there is a difference between value and price. just saying. Marginalism theory of demand by a consumer may have applications. But it's theory of production (Cobb-Douglas) is completely WRONG, since the main idea of all production functions is that capital and labour are interchangable which IS NOT TRUE in real life. Marginalism and neoclassical theories were designed by people who never held a shovel in their hands
@mr1001nights Well it depends. Oftentimes it isn't. Othertimes the ignorance really amounts to necessary salutory myths. So while it is "ignorance" this is beneficial in spite of itself. For example myths about the nation or religion lead to social cohesion and strengthen the society. Whereas dangerous truths (think like the situation with Harvey Dent/Two-Face on the Dark Knight) may be bad for the society as they sap it's strength. Economics however is too mathematically rigorous to be wrong.
Most math in economics has no relation to reality--all grounded in wrong assumptions. It's accuracy is as irrelevant is as accurate calculations by someone who thinks the earth is flat
@mr1001nights Really? Why do it's predictions come true then? Economics is like a science. You can say that theory X in that field of science is wrong, but it makes no sense to say that the field itself is in some sense wrong. That would be a category error.
"It's accuracy is as irrelevant is as accurate calculations by someone who thinks the earth is flat"
Well except when those calculations can accurately predict things that come true.
Economic brain washing with mathematics is well suited to a society that believes that math discovers truth. Math is effective in unambiguity describing theory and even truth. However the truth must first be observed and then described mathematically.
you also make it seem like there is some sort of agenda behind abstracting away from oligopoly to perfect competition. There isn't. It's a way to illustrate "perfect competition" so as to describe markets that are similar to it. Neo-Classical economics also addresses oligopoly. There is also surplus illustrated (consumer and producer surplus).
Other legit criticism is the efficient market hypothesis being bogus (and that's why not all Neo-Classicals adhere to it). Same for perfect information.
prices are not necessary to understand marginal utility at all. Also, utility is ordinal. Even Neo-Classicals admit that these days. The good ones also see that businesses maximize benefits by using profit as a signal. The profit is valuable because it is a bid on resources, and that the cost incurred by entrepreneurs is opportunity cost.
There are some legit criticisms here though - like indifference curves being bogus.
if market outcomes are extremely uncertain, it's probably not a good time to be holding a lot of fed bank-notes, instead of commodities with use-value (AND the [uncertain] social-value of the paper)
I'm amazed you still don't understand the anti-union position.
labor theory of value is not realistic. you really have to strain badly to BELIEVE in it to be a Marxist. Can anyone tell me they actually find it to be true in a commercial society? I can't even upon basic reflection. It's so obviously not true that it's hard to understand why anyone would even bring it up anymore.
mr1001nights why did I spend three years at university and had to pay high rate fees for me to learn for free on youtbe what I was supposed to learn at uni?
@Catholicboy4life No, I have a masters in mathematical finance and I'm currently obtaining a PhD in complexity but I have taken 4 doctoral level courses in economics. If he had any actually intelligence, he would have used the criticisms that were brought up in the Cambridge capital controversy Nonetheless, it is only an argument against Neoclassical economics.
@Catholicboy4life Why is it that highly labor intense firms do not have the highest profits even though they have the concentration of exploitation? Why is it that systematic risk factors(include higher moments) explain over 90% of firms long run risk adjusted profit? OWNED
"Owned"??? That's like asking "why does a capitalist make more money when he substitutes workers for machines?" because he doesn't need to pay'em as much! duh LOL
@mr1001nights So if a process consisted of purely automated production and it produced a profit (due to the systematic risk inherit in that investment) you would drop your belief.
Obvious Fyi, Machines arent costless... so I dont know why you're loling.
Which belief? Slave owners also took risks. That didn't justify their profit. If capitalists could substitute 99% of workers for machines (e.g. just keep workers that make and maintain/manage the machines) that'd create a lack of aggregate demand (no one would have a job to make money with which to buy anything) and would highlight even more starkly the elitist stupidity of capitalism & the need to replace wage labor with workers producing for themselves w/o capitalist parasites and other bosses
@mr1001nights Individual are averse to systematic fluctuations because it erodes the smoothing process (especially for individuals with habitual persistence). This is well founded in financial and economic theory. To engage in activities that contain systematic risk factors, the individual must be compensated. Finance 101
No one is forcing anyone to be someones employee. Do the evil capitalists put guns to their heads. Your comments lay testament to your economic illiteracy. Bye ;)
@mr1001nights Yes and then no one would be able to buy their stuff and they would go broke, and the system would tend back towards some sort of equilibrium. Capitalism has built in mechanisms to sustain equilibrium.
"producing for themselves w/o capitalist parasites"
That is the most retarded phrase I have ever heard. Tell me, how the hell are we supposed to get rich without capitalism?
@mr1001nights You didnt explained why systematic risk factors explain such a high percentage of asset dynamics. .... and I know why. Its because you have no answer. Marx lived before this was discovered.... so he is excused. You on the other hand have no excuse for such ignorance.
Can't you notice this is a self fulfilling prophecy of financial math? You calculate risk and market prices/costs and make a business venture decision. That's like a bookie setting a 10% overround on all its bets. Statistics will show that he'll make close to 10% profits in the long run. So what?
Actually yes, statistics is the same, doesn't matter if it's on a black-scholes formula or a normal distribution, or the dumbest elementary school formula, it measures the likelihood of an outcome, doesn't matter how complicated you make it up to be.
It only shows math is a beautiful thing. It just means you're good at math and the game is rigged on your favor and it shows in the stats. It has nothing to do with the fact that only labor creates value and buyers are only paying for value created by such labor.
I just made an "investment". I'm getting a payback of $3.00 on a $1 bet with 50% probability. I've been doing this for a while and I'm actually winning money. What a surprise! This must be the foundation for an economic theory of labor and "risk" taking.
- You state a game in which you obtain a positive 3 $ with 50% probability with a 1$ bet ... well what if the other 50% was a loss of 40 million $. You have to include all probabilities and payoffs to make your statement even make sense.
- You fail to understand finance 101 distinctions between systematic, idiosyncratic and total risk.
No I didn't. The payoff is three dollars. 50% of the time you win $3. The other 50% you lose $1, the original bet (cost, investment). All probabilities and payoffs are stated in the original problem. We could try this game throwing a coin. Heads, I get $3. Tails, I give $1. You can be the bank making the payoffs. I dare you. It's a shame that even when you can crunch graduate level statistics, you fail to understand a simple problem like this.
Lol .. I read it too quickly.. I know what a mean expectations is :P My point was that one cannot value a game merely on mean expectations.. they must also be ranked based on higher moments(vol, skew,kurtosis).
@TheDummydude FYI, you go into a game with an initial cost of $1. You would have to state that theres a 50% chance of 3$ payoff in additional to a 50% chance of a 0$ payoff. You cant just assume its zero and then claim victory by my confusion due to your incomplete statement. There are cases with an initial cost and a small probability of negative payoffs or non zero payoffs. Therefore, you fail.
Risk and profit margins have nothing to do with the FACT that only labor and nature create value. Profit IS labor arbitrage. You choose what to pay for a product based on your subjective valuation of it. But you're always paying for the transformation of natural resources done by labor. You don't care about how much labor or debt/risk went into the product. You only care about the final result created by labor. Put down your Bible and think for yourself for a while. OWNED.
@TheDummydude Is a bottle of water produce by the same producer at the same period of time (assume infinitesimal difference) of equal value to a man dying of dehydration as it is for one surrounded by natural spring water?
Where did the water come from? Is it patented in the USPTO? Why should you own the water and have the right to supply it to the best bidder, not necessarily to whoever needs it the most? If I surround the planet in a plastic bag, suck out all the air, and sell it back for a profit to those that don't want to die, is that fair? What math formula can you use to calculate descency?
Say it takes me 12 hrs. a day to "run" a company and it takes you 12 hrs. a day to assemble the products that I sell. You're the best worker, there's no way for the product to be assembled faster than you do it. The 12 hrs. in both cases (mine and yours) are necessary, otherwise, production/sales would stop. Also, there'll always be someone to replace any one of us in case of death. Why is my time as the owner more valuable than yours?
Utilitarianism takes for granted the way those resources came to be owned. In the not so distant past, I just walked around with an army or hopped on a boat, found some land, killed the people there and claimed the resources as my own. Now I can exchange with other people and if somebody wants to take from my resources, he'll have to sell his labor to me, for something I didn't create and got for free. If I were a feudal lord, I'd sure love current economics. I'd certainly promote it.
I'm saying let me kill some people and get some acres of land. Then I'll sell it for millions and create a bank. I'll become a neoclassical economist tomorrow.
@TheDummydude Im not a NC economist. Btw, I thought all value was determined by the labor incorporated into the object... so how would you structure the reparations ;)
By the way. I'm not an economist. I'm actually an engineer, but have taken a serious interest in economics, and I'm skeptical about a lot of mainstream thought. Problem: in the long run, natural resources/power eventually accumulate in a few hands. By law in communism/socialism. By destroying competition in free-market capitalism. People end up with no other choice but to subordinate to the family and friends of the first comers. This is not addresed in any system I've seen so far.
@TheDummydude When did I ever state that it would be a good idea for me to play that game? When have I stated that I believe in mainstream economics? Im basically an adherent of complexity economics.If you read some of my posts, you would see that Im not in line with the mainstream. Also, I'm more of a mathematician than an economicist ...so Im not exactly mathematically deficient.
The equations and assumptions I've seen in mainstream economics don't take this reality into consideration and end-up promoting the status-quo. They'd make you believe that subordinating and selling your labor to support yourself AND a land/capital owner should be a natural state of things. I think there's something seriously fucked up with this notion. Current economics seems to help promote this line of thought. I don't agree with it.
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about darwinist survival of the fittest? Or how in the long run the only constant is change? I do see, that throughout civilized history, power and wealth have been concentrated in a few hands. It may be stupid trying to change this anytime soon. It's just frustrating most people don't even realize it, or care. We've always had a philosophy to justify this. First, it was religion. Now it's the capital, land and labor theory.
I love disclaimers such as indefinitely, in the long run, "ceteris paribus" in economics and statistics. In the real world, all else is not equal. I can certainly go broke on an investment before statistics start regressing towards the mean. Like they say, in the long run, we're all dead. This doesn't seem comforting enough. The timescales of theory and reality are kind of misaligned.
@TheDummydude "In the real world, all else is not equal" I didnt say it was. Why do you keep making these statements when Im only answering specific conditions of the matter at hand. Normal mathematics/stats fails miserably in its application to the CAS of the macro-economy.
@TheDummydude Also the way you worded it was so confusing. Lets say you have a $1 initial cost. With 50% probability you get a 3$ payoff. With 50% probability you get a 0$ payoff. The expected payoff is 0.5$ not 3 dollars :P
Oh, come on man -:) Let's play this. Pick any random # generator on the internet that gives out 2 numbers: 0 and 1. If the number is 1, you give me $300. If it's zero, I'll give you $100. Let's do 100 iterations. Wanna play? -:)
First, kill people and appropiate land by force. Share with immediate family and friends. Whoever comes after you, has to subordinate to you and your family and friends. Then, make sure you promote a hierarchical belief system, either catholicism, communism, neoclassical economics, that justifies the ownership of resources and concentration of power in just a minority. Give people just enough to keep them complacent. Have some standby force to prevent them from revolting. Great system!
Yeah, so is inequality. It's a numbers game. Stats. Cheap labor from desperate overabundant workers is a great thing. How many people can you fit at the top of a pyramid? Do the top 1% work that much harder? I dont't think they do, as much as they may like to think. They do have the advantage of accumulated capital/wealth. How do you compete with that as a newcomer into the game? How do you prevent this "snowball effect" due to economies of scale and eventual monopoly of wealth?
How is this gradual movement towards monopoly of resources taken into account in economic equations? Or maybe we have to adjust reality to the assumptions of fair competition, equal information and free market mechanisms in the mathematical formulas.
@axe863 I am entitled to my own opinion and to support whatever views I considered conform with mine without being undermined!
My comment regarding Mr 1001Nights video clip responded to his well detailed explanations on Economics and yes, I found it easy to understand, profound and refreshing at the same time. I challenge you to produce some quality work like this one to prove me that you did not learn economics at a 'basement' but in a top university!!
@Carmencuchita@Carmencuchita Anyone who subscribes to an individual who supports LTV is economically illiterate. I would not produce this kind of video because Im busy studying, I don't want to reveal my identity and Im nowhere near this much of a smug individual. There are so many fallacies in this video where to begin.His taxation argument presumes that wealth is not dynamic .. lol. He states that price in value theory is circular when in fact it is emergent. Indifference curves are...
@Carmencuchita Indifference curves are a good approximation of human behavior because it incorporates diminishing marginal value and demonstrates the tendency of individuals to prefer diversity of goods in the sub-period. These both make logical sense. If Individuals of unique characteristics approximate these curves with a random error (individuals are weakly heterogeneous,not highly clustered, error is weakly correlated w/ finite moments)... the theory will converge to "truth" very quickly.
mr1001nights, i have watched a few of your videos and i agree with a lot of it.
one thing, in this video you indicated a transition from labor/use value into utilities to determine prices. albeit true that there has been a transition of in the schooling in this regard, the fundamentals you may have misrepresented. in current economics, marginal cost=supply, and demand=epsilon utilities. supply and demand combine to form price, never one or the other. keep up the good work, companero
from an objective position, does it really seem probable that the entire "science" of economics has been tailored to suit the needs of a particular social class? it seems unlikely.
anyways, on the topic of skepticism, track down the nearest physics professor and ask them where electric charge comes from. why don't we lambast modern physics for its empirical shortcomings? know why mr1001nights, because its really useful. so is economic theory.
What's unlikely, is to find someone who doesnt understand that whoever pays the piper calls the tune...oh, and trying to equate physics and economics, that's the REAL shortcoming. I''m not surprised, however. Other pseudo-scientific fields, like creationism, use the same tactics
you truly have a gift of self-expression, but your salvo of cliches and dismissive sentiments do not fortify an aimless reply. i will try and refocus the dialogue with a question. as you accurately point out, the real world, which is not infinitely large, would suggest a demand function that is not continuous. with what mathematical tool can you reconcile this discrepancy?
in other words, economic MODELS attempt to approximate human behavior. seemingly, they do this well. is it reasonable to discount the useful contributions of economics because complex systems cannot be perfectly understood? we don't do this with thermodynamics, why is it appropriate with economics?
you have to be kidding me?! these models are some of the greatest achievements in human rationality. how these insights are understood and applied is a different story. on a different note, if you don't mind me asking, are you an anarchist or communist?
rational undertakings in an irrational framework. A bit like the Jesuits which make all kinds of complicated ingeniously rational proposals regarding something that doesn't exist. Have you read Steve Keen's Debunking Economics?
there is no contention over the consistency of foundational economic concepts. what is being disputed is how well the theory jives with the reality. lets try again, they are MODELS. economic models like supply and demand don't actually exist, but they are algorithms that explain dynamic interactions very well. decision-making is determined by neuronal sequencing patterns, not by graphs floating in one's head. anyone who claims more have alot in common with the jesuits -- wistful sycophants.
as biologists and neuroscientists have begun to systematically model the mind, decision sciences are going to be fascinating to study in ones free time.
as for keen, a local library does have a copy available. i will give it a look over. and as for my recommendation, watch michael shermer's evolutionary economics 4 pt. series on youtube.
Since all communists seek a classless society, and since they believe that the state is an instrument of class oppression, they therefore desire a stateless society. Thus, all communists are ultimately anarchists; though the reverse is not necessarily true (but very often is, since stretching anarchist principles to their limit often leads one to communism).
Also, you should read Steve Keen. Marginalism, indifference curves & neoclassical economics more generally have been thoroughly debunked. You talk about Darwin, but neoclassical economics is like creationism.
i know enough about steve keen to not want to waste time reading one of his books. if you read human action and i'll read any 2 books you suggest. i am not a neo-classical, my own critique of the neo-classical school is what inspired me to learn economics further than most people do. but i do agree with keen about certain things like debt being bad for an economy but i think his dependance on debt to gdp ratio is a dependance on a flawed neo-classical statistic that isnt of much use to me.
how juvenile of you to turn my comparison of you to a creationist around on me! it stands to reason that if people like you (the pop intellectual) have come to understand evolution 150 years after darwin then you should be ready for the theory of marginal utility sometime soon. is it a coincidence that marx wrote capitol in the 20 years between evolution and marginal utility? you are right at the same point marx was at... 140 YEARS AGO! maybe in 100 years you'll understand game theory!! awesome!
Marginalists are to Marx what Catholics are to Darwin: they accept as much of an explanation as possible without undermining their ideology.
Catholics are forced to reject those aspects of evolution that undermine God; Marginalists are forced to reject those aspects of economics that undermine Capital.
Marginal utility doesn't counter Marx; it's subsumed by him. He goes on to explain economics beyond marginal utility; but his explanations undermine capitalist ideology so they must be rejected.
no i dont think so, good try though. marxists are to ecomomic arguments what creationists are to evolutionary arguments. the state is your god. darwin is not on your side on this one, no matter how you try to paint the picture. darwin believed in the emergence of order, so do austrians(marginalists). and.. ur done.
Marx's critique of political economy is sound, no matter how red-faced you Austrianites get while trying to shout him down. I can (and do) accept those aspects of Marx that can be separated from statecraft.
I accept neither gods nor masters; I am an anarchist.
Marginal utility is included in Marx. The Austrianites reject his further elaborations because he goes on to undermine their neo-feudalist ideology.
do you realize how stupid you sound when you say austrianites??? oh, so youre an anarchist, that sounds like a voluntary system where there is no state! is it voluntary??
I refuse to besmirch the Austrian people by using "Austrians" to mean "adherents to the economic ideology of Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al." Thus, I call them "Austrianists" when feeling polite, or "Austrianites" when not. I also sometimes call them "Misesians," since he's generally considered their leading soothsayer.
Anarchism entails far more than mere opposition to the state, although that's certainly a major aspect of it, yes. And yes, genuine anarchism is voluntary.
I'm not sure how that connects. At any rate, it's not that simple.
How did you acquire your property? As a capitalist, exploiting wage laborers for their surplus? or by working to produce it for yourself?
How do you continue to "own" it? By threat of violence under color of law? or by agreement with those you exclude from it?
Saying "I own property" doesn't convey enough information. Calling it "voluntary" doesn't mean much, if alternatives are limited or non-existent (as under capitalism).
ahahahah. and THAT is why you are a joke. people DO own property RIGHT NOW so if you think youre going to take it from them then it is NOT voluntary. youre not smart, no more arguing with me.
You appear to have completely ignored (or, more likely, failed to comprehend) my comment. I directly addressed the fact that people currently "own property": by questioning it's legitimacy, which isn't simply a given (as you seem to believe).
Feudal monarchs used to "own" entire countries; you apparently would have opposed the revolutions that toppled monarchism and led to capitalism. Looks like you're in a bit of a pickle, smart guy!
the question was, "is it voluntary" and you said yes, are property owners going to voluntarily give up their property because you decided it wasnt legitimate?? no, so you still havent explained how it is voluntary. monarchies owned land in the same way that the state owns all the land now and the fact that you think capitalism and monarchism are mutually exclusive terms demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the terms.
You're still not getting it (or you're evading): just because I have a piece of paper, backed up by threat of violence, which says that I "own" a chunk of matter, doesn't mean that my "property" is justly acquired.
A mobster might "acquire" a nightclub by making the proprietor an offer he can't refuse, but that's illegitimate (and analogous to "primitive accumulation").
You've trapped yourself into siding with the mobster when the proprietor comes to expropriate the nightclub.
No, Marx's critique of political economy is not sound. Look up the "Transformation Problem." And don't waste my time with the ad-hoc arguments of "Physicalism" and "Simultaneism." The latter of the two is based on a strawman, BTW. Marginal utility is not included in Marx. Prove me wrong on this one. Ricardian, Smithian, and Marxian notions of "use value" are not the same as marginal utility in a Jenonsian, Mengerian, or Walrassian context.
Incidentally Keen's "debunking" of the Marxian interpretation of the LTV is flawed. I'm a fan of Keen for his apparently sound debunking those things you mentioned; but he's guilty of fetishism in his reworking of the LTV to include commodities themselves - inert though they are, without labor to animate them - as the joint creators of value, alongside labor. I can't remember if it's in his book, but he's published papers on the subject, which call into question whether he understands fetishism.
Or, just watch the video on my channel, and keep repeating to yourself: "all economic activity is the result of human activity, i.e., labor." That should help you to understand that any economic model that seeks to diminish labor in the face of capital & land (or, rather, their personifications), is a tool of elite interests, as mr1001nights said.
true, all things are created by labor, but all labor is not valued the same. in other words, it may be more productive to utilize labor to make technology that replaces less efficient laborers. because that technology is made with "x" man-hours does not mean its value is directly related to those man-hours. in short, the value of the technology is related to those workers it replaced.
hmmm...unwieldy and dense. this sort of orating ostracism can only be bested by a michael richards stand up routine.
that aside, two thoughts. first, the neoclassical assumptions that model economic behavior, which you criticize as inadequate, are necessary to provide rigorous, mathematical conclusions which you claim do not accurately capture reality. in this respect, your line of argumentation seems empty.
his whole head is empty, as evidenced by his reply to your comment! what a douche! i wonder if he realizes that darwin would tell him he's a moron for his economic beliefs? he probably doesnt realize that reading adam smith was what inspired darwins "spontaneous order" the guy that made this video doesnt understand that order emerges from free and voluntary human action, not coersion.
Capitalism's "work for a boss or else" ain't voluntary. But it's not surprising the capitalists have convince you that the only alternative to their rule is the Gulag. All oppressors justify their rule by presenting false dichotomies. Self-management is essential for liberty. A person who doesn't control his productive life doesn't control his destiny. Adam Smith opposed capitalists, inequality & division of labor. he favored markets because he (mistakenly) believed they led to perfect equality
you act like substistence farming never existed but it even still exists now and eventually those people will CHOOSE to work for a boss because they see it as better than what they have now. under conditions of perfect liberty, free markets lead to perfect equality. that is not a mistake, you are just not in favor of conditions of perfect liberty. the state is your god. anytime a problem gets too big for you to understand, you call on your god for a solution.
If I'm being stretched on a medieval rack, and the man in the hood offers me a chance to "rest" in the iron maiden, I'm going to CHOOSE to accept his offer. Does that justify shutting people in spiked boxes?
"under conditions of perfect liberty, free markets lead to perfect equality"
*giggle* Stop that, tee-hee! I'm talking about torture and you're making me laugh! It's inappropriate, like your religious adherence to an invisible hand as an instrument to increase social welfare.
what a fucking joke you are. youre so spoiled rotten with your post-industrial revolution existence that you compare anyone in a pre-industrial revolution existence to someone being tortured. you should probably spend more of your time on africatube so you can explain to them that they are all being tortured. Ive got 1 last word for you and this is gonna be it for us...... here it is.... are you ready??? hide your eyes........ FREEDOM!
I didn't compare anything to anything, you fool; I was demonstrating the flaw of your reasoning.
Preemptively announcing your intention to depart the field of battle is a sign of cowardice. I knocked you from your horse long ago; since then you've been frantically scanning the treeline for an escape route, flailing blindly with insults and ALL CAPS.
so do you support the states right to genetically modify all babies in utero, by force if necessary, once the technology becomes available to make humans better or more useful to the state in some way?? i seriously wonder this about people like you...
It is circular because price-setting is iterative. What you call usury is the time value of money, what you call rent is allocation of reources and what you call profits is also allocation of resources.
All sciences are revised as understanding is increased.
For goodness sake.
Taxation is the initiation of violence. If you care so much then go do some work and be charitable.
Economics isn't really a science because the economy cannot be known in totality and neither can society.
Snide remarks may seem convincing in criticising systems (your clip titles are mostly "against", "anti", "refuting"....)
This is only a semblance of reasoning however.
Please stop telling us what's wrong with social and economic systems without elaborating new models or demonstrating which are the existing systems which are working well.
Negativism is so depressing!!
You were a very cute dancer. Don't you sometimes wish you had continued as an artist?
Actually, I & other critics of the system have offered plenty of alternatives involving democratic control of economic systems. The reason why u say we don't is because they challenge elite power and highlight our complicity in a destructive and unethical system. This is directly tied to your next comment. People in power would prefer that people like me had stayed as "cute dancers". It is not surprising that you would take their position on all these matters. Confronting power is harder.
Democracy (voice of the people) has its limits. The first election of George W and the Maastricht referendum and European Constitution votes (50/50) show that the people actually don't really know the issues and are certainly not experts.
That's why we need elected representatives to speak for us and experts to advise them.
The press does a better job of confronting power in the States than in France.
"The press does a better job of confronting power in the States than in France."
Be that as it may (with stress on *may*, since I don't believe it), the corporate press is inherently biased in favor of capitalism, and capitalists hold the power, so beggars belief to suggest that the press is out there doing its ostensible duty as exposing power to sunlight.
Sorry but I'm afraid your comment is too scattered for me to make sense of.
I'll simply note that communism has never existed, at least not in the Marxist form, as claimed. What is described as "communism" are those states (and already we've got an oxymoron) which called themselves socialist (falsely), and were governed by political parties that were ostensibly striving toward a future communist society.
Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism, etc., have failed; but anarcho-communists don't advocate those.
Communism: pool resources and labour? In the whole world? Revolution? Rarely are revolutionaries able to state clearly what they want; onlmy what they don't want!
What do you want? How should we achieve it?
Marxisme never applied: it must be that it isn't parcicable (150 years of thought and we still haven't applied its principles!)
Again, I find your comments too bizarre to follow, and I don't see how they're relevant to my comment about the press. But I'll try to make the most of it...
My indoctrination by the capitalist state began at birth and has taken a lifetime to begin to reverse, a process which will likely never be completed and which is continuously undermined by ongoing propaganda.
My upbringing did not indoctrinate me as far as I know.
The important thing is to ask frequently the questions "HOW?" and "WHY?".
You certainly don't answer them!
"Comments too bizarre" and "comment too scattered" are oratorical devices appartaining to the ad hominem (personal attack, falsely based) argument and have no weight in a serious discussion.
Of course you were indoctrinated, unless you raised yourself, in a cave.
I'm not trying to dodge anything or attack you. I sincerely find it difficult to follow your line of thinking.
I don't have a blueprint for Utopia. Sorry. I take my method from Chomsky (the method, not necessarily the conclusions he draws from it): demand that authoritarian institutions justify themselves; if they can't, then oppose them. This leads me to something resembling anarchist-communism. That's all I can give you
I'm not aware of any absolute truths. But I'm also not aware of any society that teaches people to be critical of all its unstated premises. Most of them go unquestioned or even unnoticed.
Have you taken note of everything under the sun and questioned it all? If so, then you must have arrived at the absolute truth by process of elimination. Please share it! ;-)
I could note your flaws as well, such as your pointing out my flaws rather than answering my questions.
I invite you to go back over our exchange and discover which of us evidently has nothing of value to say. You're quick to dig into your grab bag for the means to evade, but not at following through on the implications of your own words.
If my awareness is flawed for not recognizing absolute truth, as you say, then correct it.
At best, marginal utility holds true for stock market or auction situations.
Value depends on utility, but utility is just whatever gives value. That is, "utility" refers to the assemblage of unknown conditions which establish the phenomenon (value), and then the phenomenon is held to depend on what "utility" stands for.
And yes, ordinal utility is unable to say that redistribution decreases social utility and thus cannot claim that increased taxation is bad. Oh dear!
Wonderful. I wish more people understood exactly how economics works. Unfortunately, its almost impossible to understand. I have tried to create my own videos explaining some of the basic concepts. Im pretty sure they would agree with much of your analysis. Thanks for the video, man.
I don't know which 'neoclassical' you're critiquing here, but that is a point that Austrian-econ individualists make against keynsian macro-econ collectivists.
Could you request a debate with stefbot?
I have a hunch that: That would settle the theory debates..
The Neoclassicals and Austrians have mostly the same framework and adherence to nonsense like marginalism. kensyan theory explains capitalism more realistically
Which works from the marginal revolution have you read?
I don't think you can say Keynesian theory explains capitalism more realistically than the Austrians, whose distinguishing factor from other schools is an actual theory of capital as opposed to a homogeneous mush found in others.
Saying that Keynesian theory explains capitalism better is impressive because you must've found the solutions to the unsettled debates in macroeconomics. Is the correctness scale Marxism>Keynesian>Austrian?
too bad it failed miserably... if marx would have waited 5 years to write capital until after the theory of marginal utility was published he would have NEVER come to the silly conclusions he came to and people like you wouldnt exist!
The Infoshop FAQ is pretty good. I also recommend 'Studies in Mutualist Politcal Economy' by Kevin Carson. You can find it online at mutualist(dot)org
In addition, the mathematical formalism of Neoclassical economic theory borrows from Newton's laws of physics which predicts a perfectly deterministic universe. It has been shown over and over again, most notably by quantum mechanics that the universe is nothing at all like Newton imagined it to be, i.e., it's very far from deterministic. It should come as no surprise then that the outcomes predicted by neoclassical theory has nothing in common with reality.
Well, there's also the fact that Newton's mechanics are only useful for describing the motion of a very small number of bodies. If a formalism were to be borrowed from physics, something resembling statistical mechanics would be more appropriate. Hell, Monte Carlo simulations can be used to describe social networks to some success--so why don't economists adopt stochastic modeling? (Or, if a few already have, why don't more?)
Actually, Ive been giving this quite a bit of thought. Since a lot of the economic models are based on a theory of 'rational expectations' and our decision making, and thought processes in general, are microscopic and electrochemical in nature, which is firmly in quantum territory, economists should have to use the mathematical formalism of quantum statistics as a starting point for their 'theories'. Good luck to them with that one!
You wouldn't base an economic model on quantum mechanical models for the same reason you wouldn't base population dynamics models or any other social network model on QM. At every step of the process, the model is in a definite classical state because it's physically possible (even if not practically realizable) that all of the variables at the relevant level can be known.
Also, collective dynamics can describe the (macro)state of a system fine. All (micro)states of the components just need..
...to be averaged over in some way. For an analogy from statistical mechanics, the volume, pressure, Hemholtz free energy, temperature, and entropy can all be known for an assembly of particles, even though the momentum, energy, spin, etc. of an individual particle cannot be practicably predicted. (Nor be predicted even in principle for Fermi or Bose gases, but in classical systems (Boltzmann gases) it's just not practicable.)
So, I get to the point I was originally trying to make. If we were looking for a starting point to understand the inner workings of the mind of an individual, to eventually "understand" decisions, wouldn't quantum statistics be the appropriate place to start just like it is for more realistic models of the solid state? Of course, this will be an extremely difficult task, but aren't mental processes governed by quantum mechanics due to their being microscopic and electrochemical in nature?
who called economics science? I'm interested in that because I'm not going to buy into conspiracy.
MirageScience 1 month ago
boring.
agents1986 8 months ago
dont bother....economics is shit anyway...
autonomy21 10 months ago
there is a difference between value and price. just saying. Marginalism theory of demand by a consumer may have applications. But it's theory of production (Cobb-Douglas) is completely WRONG, since the main idea of all production functions is that capital and labour are interchangable which IS NOT TRUE in real life. Marginalism and neoclassical theories were designed by people who never held a shovel in their hands
R2rGangstaFC 1 year ago
Comment removed
arzoyan 1 year ago
Comment removed
arzoyan 1 year ago
It seems to me that someone needs to take a class or two in economics.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Education is a system of imposed ignorance
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights Well it depends. Oftentimes it isn't. Othertimes the ignorance really amounts to necessary salutory myths. So while it is "ignorance" this is beneficial in spite of itself. For example myths about the nation or religion lead to social cohesion and strengthen the society. Whereas dangerous truths (think like the situation with Harvey Dent/Two-Face on the Dark Knight) may be bad for the society as they sap it's strength. Economics however is too mathematically rigorous to be wrong.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
Most math in economics has no relation to reality--all grounded in wrong assumptions. It's accuracy is as irrelevant is as accurate calculations by someone who thinks the earth is flat
mr1001nights 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr1001nights Really? Why do it's predictions come true then? Economics is like a science. You can say that theory X in that field of science is wrong, but it makes no sense to say that the field itself is in some sense wrong. That would be a category error.
"It's accuracy is as irrelevant is as accurate calculations by someone who thinks the earth is flat"
Well except when those calculations can accurately predict things that come true.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
i guess that's the reason all economists accurately predicted a global recession
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@mr1001nights
Economic brain washing with mathematics is well suited to a society that believes that math discovers truth. Math is effective in unambiguity describing theory and even truth. However the truth must first be observed and then described mathematically.
gwynedd1 2 months ago
@mr1001nights You are an idiot (Mr1001timessuckingstalin's nipples) So go hide in a hole.
TehAlexJonesChannel 2 months ago
@mr1001nights
I would say education is the imposed illusion of knowledge which is unfortunately "indeterminately" worse.
gwynedd1 2 months ago
you also make it seem like there is some sort of agenda behind abstracting away from oligopoly to perfect competition. There isn't. It's a way to illustrate "perfect competition" so as to describe markets that are similar to it. Neo-Classical economics also addresses oligopoly. There is also surplus illustrated (consumer and producer surplus).
Other legit criticism is the efficient market hypothesis being bogus (and that's why not all Neo-Classicals adhere to it). Same for perfect information.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
prices are not necessary to understand marginal utility at all. Also, utility is ordinal. Even Neo-Classicals admit that these days. The good ones also see that businesses maximize benefits by using profit as a signal. The profit is valuable because it is a bid on resources, and that the cost incurred by entrepreneurs is opportunity cost.
There are some legit criticisms here though - like indifference curves being bogus.
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
if market outcomes are extremely uncertain, it's probably not a good time to be holding a lot of fed bank-notes, instead of commodities with use-value (AND the [uncertain] social-value of the paper)
I'm amazed you still don't understand the anti-union position.
The market is more than the sum of its parts.
FreiheitKampfer 1 year ago
LOL Buy an intro to ecno book, you have no idea wtf you are talking about
thanks for the laughs though.
spawktalk 1 year ago
labor theory of value is not realistic. you really have to strain badly to BELIEVE in it to be a Marxist. Can anyone tell me they actually find it to be true in a commercial society? I can't even upon basic reflection. It's so obviously not true that it's hard to understand why anyone would even bring it up anymore.
CNTloyalist 1 year ago
mr1001nights why did I spend three years at university and had to pay high rate fees for me to learn for free on youtbe what I was supposed to learn at uni?
What a a fantastic lecture, keep it up!
Carmencuchita 2 years ago
Because mr 1001 is a genius...This man is a legend in the making....
jeanpaulfelix 1 year ago
@jeanpaulfelix Hes only a genius among the economically illiterate.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863 and you are an economics professor I take it?
Catholicboy4life 1 year ago
@Catholicboy4life No, I have a masters in mathematical finance and I'm currently obtaining a PhD in complexity but I have taken 4 doctoral level courses in economics. If he had any actually intelligence, he would have used the criticisms that were brought up in the Cambridge capital controversy Nonetheless, it is only an argument against Neoclassical economics.
axe863 1 year ago
@Catholicboy4life Why is it that highly labor intense firms do not have the highest profits even though they have the concentration of exploitation? Why is it that systematic risk factors(include higher moments) explain over 90% of firms long run risk adjusted profit? OWNED
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
"Owned"??? That's like asking "why does a capitalist make more money when he substitutes workers for machines?" because he doesn't need to pay'em as much! duh LOL
mr1001nights 1 year ago
@mr1001nights So if a process consisted of purely automated production and it produced a profit (due to the systematic risk inherit in that investment) you would drop your belief.
Obvious Fyi, Machines arent costless... so I dont know why you're loling.
axe863 1 year ago
Which belief? Slave owners also took risks. That didn't justify their profit. If capitalists could substitute 99% of workers for machines (e.g. just keep workers that make and maintain/manage the machines) that'd create a lack of aggregate demand (no one would have a job to make money with which to buy anything) and would highlight even more starkly the elitist stupidity of capitalism & the need to replace wage labor with workers producing for themselves w/o capitalist parasites and other bosses
mr1001nights 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr1001nights Individual are averse to systematic fluctuations because it erodes the smoothing process (especially for individuals with habitual persistence). This is well founded in financial and economic theory. To engage in activities that contain systematic risk factors, the individual must be compensated. Finance 101
No one is forcing anyone to be someones employee. Do the evil capitalists put guns to their heads. Your comments lay testament to your economic illiteracy. Bye ;)
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Not a single person, no. Monopoly of resources is. The fact that half of them are owned by 1% of the population.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mr1001nights Yes and then no one would be able to buy their stuff and they would go broke, and the system would tend back towards some sort of equilibrium. Capitalism has built in mechanisms to sustain equilibrium.
"producing for themselves w/o capitalist parasites"
That is the most retarded phrase I have ever heard. Tell me, how the hell are we supposed to get rich without capitalism?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@mr1001nights You didnt explained why systematic risk factors explain such a high percentage of asset dynamics. .... and I know why. Its because you have no answer. Marx lived before this was discovered.... so he is excused. You on the other hand have no excuse for such ignorance.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
this is like hardcore christians that want you to show them where in the bible it says that Jesus and creationism aren't true
TheDummydude 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
Can't you notice this is a self fulfilling prophecy of financial math? You calculate risk and market prices/costs and make a business venture decision. That's like a bookie setting a 10% overround on all its bets. Statistics will show that he'll make close to 10% profits in the long run. So what?
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude
Lol... you think high school level math/stats = graduate level mathematics/ stats
I know Marx LTV math deals with really advanced fractions (epic lol) but come one
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Actually yes, statistics is the same, doesn't matter if it's on a black-scholes formula or a normal distribution, or the dumbest elementary school formula, it measures the likelihood of an outcome, doesn't matter how complicated you make it up to be.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
It only shows math is a beautiful thing. It just means you're good at math and the game is rigged on your favor and it shows in the stats. It has nothing to do with the fact that only labor creates value and buyers are only paying for value created by such labor.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
I just made an "investment". I'm getting a payback of $3.00 on a $1 bet with 50% probability. I've been doing this for a while and I'm actually winning money. What a surprise! This must be the foundation for an economic theory of labor and "risk" taking.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude The following is why youre stupid...
- You state a game in which you obtain a positive 3 $ with 50% probability with a 1$ bet ... well what if the other 50% was a loss of 40 million $. You have to include all probabilities and payoffs to make your statement even make sense.
- You fail to understand finance 101 distinctions between systematic, idiosyncratic and total risk.
You=Fail
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
No I didn't. The payoff is three dollars. 50% of the time you win $3. The other 50% you lose $1, the original bet (cost, investment). All probabilities and payoffs are stated in the original problem. We could try this game throwing a coin. Heads, I get $3. Tails, I give $1. You can be the bank making the payoffs. I dare you. It's a shame that even when you can crunch graduate level statistics, you fail to understand a simple problem like this.
You = Drunk on graduate level education.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
Lol .. I read it too quickly.. I know what a mean expectations is :P My point was that one cannot value a game merely on mean expectations.. they must also be ranked based on higher moments(vol, skew,kurtosis).
axe863 1 year ago
@TheDummydude FYI, you go into a game with an initial cost of $1. You would have to state that theres a 50% chance of 3$ payoff in additional to a 50% chance of a 0$ payoff. You cant just assume its zero and then claim victory by my confusion due to your incomplete statement. There are cases with an initial cost and a small probability of negative payoffs or non zero payoffs. Therefore, you fail.
axe863 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
Risk and profit margins have nothing to do with the FACT that only labor and nature create value. Profit IS labor arbitrage. You choose what to pay for a product based on your subjective valuation of it. But you're always paying for the transformation of natural resources done by labor. You don't care about how much labor or debt/risk went into the product. You only care about the final result created by labor. Put down your Bible and think for yourself for a while. OWNED.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude Is a bottle of water produce by the same producer at the same period of time (assume infinitesimal difference) of equal value to a man dying of dehydration as it is for one surrounded by natural spring water?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Where did the water come from? Is it patented in the USPTO? Why should you own the water and have the right to supply it to the best bidder, not necessarily to whoever needs it the most? If I surround the planet in a plastic bag, suck out all the air, and sell it back for a profit to those that don't want to die, is that fair? What math formula can you use to calculate descency?
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude I was using it as an example to demonstrate that validity of the concept of marginalism. I made no statement about morality.
axe863 1 year ago
@TheDummydude What gives you the right to redistribute wealth/ land which the owner has earned through self employment/cultivation?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Say it takes me 12 hrs. a day to "run" a company and it takes you 12 hrs. a day to assemble the products that I sell. You're the best worker, there's no way for the product to be assembled faster than you do it. The 12 hrs. in both cases (mine and yours) are necessary, otherwise, production/sales would stop. Also, there'll always be someone to replace any one of us in case of death. Why is my time as the owner more valuable than yours?
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
Utilitarianism takes for granted the way those resources came to be owned. In the not so distant past, I just walked around with an army or hopped on a boat, found some land, killed the people there and claimed the resources as my own. Now I can exchange with other people and if somebody wants to take from my resources, he'll have to sell his labor to me, for something I didn't create and got for free. If I were a feudal lord, I'd sure love current economics. I'd certainly promote it.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude So are you stating that after all reparations are completed... capitalism will be morally clean and good system? ;)
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
I'm saying let me kill some people and get some acres of land. Then I'll sell it for millions and create a bank. I'll become a neoclassical economist tomorrow.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude Im not a NC economist. Btw, I thought all value was determined by the labor incorporated into the object... so how would you structure the reparations ;)
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
By the way. I'm not an economist. I'm actually an engineer, but have taken a serious interest in economics, and I'm skeptical about a lot of mainstream thought. Problem: in the long run, natural resources/power eventually accumulate in a few hands. By law in communism/socialism. By destroying competition in free-market capitalism. People end up with no other choice but to subordinate to the family and friends of the first comers. This is not addresed in any system I've seen so far.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude When did I ever state that it would be a good idea for me to play that game? When have I stated that I believe in mainstream economics? Im basically an adherent of complexity economics.If you read some of my posts, you would see that Im not in line with the mainstream. Also, I'm more of a mathematician than an economicist ...so Im not exactly mathematically deficient.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
The equations and assumptions I've seen in mainstream economics don't take this reality into consideration and end-up promoting the status-quo. They'd make you believe that subordinating and selling your labor to support yourself AND a land/capital owner should be a natural state of things. I think there's something seriously fucked up with this notion. Current economics seems to help promote this line of thought. I don't agree with it.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude Do evolutionary processes favor some form of the status quo indefinitely?
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about darwinist survival of the fittest? Or how in the long run the only constant is change? I do see, that throughout civilized history, power and wealth have been concentrated in a few hands. It may be stupid trying to change this anytime soon. It's just frustrating most people don't even realize it, or care. We've always had a philosophy to justify this. First, it was religion. Now it's the capital, land and labor theory.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
I love disclaimers such as indefinitely, in the long run, "ceteris paribus" in economics and statistics. In the real world, all else is not equal. I can certainly go broke on an investment before statistics start regressing towards the mean. Like they say, in the long run, we're all dead. This doesn't seem comforting enough. The timescales of theory and reality are kind of misaligned.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDummydude "In the real world, all else is not equal" I didnt say it was. Why do you keep making these statements when Im only answering specific conditions of the matter at hand. Normal mathematics/stats fails miserably in its application to the CAS of the macro-economy.
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Also, I have no idea right now what the solution should be. I have a lot to read and think about. For now, my answer: "none of the above".
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude Also the way you worded it was so confusing. Lets say you have a $1 initial cost. With 50% probability you get a 3$ payoff. With 50% probability you get a 0$ payoff. The expected payoff is 0.5$ not 3 dollars :P
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Oh, come on man -:) Let's play this. Pick any random # generator on the internet that gives out 2 numbers: 0 and 1. If the number is 1, you give me $300. If it's zero, I'll give you $100. Let's do 100 iterations. Wanna play? -:)
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude lol of course I dont want to play that game...:P I would lose in the long run
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
First, kill people and appropiate land by force. Share with immediate family and friends. Whoever comes after you, has to subordinate to you and your family and friends. Then, make sure you promote a hierarchical belief system, either catholicism, communism, neoclassical economics, that justifies the ownership of resources and concentration of power in just a minority. Give people just enough to keep them complacent. Have some standby force to prevent them from revolting. Great system!
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@TheDummydude Class mobility is highest in free market capitalist countries ... so whats your point :P
axe863 1 year ago
@axe863
Yeah, so is inequality. It's a numbers game. Stats. Cheap labor from desperate overabundant workers is a great thing. How many people can you fit at the top of a pyramid? Do the top 1% work that much harder? I dont't think they do, as much as they may like to think. They do have the advantage of accumulated capital/wealth. How do you compete with that as a newcomer into the game? How do you prevent this "snowball effect" due to economies of scale and eventual monopoly of wealth?
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
How is this gradual movement towards monopoly of resources taken into account in economic equations? Or maybe we have to adjust reality to the assumptions of fair competition, equal information and free market mechanisms in the mathematical formulas.
TheDummydude 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@axe863
he's only dumb amongst brainwashed sheeps
TheDummydude 1 year ago
@jeanpaulfelix Spot on!!
Carmencuchita 1 year ago
@Carmencuchita Where did you learn economics... in your parents' basement?
axe863 1 year ago
Comment removed
Carmencuchita 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axe863 I am entitled to my own opinion and to support whatever views I considered conform with mine without being undermined!
My comment regarding Mr 1001Nights video clip responded to his well detailed explanations on Economics and yes, I found it easy to understand, profound and refreshing at the same time. I challenge you to produce some quality work like this one to prove me that you did not learn economics at a 'basement' but in a top university!!
I'll be waiting...
Carmencuchita 1 year ago
@Carmencuchita @Carmencuchita Anyone who subscribes to an individual who supports LTV is economically illiterate. I would not produce this kind of video because Im busy studying, I don't want to reveal my identity and Im nowhere near this much of a smug individual. There are so many fallacies in this video where to begin.His taxation argument presumes that wealth is not dynamic .. lol. He states that price in value theory is circular when in fact it is emergent. Indifference curves are...
axe863 1 year ago
@Carmencuchita Indifference curves are a good approximation of human behavior because it incorporates diminishing marginal value and demonstrates the tendency of individuals to prefer diversity of goods in the sub-period. These both make logical sense. If Individuals of unique characteristics approximate these curves with a random error (individuals are weakly heterogeneous,not highly clustered, error is weakly correlated w/ finite moments)... the theory will converge to "truth" very quickly.
axe863 1 year ago
Lol much this video could have come out of an Austrians mouth.
Malthus0 2 years ago
mr1001nights, i have watched a few of your videos and i agree with a lot of it.
one thing, in this video you indicated a transition from labor/use value into utilities to determine prices. albeit true that there has been a transition of in the schooling in this regard, the fundamentals you may have misrepresented. in current economics, marginal cost=supply, and demand=epsilon utilities. supply and demand combine to form price, never one or the other. keep up the good work, companero
raindog504 2 years ago
sorry, i have to say this - WORKERS OF ALL LANDS, UNITE!
DestroyerAlexandros 2 years ago
wow, that was a good cheeseburger, must have been a well fed cow! any other suggestions?
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
from an objective position, does it really seem probable that the entire "science" of economics has been tailored to suit the needs of a particular social class? it seems unlikely.
anyways, on the topic of skepticism, track down the nearest physics professor and ask them where electric charge comes from. why don't we lambast modern physics for its empirical shortcomings? know why mr1001nights, because its really useful. so is economic theory.
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
What's unlikely, is to find someone who doesnt understand that whoever pays the piper calls the tune...oh, and trying to equate physics and economics, that's the REAL shortcoming. I''m not surprised, however. Other pseudo-scientific fields, like creationism, use the same tactics
mr1001nights 2 years ago
you truly have a gift of self-expression, but your salvo of cliches and dismissive sentiments do not fortify an aimless reply. i will try and refocus the dialogue with a question. as you accurately point out, the real world, which is not infinitely large, would suggest a demand function that is not continuous. with what mathematical tool can you reconcile this discrepancy?
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
in other words, economic MODELS attempt to approximate human behavior. seemingly, they do this well. is it reasonable to discount the useful contributions of economics because complex systems cannot be perfectly understood? we don't do this with thermodynamics, why is it appropriate with economics?
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
economic models seek to justify the current elite system, not reveal a real picture of economics. Read Steve Keen's Debunking Economics
mr1001nights 2 years ago
you have to be kidding me?! these models are some of the greatest achievements in human rationality. how these insights are understood and applied is a different story. on a different note, if you don't mind me asking, are you an anarchist or communist?
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
rational undertakings in an irrational framework. A bit like the Jesuits which make all kinds of complicated ingeniously rational proposals regarding something that doesn't exist. Have you read Steve Keen's Debunking Economics?
mr1001nights 2 years ago
there is no contention over the consistency of foundational economic concepts. what is being disputed is how well the theory jives with the reality. lets try again, they are MODELS. economic models like supply and demand don't actually exist, but they are algorithms that explain dynamic interactions very well. decision-making is determined by neuronal sequencing patterns, not by graphs floating in one's head. anyone who claims more have alot in common with the jesuits -- wistful sycophants.
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
as biologists and neuroscientists have begun to systematically model the mind, decision sciences are going to be fascinating to study in ones free time.
as for keen, a local library does have a copy available. i will give it a look over. and as for my recommendation, watch michael shermer's evolutionary economics 4 pt. series on youtube.
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
keen doesnt even understand the concept of price discovery...
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Since all communists seek a classless society, and since they believe that the state is an instrument of class oppression, they therefore desire a stateless society. Thus, all communists are ultimately anarchists; though the reverse is not necessarily true (but very often is, since stretching anarchist principles to their limit often leads one to communism).
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
you are the one trying to justify the current elite system.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Also, you should read Steve Keen. Marginalism, indifference curves & neoclassical economics more generally have been thoroughly debunked. You talk about Darwin, but neoclassical economics is like creationism.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
i know enough about steve keen to not want to waste time reading one of his books. if you read human action and i'll read any 2 books you suggest. i am not a neo-classical, my own critique of the neo-classical school is what inspired me to learn economics further than most people do. but i do agree with keen about certain things like debt being bad for an economy but i think his dependance on debt to gdp ratio is a dependance on a flawed neo-classical statistic that isnt of much use to me.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
how juvenile of you to turn my comparison of you to a creationist around on me! it stands to reason that if people like you (the pop intellectual) have come to understand evolution 150 years after darwin then you should be ready for the theory of marginal utility sometime soon. is it a coincidence that marx wrote capitol in the 20 years between evolution and marginal utility? you are right at the same point marx was at... 140 YEARS AGO! maybe in 100 years you'll understand game theory!! awesome!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Marginalists are to Marx what Catholics are to Darwin: they accept as much of an explanation as possible without undermining their ideology.
Catholics are forced to reject those aspects of evolution that undermine God; Marginalists are forced to reject those aspects of economics that undermine Capital.
Marginal utility doesn't counter Marx; it's subsumed by him. He goes on to explain economics beyond marginal utility; but his explanations undermine capitalist ideology so they must be rejected.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
no i dont think so, good try though. marxists are to ecomomic arguments what creationists are to evolutionary arguments. the state is your god. darwin is not on your side on this one, no matter how you try to paint the picture. darwin believed in the emergence of order, so do austrians(marginalists). and.. ur done.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Marx's critique of political economy is sound, no matter how red-faced you Austrianites get while trying to shout him down. I can (and do) accept those aspects of Marx that can be separated from statecraft.
I accept neither gods nor masters; I am an anarchist.
Marginal utility is included in Marx. The Austrianites reject his further elaborations because he goes on to undermine their neo-feudalist ideology.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
do you realize how stupid you sound when you say austrianites??? oh, so youre an anarchist, that sounds like a voluntary system where there is no state! is it voluntary??
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
I refuse to besmirch the Austrian people by using "Austrians" to mean "adherents to the economic ideology of Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al." Thus, I call them "Austrianists" when feeling polite, or "Austrianites" when not. I also sometimes call them "Misesians," since he's generally considered their leading soothsayer.
Anarchism entails far more than mere opposition to the state, although that's certainly a major aspect of it, yes. And yes, genuine anarchism is voluntary.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
ok so if i own property i can continue to own it, right??? it is..... voluntary, right???
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
I'm not sure how that connects. At any rate, it's not that simple.
How did you acquire your property? As a capitalist, exploiting wage laborers for their surplus? or by working to produce it for yourself?
How do you continue to "own" it? By threat of violence under color of law? or by agreement with those you exclude from it?
Saying "I own property" doesn't convey enough information. Calling it "voluntary" doesn't mean much, if alternatives are limited or non-existent (as under capitalism).
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
ahahahah. and THAT is why you are a joke. people DO own property RIGHT NOW so if you think youre going to take it from them then it is NOT voluntary. youre not smart, no more arguing with me.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
You appear to have completely ignored (or, more likely, failed to comprehend) my comment. I directly addressed the fact that people currently "own property": by questioning it's legitimacy, which isn't simply a given (as you seem to believe).
Feudal monarchs used to "own" entire countries; you apparently would have opposed the revolutions that toppled monarchism and led to capitalism. Looks like you're in a bit of a pickle, smart guy!
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
the question was, "is it voluntary" and you said yes, are property owners going to voluntarily give up their property because you decided it wasnt legitimate?? no, so you still havent explained how it is voluntary. monarchies owned land in the same way that the state owns all the land now and the fact that you think capitalism and monarchism are mutually exclusive terms demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the terms.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
You're still not getting it (or you're evading): just because I have a piece of paper, backed up by threat of violence, which says that I "own" a chunk of matter, doesn't mean that my "property" is justly acquired.
A mobster might "acquire" a nightclub by making the proprietor an offer he can't refuse, but that's illegitimate (and analogous to "primitive accumulation").
You've trapped yourself into siding with the mobster when the proprietor comes to expropriate the nightclub.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
No, Marx's critique of political economy is not sound. Look up the "Transformation Problem." And don't waste my time with the ad-hoc arguments of "Physicalism" and "Simultaneism." The latter of the two is based on a strawman, BTW. Marginal utility is not included in Marx. Prove me wrong on this one. Ricardian, Smithian, and Marxian notions of "use value" are not the same as marginal utility in a Jenonsian, Mengerian, or Walrassian context.
IIKruZerII 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*Jevonsian
- typo.
IIKruZerII 2 years ago
Incidentally Keen's "debunking" of the Marxian interpretation of the LTV is flawed. I'm a fan of Keen for his apparently sound debunking those things you mentioned; but he's guilty of fetishism in his reworking of the LTV to include commodities themselves - inert though they are, without labor to animate them - as the joint creators of value, alongside labor. I can't remember if it's in his book, but he's published papers on the subject, which call into question whether he understands fetishism.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Or, just watch the video on my channel, and keep repeating to yourself: "all economic activity is the result of human activity, i.e., labor." That should help you to understand that any economic model that seeks to diminish labor in the face of capital & land (or, rather, their personifications), is a tool of elite interests, as mr1001nights said.
AntiCapitalistPig 2 years ago
true, all things are created by labor, but all labor is not valued the same. in other words, it may be more productive to utilize labor to make technology that replaces less efficient laborers. because that technology is made with "x" man-hours does not mean its value is directly related to those man-hours. in short, the value of the technology is related to those workers it replaced.
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
so are those different elite interests than the ones that run the state??
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
hmmm...unwieldy and dense. this sort of orating ostracism can only be bested by a michael richards stand up routine.
that aside, two thoughts. first, the neoclassical assumptions that model economic behavior, which you criticize as inadequate, are necessary to provide rigorous, mathematical conclusions which you claim do not accurately capture reality. in this respect, your line of argumentation seems empty.
secondly, what's with the conspiratorial tone?
totallyshamanistic 2 years ago
sure, and the bible passages are necessary to show there's a god. Whoever claims otherwise uses "empty" lines of argumentation...lol
mr1001nights 2 years ago
his whole head is empty, as evidenced by his reply to your comment! what a douche! i wonder if he realizes that darwin would tell him he's a moron for his economic beliefs? he probably doesnt realize that reading adam smith was what inspired darwins "spontaneous order" the guy that made this video doesnt understand that order emerges from free and voluntary human action, not coersion.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Capitalism's "work for a boss or else" ain't voluntary. But it's not surprising the capitalists have convince you that the only alternative to their rule is the Gulag. All oppressors justify their rule by presenting false dichotomies. Self-management is essential for liberty. A person who doesn't control his productive life doesn't control his destiny. Adam Smith opposed capitalists, inequality & division of labor. he favored markets because he (mistakenly) believed they led to perfect equality
mr1001nights 2 years ago
you act like substistence farming never existed but it even still exists now and eventually those people will CHOOSE to work for a boss because they see it as better than what they have now. under conditions of perfect liberty, free markets lead to perfect equality. that is not a mistake, you are just not in favor of conditions of perfect liberty. the state is your god. anytime a problem gets too big for you to understand, you call on your god for a solution.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
If I'm being stretched on a medieval rack, and the man in the hood offers me a chance to "rest" in the iron maiden, I'm going to CHOOSE to accept his offer. Does that justify shutting people in spiked boxes?
"under conditions of perfect liberty, free markets lead to perfect equality"
*giggle* Stop that, tee-hee! I'm talking about torture and you're making me laugh! It's inappropriate, like your religious adherence to an invisible hand as an instrument to increase social welfare.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
what a fucking joke you are. youre so spoiled rotten with your post-industrial revolution existence that you compare anyone in a pre-industrial revolution existence to someone being tortured. you should probably spend more of your time on africatube so you can explain to them that they are all being tortured. Ive got 1 last word for you and this is gonna be it for us...... here it is.... are you ready??? hide your eyes........ FREEDOM!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
I didn't compare anything to anything, you fool; I was demonstrating the flaw of your reasoning.
Preemptively announcing your intention to depart the field of battle is a sign of cowardice. I knocked you from your horse long ago; since then you've been frantically scanning the treeline for an escape route, flailing blindly with insults and ALL CAPS.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
so do you support the states right to genetically modify all babies in utero, by force if necessary, once the technology becomes available to make humans better or more useful to the state in some way?? i seriously wonder this about people like you...
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
He's an anarchist, you damned fool.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
haha, is this guy serious??
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Austrians don't use demand curves conceptually, not actually. It's just a simplification. Same with Hayek's triangles of capital formation.
There is no perfect knowledge. We agree there.
Capital is also exploited by workers due to democracy. Exploitation is wrong both ways.
podrag 2 years ago
It is circular because price-setting is iterative. What you call usury is the time value of money, what you call rent is allocation of reources and what you call profits is also allocation of resources.
All sciences are revised as understanding is increased.
For goodness sake.
Taxation is the initiation of violence. If you care so much then go do some work and be charitable.
Economics isn't really a science because the economy cannot be known in totality and neither can society.
podrag 2 years ago
Chomsky is of course an excellent linguistics professor.
1401JSC 2 years ago
Snide remarks may seem convincing in criticising systems (your clip titles are mostly "against", "anti", "refuting"....)
This is only a semblance of reasoning however.
Please stop telling us what's wrong with social and economic systems without elaborating new models or demonstrating which are the existing systems which are working well.
Negativism is so depressing!!
You were a very cute dancer. Don't you sometimes wish you had continued as an artist?
1401JSC 2 years ago
Actually, I & other critics of the system have offered plenty of alternatives involving democratic control of economic systems. The reason why u say we don't is because they challenge elite power and highlight our complicity in a destructive and unethical system. This is directly tied to your next comment. People in power would prefer that people like me had stayed as "cute dancers". It is not surprising that you would take their position on all these matters. Confronting power is harder.
mr1001nights 2 years ago
I am certainly not in a position of Power!
Democracy (voice of the people) has its limits. The first election of George W and the Maastricht referendum and European Constitution votes (50/50) show that the people actually don't really know the issues and are certainly not experts.
That's why we need elected representatives to speak for us and experts to advise them.
The press does a better job of confronting power in the States than in France.
Cute was a compliment. :)
1401JSC 2 years ago
"The press does a better job of confronting power in the States than in France."
Be that as it may (with stress on *may*, since I don't believe it), the corporate press is inherently biased in favor of capitalism, and capitalists hold the power, so beggars belief to suggest that the press is out there doing its ostensible duty as exposing power to sunlight.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
So Capitalism and Liberalism are wrong and Communism has failed. Spanish Anarchy (Catalogne in the 1930s) didn't last long (Civil war...).
What exactly are the socialo-financial precepts which will save our nations?
{Banks may have encouraged overborrowing, but lots of citizens just lept on the bandwagon gratefully!
Bravo, citizens!}
1401JSC 2 years ago
Sorry but I'm afraid your comment is too scattered for me to make sense of.
I'll simply note that communism has never existed, at least not in the Marxist form, as claimed. What is described as "communism" are those states (and already we've got an oxymoron) which called themselves socialist (falsely), and were governed by political parties that were ostensibly striving toward a future communist society.
Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism, etc., have failed; but anarcho-communists don't advocate those.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Anarchy: organisation without authority.
Are you advocating no courts of justice?
Communism: pool resources and labour? In the whole world? Revolution? Rarely are revolutionaries able to state clearly what they want; onlmy what they don't want!
What do you want? How should we achieve it?
Marxisme never applied: it must be that it isn't parcicable (150 years of thought and we still haven't applied its principles!)
Who indoctrinated you & mr1001nights?
1401JSC 2 years ago
Again, I find your comments too bizarre to follow, and I don't see how they're relevant to my comment about the press. But I'll try to make the most of it...
My indoctrination by the capitalist state began at birth and has taken a lifetime to begin to reverse, a process which will likely never be completed and which is continuously undermined by ongoing propaganda.
What about you?
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
My upbringing did not indoctrinate me as far as I know.
The important thing is to ask frequently the questions "HOW?" and "WHY?".
You certainly don't answer them!
"Comments too bizarre" and "comment too scattered" are oratorical devices appartaining to the ad hominem (personal attack, falsely based) argument and have no weight in a serious discussion.
1401JSC 2 years ago
Of course you were indoctrinated, unless you raised yourself, in a cave.
I'm not trying to dodge anything or attack you. I sincerely find it difficult to follow your line of thinking.
I don't have a blueprint for Utopia. Sorry. I take my method from Chomsky (the method, not necessarily the conclusions he draws from it): demand that authoritarian institutions justify themselves; if they can't, then oppose them. This leads me to something resembling anarchist-communism. That's all I can give you
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Are y-ou giving us your opinion or staing absolute truth?
> Of course you were indoctrinated
INDOCTRINATE (Collins): To teach a person or group of people SYSTEMATICALLY to accept doctrines UNCRITICALLY.
I think my "how" and "why" avoid this.
You do not.
1401JSC 2 years ago
I'm not aware of any absolute truths. But I'm also not aware of any society that teaches people to be critical of all its unstated premises. Most of them go unquestioned or even unnoticed.
Have you taken note of everything under the sun and questioned it all? If so, then you must have arrived at the absolute truth by process of elimination. Please share it! ;-)
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
...The proof that your "awareness" is flawed.
1401JSC 2 years ago
Which part constitutes such proof? That I'm unaware of absolute truths? Then by all means, share them with me!
Or that I'm unaware of a perfectly self-critical society? Then I beg of you, point me to this Utopia!
Spread your wisdom, oh Great One!
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Dr Johnson said
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
It only shows that you have nothing to say besides criticising.
Flawed.
1401JSC 2 years ago
I'm having fun. Why are you being so hostile?
I could note your flaws as well, such as your pointing out my flaws rather than answering my questions.
I invite you to go back over our exchange and discover which of us evidently has nothing of value to say. You're quick to dig into your grab bag for the means to evade, but not at following through on the implications of your own words.
If my awareness is flawed for not recognizing absolute truth, as you say, then correct it.
Or hush.
NamelessCommenter 2 years ago
Remind me of the definition of a Troll...
1401JSC 2 years ago
At best, marginal utility holds true for stock market or auction situations.
Value depends on utility, but utility is just whatever gives value. That is, "utility" refers to the assemblage of unknown conditions which establish the phenomenon (value), and then the phenomenon is held to depend on what "utility" stands for.
And yes, ordinal utility is unable to say that redistribution decreases social utility and thus cannot claim that increased taxation is bad. Oh dear!
barrymarshall 2 years ago
Wonderful. I wish more people understood exactly how economics works. Unfortunately, its almost impossible to understand. I have tried to create my own videos explaining some of the basic concepts. Im pretty sure they would agree with much of your analysis. Thanks for the video, man.
TheLeftLibertarian 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Again, this argument ignores the parasitic usurer who lends capital to business.
Without the parasite, you have an incomplete picture of true costs and the behavior of money creation itself.
Classic Marxist nonsense.
DarthKazi 2 years ago
I like the clarity of your exposition and have posted this on my Political Economy site
nickglais 2 years ago
I have a ton of questions on the value debate, but that aside..
6:00
I don't know which 'neoclassical' you're critiquing here, but that is a point that Austrian-econ individualists make against keynsian macro-econ collectivists.
Could you request a debate with stefbot?
I have a hunch that: That would settle the theory debates..
~An-Cap
FreiheitKampfer 2 years ago
The Neoclassicals and Austrians have mostly the same framework and adherence to nonsense like marginalism. kensyan theory explains capitalism more realistically
mr1001nights 2 years ago
Which works from the marginal revolution have you read?
I don't think you can say Keynesian theory explains capitalism more realistically than the Austrians, whose distinguishing factor from other schools is an actual theory of capital as opposed to a homogeneous mush found in others.
Saying that Keynesian theory explains capitalism better is impressive because you must've found the solutions to the unsettled debates in macroeconomics. Is the correctness scale Marxism>Keynesian>Austrian?
antigonish3 2 years ago
Comment removed
KruZer7 2 years ago
too bad it failed miserably... if marx would have waited 5 years to write capital until after the theory of marginal utility was published he would have NEVER come to the silly conclusions he came to and people like you wouldnt exist!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Comment removed
ithinkronpaulissmart 2 years ago
The Infoshop FAQ is pretty good. I also recommend 'Studies in Mutualist Politcal Economy' by Kevin Carson. You can find it online at mutualist(dot)org
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
In addition, the mathematical formalism of Neoclassical economic theory borrows from Newton's laws of physics which predicts a perfectly deterministic universe. It has been shown over and over again, most notably by quantum mechanics that the universe is nothing at all like Newton imagined it to be, i.e., it's very far from deterministic. It should come as no surprise then that the outcomes predicted by neoclassical theory has nothing in common with reality.
wdednam 2 years ago
Well, there's also the fact that Newton's mechanics are only useful for describing the motion of a very small number of bodies. If a formalism were to be borrowed from physics, something resembling statistical mechanics would be more appropriate. Hell, Monte Carlo simulations can be used to describe social networks to some success--so why don't economists adopt stochastic modeling? (Or, if a few already have, why don't more?)
schrodingasdawg 2 years ago
"so why don't economists adopt stochastic modeling?" They're probably too scared that they wouldn't be able to make any meaningful predictions.
wdednam 2 years ago
Actually, Ive been giving this quite a bit of thought. Since a lot of the economic models are based on a theory of 'rational expectations' and our decision making, and thought processes in general, are microscopic and electrochemical in nature, which is firmly in quantum territory, economists should have to use the mathematical formalism of quantum statistics as a starting point for their 'theories'. Good luck to them with that one!
wdednam 2 years ago
You wouldn't base an economic model on quantum mechanical models for the same reason you wouldn't base population dynamics models or any other social network model on QM. At every step of the process, the model is in a definite classical state because it's physically possible (even if not practically realizable) that all of the variables at the relevant level can be known.
Also, collective dynamics can describe the (macro)state of a system fine. All (micro)states of the components just need..
schrodingasdawg 2 years ago
...to be averaged over in some way. For an analogy from statistical mechanics, the volume, pressure, Hemholtz free energy, temperature, and entropy can all be known for an assembly of particles, even though the momentum, energy, spin, etc. of an individual particle cannot be practicably predicted. (Nor be predicted even in principle for Fermi or Bose gases, but in classical systems (Boltzmann gases) it's just not practicable.)
schrodingasdawg 2 years ago
So, I get to the point I was originally trying to make. If we were looking for a starting point to understand the inner workings of the mind of an individual, to eventually "understand" decisions, wouldn't quantum statistics be the appropriate place to start just like it is for more realistic models of the solid state? Of course, this will be an extremely difficult task, but aren't mental processes governed by quantum mechanics due to their being microscopic and electrochemical in nature?
wdednam 2 years ago