supported secession for small groups and communities so they could self-govern. His position on economics hinged on the assumption that increasing material wealth and the raising of the standard of living was the goal. He wouldn't deny that psychic profit exists in communism: he claimed it is necessarily implied in ALL human cognition.
@mr1001nights He would have claimed, however, that such communities, on a large scale, are doomed to failure in the material/monetary sense because of the problem of economic calculation.
You should read the refutation of Mieses' "calculation argument" at --particularly all its flawed assumptions. Go to the anarchist FAQ InfoshopDOTorg at and look for
I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that socialism can not work?
and
I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible?
@mr1001nights Although Mises himself was not an Anarchist, I am not aware of any Anarcho-Capitalists who opposes individuals getting together and forming communes, as long as they are voluntary. However it seems like the vast majority of leftist Anarchists seem hell bend on using violence against anyone who conducts a voluntary exchange , that isn't in line with their preference set (e.g. trading your labor for money).
@mr1001nights Why are people who manage workplaces not workers? Managing is a hard job, bosses often work harder than any of their employees. Secondly if you do assume this false dichotomy between labor and management, what possible mechanism does "capitalist ideology" use to "violently prevent" workers from forming cooperatives if they want to? I am not aware of any true free marketer who says we should coerce people into not forming cooperatives, a co-op just another business model.
@mr1001nights No it does not attack a strawman. I knew you were using it ONLY in the MONEY sense, which is why I said you were mistaken about economic theory. I took the time to look up in Mises's book "Human Action" where he talks about this distinction and clarify it for you. This isn't about grinding axes: it's about a logically consistent theory of economic science. This was part of Mises's body of work. Keep the ad hominems to yourself, sir.
cost, revenue, profit, loss...they are all subjective. many economists recognize that benefit is subjective, but fail to see the same with costs. if two men with two pieces of land each decide to grow corn instead of soy beans, their cost is their respective expectations of the utility that would have been rendered from soy beans, so if man A expects $30/acre on soy, and man B $50/acre on soy, then their costs are $30 and $50 respectively, even if their land rents are equal.
He definitely isn't dumb, but he *is* an emotional ideologue. Hence he can't accept, like the best of the leftists do, that while they're free to organize however they want, they can't forcefully prevent others from organizing differently. This makes him an authoritarian.
@mr1001nights No, it doesn't. Workers can self-manage their workplaces so long as they acquire said workplace non-violently. Hence if you want to work for a self-managed organization, you may create and develop one, join an existing one, or pool funds to purchase a hierarchical business and convert it into a self-managed one. I would happily cheer you on as you did this - you should live how you want to live. You just can't use force - and neither can I. Stop smearing people you disagree with.
yeah, "so long as..." the capitalists allow you too. Otherwise they'll use violence to prevent your free choice of workers' self-management. Since the very existence of capitalism bases itself on private ownership of capital, rather than collective workers' self-management, your whole ideology bases itself on the violent suppression of the free choice of workers' self-management. Therefore, any freedom-loving person should oppose it by any means necessary in self-defense.
@mr1001nights Your rhetoric is borderline Orwellian here. "So long as capitalists allow you to" is NOT what I said. I said "so long as you don't use violence". ("you" meaning socialists) To conflate the two is mind-bending. I am arguing that neither you nor capitalists have the right to oppress. Secondarily, you'll need to stop pretending that not owning capital is an irreversible death-sentence. Not every existing rich person / business inherited their wealth. They creatively developed value.
No, capitalists developed a parasitic racket of nonlabor income. And their whole ideology bases itself on the violent suppression of the free choice of self-management.
@Jonathan Well that certainly isn't my ideology. We have a few problems here: 1. I consider any use of force to be a negation of the market and distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. 2. I think you use the words "violent" and "coercive" irresponsibly. Based on past talk, you seem to believe that biology requiring that you sustain yourself is somehow a coercive imposition other individuals place on you. 3. You generalize capitalists as parasitic when many are extremely creative.
@mr1001nights Far and away the most important feature of our interaction is that I have told you again and again that I have no problem with you organizing however you like, and your reply seems to be a claim to authority over the rest of us. That somehow, somewhere, you've found the authority to override the consent and will of people with different opinions than you have. I cannot consider you an anarchist, and honestly, see you as regrettably conservative. You can't let go of forcing our hand
I've always wondered whether 1001nights was just being disingenuous or was actually a retard. I think I've come to the conclusion that he's a disingenuous retard.
Just think why would anyone stay in business if they could sell all of there stuff and put the money in the bank and earn more from the interest accrued. On the other side people will see that you are making money and get in there and raise production.
MisesianThinker 1 year ago
Short term profits and losses come from uncertainty: you see an opportunity that others don't see and you get to it first, this type is self defeating as others will emulate profitable activity
Long term profits come from time preference (the payment you get for paying for the factors now and receiving a good at some later time) and profits will tend toward this rate. They don't really ever reach it though because of constant changes in the data.
MisesianThinker 1 year ago
I have noticed that once you make a good point about their lack of self-esteem, socialists and syndicalists never reply back to you.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
if yields does not exceed material costs, then the time put in is worthless. In truth, yield equals costs, because part of the costs is the time put into producing the product or service.
4lifejackhammer 1 year ago
@4lifejackhammer That's a loss. You're describing something coming out in a wash.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
Profit is so great it cannot be measured? Thats what you say Mises said but it is not. He says that profit is not the sole motive because satisfaction can't be measured. A good economist and a reasonable person measures money in money terms and blessing and graces in poetic terms. Mises also abides in an idealistic place where people must follow good business practices. If you blow up his definition of profit too far it becomes meaningless. Blood diamonds=chopped off arms=happy wives?
DrakeDorosh 1 year ago
@DrakeDorosh It can be measured. Did you listen to the video? Mises makes a distinction between profit that CAN be measured, i.e. monetary profit, and profit that cannot be measured, i.e. psychic profit. Monetary profit is a manifestation of psychic profit, in that it is the collective evaluation, in monetary terms, of the contribution of a person to social cooperation.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian I listened to your video first. Then I listened to the video you responded to. That guy sounds just like you. Reading someone else's thoughts. How did you answer his questions about slavery?
In the real world the costs and benefits psychic or tangible are not evenly distributed. The business person may rejoice in social cooperation but most people just work.
What did people do before money? Did they say "I have psychic profit" when they were happy? Monks peasants slaves?
DrakeDorosh 1 year ago
Ppl can experience psychic benefits from countless actions in daily life. Yet we don't stretch the term "profit" to describe them because, unlike u or Mieses, we don't have an ax to grind (intended to defend capitalist *profit* ironically).
Everyone knows "the profit motive" refers to money. Since I explicitly mentioned creativity "for our own satisfaction and that of the community" as an alternative, u knew I meant "profit" in precisely that sense. Therefore your whole video attacks a straw man
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights It is also ironic that you claim I am attacking a strawman when, in fact, that is precisely what you did in the video I am responding to: you described profit in purely monetary terms. I am sorry that the economic theory you want to criticize doesn't turn out to be what you'd like, but to criticize a position you actually have to criticize IT, not one you prefer.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
Well, if Mieses claims that people can work for "psychic benefits" other than the money the capitalist gives to the workers, then he shouldn't have any objections to anarcho-communism, which has as a motivational incentive precisely those benefits. But no, his capitalist ass-kissing can't compete on those terms. Supporters of capitalism defend wage slavery by pointing at the great monetary incentive embodied in those crumbs of capital that the capitalist throws to the workers
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights I don't think Mises would have any objections to anarcho-communism if that is what people wanted within a small community. He supported secession for small groups and communities so they could self-govern. His position on economics hinged on the assumption that increasing material wealth and the raising of the standard of living was the goal. He wouldn't deny that psychic profit exists in communism: he claimed it is necessarily implied in ALL human cognition.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@mr1001nights He would have claimed, however, that such communities, on a large scale, are doomed to failure in the material/monetary sense because of the problem of economic calculation.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago 3
@Austrolibertarian
You should read the refutation of Mieses' "calculation argument" at --particularly all its flawed assumptions. Go to the anarchist FAQ InfoshopDOTorg at and look for
I.1.1 Didn't Ludwig von Mises's "calculation argument" prove that socialism can not work?
and
I.1.2 Does Mises' argument mean libertarian communism is impossible?
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights I've read them before. I have engaged people at length over those types of confusions.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Although Mises himself was not an Anarchist, I am not aware of any Anarcho-Capitalists who opposes individuals getting together and forming communes, as long as they are voluntary. However it seems like the vast majority of leftist Anarchists seem hell bend on using violence against anyone who conducts a voluntary exchange , that isn't in line with their preference set (e.g. trading your labor for money).
priapus512 1 year ago
@priapus512
Your whole capitalist ideology bases itself on violently preventing workers from self-managing their workplace and economy
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Why are people who manage workplaces not workers? Managing is a hard job, bosses often work harder than any of their employees. Secondly if you do assume this false dichotomy between labor and management, what possible mechanism does "capitalist ideology" use to "violently prevent" workers from forming cooperatives if they want to? I am not aware of any true free marketer who says we should coerce people into not forming cooperatives, a co-op just another business model.
priapus512 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
there still arent prices for labor factors. This is discussed in great detail in Hoff's economic calculation in a socialist society
CommSense 1 year ago
@mr1001nights No it does not attack a strawman. I knew you were using it ONLY in the MONEY sense, which is why I said you were mistaken about economic theory. I took the time to look up in Mises's book "Human Action" where he talks about this distinction and clarify it for you. This isn't about grinding axes: it's about a logically consistent theory of economic science. This was part of Mises's body of work. Keep the ad hominems to yourself, sir.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
Is attaining sought-after ends a reason to SUBMIT TO AUTHORITY?!?
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
spot on.
cost, revenue, profit, loss...they are all subjective. many economists recognize that benefit is subjective, but fail to see the same with costs. if two men with two pieces of land each decide to grow corn instead of soy beans, their cost is their respective expectations of the utility that would have been rendered from soy beans, so if man A expects $30/acre on soy, and man B $50/acre on soy, then their costs are $30 and $50 respectively, even if their land rents are equal.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
good video - i just wish some of the comments weren't vulgar and personally insulting.
imyourgod2 1 year ago
Mr 1001nights blows.
podrag 1 year ago
great video as always! Keep them up.
Mattes50A05 1 year ago 2
He definitely isn't dumb, but he *is* an emotional ideologue. Hence he can't accept, like the best of the leftists do, that while they're free to organize however they want, they can't forcefully prevent others from organizing differently. This makes him an authoritarian.
EsotericThrone 1 year ago 11
He is both emotional ideologue and dumb ass. He doesn't understand the very basics of market and property.
HubertPaetz 1 year ago
@EsotericThrone
Your whole capitalist ideology bases itself on forcefully preventing workers from self-managing their workplace and economy
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights No, it doesn't. Workers can self-manage their workplaces so long as they acquire said workplace non-violently. Hence if you want to work for a self-managed organization, you may create and develop one, join an existing one, or pool funds to purchase a hierarchical business and convert it into a self-managed one. I would happily cheer you on as you did this - you should live how you want to live. You just can't use force - and neither can I. Stop smearing people you disagree with.
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
@EsotericThrone
yeah, "so long as..." the capitalists allow you too. Otherwise they'll use violence to prevent your free choice of workers' self-management. Since the very existence of capitalism bases itself on private ownership of capital, rather than collective workers' self-management, your whole ideology bases itself on the violent suppression of the free choice of workers' self-management. Therefore, any freedom-loving person should oppose it by any means necessary in self-defense.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Your rhetoric is borderline Orwellian here. "So long as capitalists allow you to" is NOT what I said. I said "so long as you don't use violence". ("you" meaning socialists) To conflate the two is mind-bending. I am arguing that neither you nor capitalists have the right to oppress. Secondarily, you'll need to stop pretending that not owning capital is an irreversible death-sentence. Not every existing rich person / business inherited their wealth. They creatively developed value.
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
@EsotericThrone
No, capitalists developed a parasitic racket of nonlabor income. And their whole ideology bases itself on the violent suppression of the free choice of self-management.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@Jonathan Well that certainly isn't my ideology. We have a few problems here: 1. I consider any use of force to be a negation of the market and distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. 2. I think you use the words "violent" and "coercive" irresponsibly. Based on past talk, you seem to believe that biology requiring that you sustain yourself is somehow a coercive imposition other individuals place on you. 3. You generalize capitalists as parasitic when many are extremely creative.
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
Comment removed
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@EsotericThrone You say: "I consider any use of force to be a negation of the market"
Since the free choice of worker self-management negates the capitalist market itself, this market requires force in order to suppress it.
Talk of "creative" capitalists sounds like talk of "creative" Kings or slave owners. It amounts to apologetic for power, privilege and exploitation.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights You just took a big credibility hit with me. : (
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Far and away the most important feature of our interaction is that I have told you again and again that I have no problem with you organizing however you like, and your reply seems to be a claim to authority over the rest of us. That somehow, somewhere, you've found the authority to override the consent and will of people with different opinions than you have. I cannot consider you an anarchist, and honestly, see you as regrettably conservative. You can't let go of forcing our hand
EsotericThrone 1 year ago
@EsotericThrone
Since you support an economic system based on hierarchy (Boss--wage laborer capitalist arrangement) you cannot call yourself an anarchist.
mr1001nights 1 year ago
Mr1001nights is a broken record.
LibertyIsNotGiven 1 year ago 9
I've always wondered whether 1001nights was just being disingenuous or was actually a retard. I think I've come to the conclusion that he's a disingenuous retard.
bwelkk 1 year ago 4
WORK FOR A BOSS OR STARVE!
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
I bet Mr1001nights will still be using profit motive in terms of only money. :/
But at least the truth has been spoken.
Mastikator 1 year ago