Lol

You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest. — counterpunch

Psychopath

resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical. — ssu

Stop being stupid and I'll stop belittling you. Very simple.

Predictable I suppose. If anything, McConnel is a smart politician with a clear ethical view that the end justifies the means. — Benkei

There's been a lot of corporate backlash, the donor base isn't happy and McConnell can see where the wind is blowing

So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al). — ssu

Marx's labor theory of value is nonetheless distinct and refined from Ricardo's and Smith's definition, and the original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking.

Ellen Meiksins Wood - Citizens to Lords: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages — StreetlightX

Starting this too

The way I see it, It's basically a critique of the theories of Ricardo. — ssu

????? We are talking about Marx

but likely he or she would simply ask what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The fact is thatbuyer hardly is interested on how much work was put into finding the diamond. The diamond has subjective value to the buyer(s), either he might be looking for diamonds used by industry or interested in it as a luxury item or an eccentric store of wealth. This value has nothing to do with the amount of work put into mining the diamond (or the luck finding of it). — ssu

Here you go again, ignoring previous posts of mine and conflating price and value.

making this economic model using just the supply side costs and labour doesn't catch many important aspects. — ssu

This is incredible, do you have the memory of a fly? I explained how this isn't the case 6 hours ago. Once again you and I go around in circles because you are either unable to understand what is being said, or you are simply refusing to do so because you can't admit you're wrong.

Great, seems that you've found to copy paste the crucial part from Marx (I remember one Lizard brain berating me on an internet quote, but anyway). — ssu

No, I actually pulled this quote because I actually read Grundrisse, and the quote shows how Menger misreads Marx. Your Menger quote can be found in the Wikipedia entry for
"Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value", which is safe to say the farthest you have read up on the subject.

Yet a change in demand can perfectly happen without any link to the cost of production. This is modelled in neoclassical economics as simply the demand curve moving. (And that is btw was the Menger's point: if a diamond is just picked up by accident by a passer by (with no work) or is found after a large diamond mine operates for ages (with a huge amount of work), the price of the diamond is the same). — ssu

It's hilarious how you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You can't help but speak in the most vacuous and vague terms because you don't know enough to go beyond it. You say a change in demand is modelled in neoclassic economics by "the demand curve moving". So when the demand changes the demand curve changes?! Wow! Holy shit Marx defeated.

Otherwise, Menger's diamond example fallaciously attempts to conflate an explicitly non-capitalist exchange with a capitalist one, whereas Marx is only interested in analyzing the latter and the value creating process within it. As I explained, price and value are two distinct technical terms for Marx. It's no different than the asinine "mud pie" argument.

Let's say that two people, one a capitalist who owns a mining operation and the another, a non-capitalist, have in their possession each one identical raw diamond. The capitalist extracted the raw diamond from his mining operation using wage labor and machinery, while the non-capitalist just happened to stumble upon it. Now both go into the market to sell. The non-capitalist does not have a price floor because there was no cost in extracting the diamond for him. He can sell for a $1 and therefore profits $1. However, capitalist does have a floor price because there is a cost to the extraction process. In this one instance of a competitive transaction, the non-capitalist can therefore undersell the capitalist, but then what? He can't create any additional demand, he doesn't have a mining operation to continue to extract raw diamonds. He created one instance of demand which was concluded at point of sale. That's it! But the capitalist, while not making a sale in this one instance, can continue putting raw diamonds up in the marketplace and finding demand (safe to assume non-capitalists aren't continuing to randomly come across raw diamonds on the ground) because she has a mode of production in place that can continue this process. But Marx isn't talking about the non-capitalist sale and he doesn't need to because he's analyzing the supply and demand in a capitalist economy which requires taking cost of production into account when determining price.

I guess the price of milk or the price natural resource is quite well known to you. One dairy or mine will likely not alter the price so much. What you refer (if I understand again correctly) would be true in a product that has never been on the market, I guess. That is the case very seldom. — ssu

I'm just going to quote and bold what I already said, "And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product."

Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this. — ssu

I didn't say Say's Law, I said supply and demand.

Which doesn't take into the account of demand in the equation. — ssu

Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation — ssu

The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works. — ssu

Holy shit, did every single word I wrote go over your head? Are you illiterate? Should I bold every crucial line I write to ensure it gets your full attention and cross my fingers in the hopes that it's absorbed into your reptile brain where it has a chance to settle?

The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand

Does this help? Can you better understand now? The "Marxian Model" isn't the cost of production tout court. The pricing via the market mechanism i.e. consumer demand is explicit in his analysis, it is "part of the equation" as you so demand it be. On the contrary, it is Menger's analysis that is one-sided by focusing exclusively on the consumer perspective and not the fact that the capitalist has a minimum price floor, otherwise there is no profit. The former, per Menger, can ignore the productive origins of the commodity, but the latter, per Marx, can't.

If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place. — ssu

Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale. This requires that the wage labors have already been hired and have done the work and need to be compensated, the machines have been bought the land rented etc. and everything has been put into use. The capitalist doesn't have otherworldly foresight into what the general population within a market is going to purchase and what they are willing to spend. And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product.

If by applause you mean agreement, then yes, that is what I'm waiting for. But all I've met with is disagreement - some of it, quite vitriolic. In part, I believe that's because I don't subscribe to the 'limits to growth' approach to sustainability - promoted by the left as an anti-capitalist trojan horse.

In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.

I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it. — counterpunch

Leftists are trying to stop me from having sex with my own brain, but I won't let them.

The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. — ssu

Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something. — ssu

Are you not aware of Marx's writings on supply and demand? It's covered quite extensively in the Grundrisse and Capital (which I would hope you would have read before jumping into criticisms of Marx). Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) and which was further criticized by non-Marxists as well, decades after Marx (e.g. Keynes).

I'm baffled by the Menger quote you cite as it includes sloppy misreadings of Marx. Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society, which isn't synonymous with "large quantities" of labor as Menger writes. No where in the quote provided does Menger grapple with Marx's definition on his own terms. It's unclear if Menger does so elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if you just googled "Criticism of Labor Theory of Value", and copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry.

Menger also confuses Marx's definition of value as conflating with a definition of price, whereas Marx is very careful to separate the two and that there are of course deviations between the two. But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. The capitalist who requires and gathers all this, for producing her commodity, needs to take these costs into account when positing or determining the market price of her commodity. The capitalist ideally wants to keep the price high, in order to maximize their profit rate, but Menger's generalized consumer can simply choose not to buy if the price exceeds their use value, and the capitalist can adjust the price lower, accordingly. However, if the price is too low then the capitalist at best makes no profit (in which case, why enter production at all), and at worst she loses money due to these productive costs. As Marx writes in the Grundrisse (chapter 2):

The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand.

And if Menger's consumer still doesn't accept the asking price, if no consumer accepts the price, then we have an economic crisis, a crisis of overproduction/under consumption.

Summarily, this is the subterfuge behind bourgeois economists; hiding the details of production, including the labor force and it's struggles, behind a veil in order to direct attention to supply and demand in the marketplace and away from labor concerns.

All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. — BitconnectCarlos

That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap.

SSU says things like Marx has been proven wrong because supply and demand explain the economy better and yet thinks he must be taken seriously.

The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange, Kōjin Karatani — 180 Proof

Sounds interesting!

Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing!

Listen, Google "Breitbart Black Lives Matter" and you'll see why it's not so "peaceful" I'm a philosopher

Lol this guy is dumb as shit

Intolerance is me not explaining something to Brett

Antifa did fuck his girlfiend

A self proclaimed philosopher calling Wittgenstein incomprehensible

I'm a philosopher — counterpunch

Absolutely, and I'm Wittgenstein

Just racist enough to ignore disproportionate injustice then

Besides the identity politics I had no problem with the anti-police protests, many of which were justified, — NOS4A2

I agree. I have no problem with protesting the systemic police brutalization and harassment of Black Americans, but once you add identity politics to the mix, count me out!

We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy — ssu

What

Seems to me that 21st century society is facing 19th century problems while using antiquated 20th century economics as a solution.

Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are — ssu

their views are quite antiquated as the economy and the society has moved on from the 19th Century — ssu

:ok:

He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc. — Outlander

It is true that Christ was born in a manger, but if you read The Bible carefully, particularly what Jesus says, it is clear he is very pro-capitalism.

This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left. Of course, the further left see anyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing so people get called right-wing all the time but not really. — Judaka

This is why we need to bring serious right wing discussion into these forums!

To all my fellow right wingers who have migrated from Parler because Big Brother/Big Tech Google and Apple have eliminated Parler from their webstores (Orwell actually touched on this in 1984, but that's for another thread), let me be the first to say: welcome to our new home.

I am looking forward to having a serious discussion on issues that touch on the very core of what it means to be right wing today, including our fundamental beliefs and the worldview with which we understand reality.

Let's get right down to it, contemporary right wing philosophy. The first question I will pose is: Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ? Or, does Christ merely work through him in order to lay the groundwork for his Glorious Return?

I bet he cried

Imagine a forum without right wingers

A failed attempt at a putsch - certianly more so than a coup or 'insurrection' - is, I think, probably the most appropriate way to speak of it. — StreetlightX

Gotta hand it to the Trumpists, not even Hitler was able to get into the Ministry

Like you said, lowest hanging fruit. — NOS4A2

Yeah if thinking that a guy who often hung out with infamous pedophile Jeffery Epstein was taking his pants off in front of a young woman is "low-hanging fruit" to you, I'll happily take it over believing that a covert leftwing operation disguised Antifa as rabid Trump supporters in order to overtake the capital building so as to make Trump and actual supporters look bad along with all the other absurdities that have filled the empty cup you have for a brain in the last 4 years.

Fair enough. But remember, you fell for a Borat stunt. — NOS4A2

Yes, I mistook a video of Rudy Giuliana lying in bed to tuck his shirt into his pants for something more lewd, and you believed that an overt pro-Trump mob who overtook Congress yesterday was actually comprised of leftwing false operatives to make Trump supporters look bad.

I wouldn’t doubt it.

The police let them in, they got their photo-op of “democracy under attack”, killed a veteran, and dipped — NOS4A2

Literally the lowest possible hanging fruit. Not even hanging just sitting there rotting on the ground.

It's fairly handy to have someone seemingly earnestly trot out les memes du jour, especially since this is a mostly left-leaning forum. Becoming familiar with right-wing arguments, and deploying/refining them in legitimate rhetorical standoffs, is really the best way to develop persuasive power over those that accept them in the wild.

As sad as this might sound, Nos is pretty much representative of the bleeding edge of republican rhetoric. Whatever he deploys here is exactly the kind of thing that we are likely to see republican echo chambers reflect. He gets a chance to test and refine his shtick, and we get the chance to map and neutralize it (if only for ourselves). — VagabondSpectre

This fundamentally misunderstands NOS and far right-wingers in general!

Every respectable place needs a resident jester. — Michael

In all seriousness I don't know what that's supposed to mean. He's a batshit goon and he adds no value to any conversation because his fundamental characteristic is that he's a dishonest interlocutor. He has the demeanor of a troll without the intelligence.

Still don't understand the rationale of having a user on this site who repeatedly cites and parrots nefarious lies of radical rightwing publications, and then acts like he never believed in it to begin with when he's called out on it, or just ignores it entirely and moves on to the next fabrication to waste everyone's time with.

Yeah, it seemed too suspicious. Fake news. — NOS4A2

I wouldn’t doubt it.

The police let them in, they got their photo-op of “democracy under attack”, killed a veteran, and dipped — NOS4A2

????????????

Just ban the guy!