/econ/ General

Econ General. Discuss economics here.

Okay, so I've been making my way through volume 1 of Capital and I've been trying to understand the concept of simple and complex labour and how the SNLT of complex labour is determined.

This is my understanding, tell me if I got it right. For my example I will use an engineer.

The Breakdown of Complex to Simple Labour

A man goes to a university to become an engineer. The university determines the amount of labour time necessary to train the engineer and he exchanges for it money, the monetary expression of labour. Say it cost 4 years to train him and $40,000. After the first year, $10,000 of value has been transferred from the university to the engineer, the second $20,000 etc. It's in this sense that after the 4 years, the $40,000 is imbedded in the engineer as a form of constant capital.

Now the engineer goes to the market to sell his labour. Whereas with machines depreciation is a matter of physical wear and tear (how many operations a machine can perform before it degrades to the point of non-issue, each of these uses representing a portion of the labour time used to build it), the SNLT of the engineer is determined by the amount of commodities necessary to reproduce that labour power.

Now as we've seen, it cost $40,000 to produce the training necessary for the engineer to perform this labour. The rate at which this must be compensated is determined (like all things related to the Law of Value) by social laws. That is to say, the rate at which the engineer is reimbursed by the average amount of hours worked in an engineers life.

The rate of reimbursement for training could be represented by this equation:
Avg # of hr's worked in 1 lifetime/ SNLT of training = $x/hr. Say, it's $30/hr for the engineer.

This is then transferred to the SNLT of the commodity the complex labour is used to produce. The SNLT of training functions almost like complex capital. But in this case (since labour is a unique commodity) the rate of depreciation is decided by the average amount of hours the average skilled labourer works, not based on physical wear and tear.

So we have this equation:
Avg # of hr's worked in 1 lifetime/SNLT of training = hourly rate of reimbursement

This is then added to the value of labour power in general. This is to say, the value of the a given # commodities society deems necessary to sustain a labourer performing a given intensity of work. Let's say in the case of the engineer, this is $10/hr.

So now we have:
Avg # of hr's worked in 1 lifetime/ SNLT of training = $X/hr to reimburse training. This rate is then added to the value of labour power in general for a given intensity.

$30/hr + $10/hr = $40/hr as the SNLT for the labour of an engineer.

Is this correct? Can Marxhead confirm my interpretation?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics
reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/5h4px6/the_incohherence_of_complex_labour_as_a_result_of/
docs.google.com/document/d/1j1acQdUzpxvWPNOJQ6OlX61dc4JLWJ5dmQcQ_EB18Lw/edit?usp=sharing
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFAgyAHtCY
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
web.archive.org/web/20161211064505/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/1131239.html
unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/reconsidering-the-labour-theory-of-value/
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
community-exchange.org/docs/Gesell/en/neo/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

*Constant Capital

I wasn't sure if it deserved it own thread but now seems like a good time to ask. What's/ leftypol/'s opinen on thermoeconomics and other heterodox schools of economics?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoeconomics

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic_economics

Is this what we're aiming for?

No, we want to harvest the power of weaponized autism in order to maximize our economic efficiency.

pls halp

Yeah, something like that. When the production of some type of good or service requires a lot of training, the price of the good or service has to finance that training as well.

(This remains true in the society visions of Towards a New Socialism by Cottrell and Cockshott and Parecon by Albert and Hahnel. While in both proposals, financing higher education and training is socialized so you neither are dependent on your parents nor go into debt, the goods and services made by such labor are priced at a higher level than stuff produced by simple labor. And it's not the case that this means higher payment for the high-skilled work either. The higher pricing is done so that the customers pay for the education and training necessary for producing what they consume.)

Actually, I take back my OP. I was completely wrong and I was not describing complex labour, I was describing a type of complex labour. I posted this on reddit because the debate among economist is completely incoherent but I needed to have discourse on it.


The LTV will be incoherent if it can't be explained how scarcity commands more value. Marx did not consider complex labour to be labour that required training, just labour the average person couldn't do. This doesn't always mean training.

I'm hoping that I can get an answer for this, otherwise it appears that Marx's LTV is only slightly more materialistic than a neoclassical util.

reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/5h4px6/the_incohherence_of_complex_labour_as_a_result_of/

I too am wading my way through Marxian economics atm. It's hard going.

...

Too late, we already expropriated it. The post belongs to the public now.
That's not completely wrong then. I don't see some fundamental crisis of theory just because some people can work in a more efficient manner than others. Some people are more fit etc. I don't think any economic authors failed to see that. In general I believe the problems for socialism in how to handle more intensive/skilled/productive labor are vastly exaggerated. Do you propose that under socialism, the cost of job training required for production of privately consumed items and services should be handled in a different manner than the way the already mentioned authors suggest (training funded by the public, higher prices, avoiding higher wages for skilled work as much as possible)?

You are implying that this is actually the case. Maybe scarcity of a good is a result of the high value of that good, and not the other way around.

If some natural resource is scarce so that it takes more work to unearth it, I don't see how that contradicts labor time being the biggest thing behind prices. If someone brings up an example of a person being particularly lucky in finding some rare resource, that also doesn't contradict the labor-time explanation. On the contrary, what the lucky persn can sell that stuff for shows that it's the big averages that matter in prices, and that the economy is not built on micro foundations of individual subjective feefees.

Bought a book with all of Keynes' basic work a few days ago but haven't started it yet. What does Holla Forums think of him?

...

Take everything I say with a grain of salt as I read that stuff over 15 years ago and I don't have good memory. I read his General Theory, found it interesting and messy. Keynes is not what is presented in mainstream econ intro classes as Keynes. The Keynes Myth Number 1 goes something like this:
That many contracts are fixed in nominal terms and people often don't take inflation into account in their plans was just an example for the non-neutrality of money in that book. Keynes did NOT propose to lower real wages by inflation to get out of the depression. Yet, this myth is presented as the message of Keynes by conservatives (who have an agenda) and by Marxists (who like to pretend to know about books they didn't read).
Keynes Myth Number 2 goes like this:
A single household can save money for bad times, and a local government can act like that as well. But humanity as a whole can't really save for bad times by hoarding cash under the bed. I don't think Keynes had the view that the government of Britain or the United States should "save up" money during good times, and he certainly didn't have any use for the completely retarded overheating metaphor for the economy. Go ctrl+f that shit for "quasi-boom".

Here is a bit of information that I am 99 % sure you will have no use for, but I say it anyway: Keynes mentions Piero Sraffa at some point in the GT while he talks about the non-neutrality of money, but the thought in that passage is that of Silvio Gesell.

Keynes is known for his eerie prediction of what the WWI reparations would do to Germany (essay was called Consequences of the Peace I think). He also wrote a book about probability. I only have second-hand knowledge about it, it's apparently about representing probabilities as intervals which he used the unfortunate term non-numeric for, which lead to rather pomo-esque interpretations: "Dude, Keynes is not about risks, but fundamental uncertainty that doesn't even have numbers." I would like to call that Keynes Myth 3, but as I haven't read that book, I am fundamentally uncertain about the veracity of that.

Thanks for reading my blog.

He's based, but Kalecki is better. Good luck though, Keynes is so difficult to read.

Post-keynesianism is God tier economics

Please don't take advice from a Christian furry autist who thinks the most up-to-date physics is found in Thomas Aquinas.

Either way, I don't think the "training" explanation is faithful to Marx.


I'm not talking about planning for socialism, I'm simply talking about Marx's analysis of Capitalism.


Could you elaborate? I'm open to critique of his economics. It seems like a lot of mainstream Marxist discourse contradiction is rooted in Soviet misinterpretation of his economics. I'm pretty sure this was due to the Soviets revising the fuck out of his theories on SNLT and labour power, and that the split between ML's and other Marxist combined with how powerful the Soviet Union was is what led to misconceptions about what Marx meant by value, SNLT, surplus value as being ahistorical laws. This is what I've gathered so far.

- Labour is the source of "value" in a commodity. This means that every commodity has a definite portion of societies capacity to perform productive labour
- The SNLT of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time to produce it (though this gets criticized for contradiction, I think the concept is fairly self explanatory. In the sense if you were to average all the times needed to produce this commodity, this would be the commodities "value" or the SNLT).
- Labour that is not used productively does not generate value, this means it needs to be realized through exchange. But not only does it need to be realized through exchange, it must in some way contribute to commodity production as a social process directly.
- This is represented as a portion of "abstract labour" - what was previously the potential to labour has now become a concrete commodity.
- How much value a certain type of labour generates (and by that I mean how much is contributes to the productive needs of society) is a socially determined process. I think this goes back to Marx not wanting to quantify abstract labour, other than pointing out that there would be an average time this abstract labour would take to be realized in a commodity.
- Since the needs of society are dependant on this process of commodity production, the "value" generated by labour ultimately forms the basis for the needs of society. This means that since the capitalist class requires a SURPLUS of value than what the workers require to reproduce themselves, more productive labour is being expended by the working class than would be necessary to sustain them if they had control over the production of commodities and owned their means or sustenance and production.

And I really think that's it. I don't think Marx was ever trying to quantify value other than saying that a socially determined magnitude it would be used up in the average time needed to produce a commodity. I think the fact that value isn't able to be determined leads to prices (assuming money is also a commodity like he does in capital), being a "guess" on the producers part about how much of societies labour power was used up in the production of a commodity, and as a result of a lack of control on production and the inability to determine "value" (and by that I mean, the amount of labour done to produce a commodity that will be exchanged and through exchange directly contribute to the further production of commodities) is what leads to commodities being exchanged in amounts unequal to their value, and being exchanged for natural resources like land, or honour etc which required no productive labour to produce. A misallocation of societies productive labour power.

Correct me if I got anything wrong, I understand Marx's approach and sympathize with it. I switch between being utterly convinced of it and questioning it's most basic ideas. Maybe you can push me one way or the other Rebel.

Probbaly the GOAT economist, he built his theories by accumulating as many facts as possible. That application of the scientific method to economics was an innovation in itself. His aim was to depoliticise economics so it could be used more effectively for political purposes.

please no

He's right about the LTV. I think most of the Marxist on here couldn't form a coherent definition of "value" based on labour, because Marx's was not coherent.

I'm trying really hard to understand Marx's argument like I do , but Marxian economics lacks a base unit if it's taken to mean an expenditure of a societies labour power - this is to vague. It means that there is no base unit that can be explained, other than a certain amount of that base unit being expelled in a certain amount of time. You can't talk about the magnitude of value, you can only talk about the fact that labour expends certain magnitudes of that value in certain amounts of time. In other words, you can't go "1 hour is equal to 1 hour of value" because Marx is very clear that 1 hour of value is not = to 1 hour of value. 1 hour of value can be equal to 5 hours of value. The base unit which is the capacity for labour is unquantifiable by humans, and thus divisions of it are unquantifiable. If money is no longer a commodity but commodity exchange still takes place, it begs the question if labour is the source of value for commodities.

What if Capitalism doesn't make sense? What if all sorts of optimistic claims about capitalism's efficiency are in two categories, cool and requiring unrealistic model assumptions, and small local optimization stuff that has negative side effects that are usually outside of analysis, and this shit doesn't add up to anything sane in the big-picture analysis?

Why does the question of accounting for skilled labor bother you so much?

is Marxian economics a meme?

Explain.

you could at least ask nicely

Please, explain. There, I wasted my time typing a few more words. Are you happy now, or do you want me to waste more of my time and cause some more wear on my keyboard?

Economics weather on the left or right is nothing but pseudo science made to over complicate the relations between people.
The fact is none of that bullshit exists in the real world. There's absolutely no reasons other than pure randomness which makes some things cost more than others.
We should put in place a resource based economy after the revolution. It's easy to understand and explain and it's by far the best option for everybody to live a propper life.

Just dropping some books:

-"Great Thinkers: Michal Kalecki"
-"Theory of Economic Dynamics", Kalecki
-"Political aspects of Full Employment", Kalecki

what the fuck am i reading?

If you'd just been polite from the beginning you could have spared yourself the keyboard wear and the stress of a sperg fit.

Thanks, my dude.

Training cost doesn't explain everything. What if somebody does some simple labor (simple as in almost anybody can learn it within a few hour, it can be very stressful work) at a faster rate than normal? This can be counted as a simple multiple of the average. Twice the apple-plucking output of the average person, so the hour of that person is worth two usual hours… but for whom?

If we are talking here of people who are small producers, not selling their ability to work to some other person who commands them and sells the stuff they produce, but they themselves sell what they produce, it is clear that the person who is more fit can be counted as some multiple of the average. Does this disprove the hypothesis that price ratios of goodies have much to do with the human hours put into their production, though? I don't think so. For one, in big aggregates you always have some people who are better than average and some are worse, they cancel out. (Besides, the differences between average folks and top athletes at doing brain-dead physical tasks don't really amount to much, three average guys together beat the output of any exceptional individual.)

But I think there is also another reason why these differences don't matter much. When you are hired as a worker and under the permanent threat of starvation, you having the ability to be twice as productive as the average may be something nice for the capitalist, but in terms of what you need to get in order not to die you are still pretty similar to other people, and this also applies to people with downright inhuman levels of talent, if they don't have leverage by combining with other people.

And a thing about skilled work to consider: there are not two jobs, skilled and unskilled, there are many specific skilled jobs. A skilled worker is usually not skilled in many things, rather, that person is skilled in a particular niche and outside of that, considering most tasks, is just like a normal person.

So, a talented worker or a learned worker is still like a worker considering two fundamental questions, what does he need so he doesn't die, and what productivity is forsaken by not employing him in tasks that are not his special niche, which are almost all the tasks. There is no reason to believe that a top violinist is above average when it comes to plucking apples.

Long story short: complex labor doesn't add a big twist or fundamental problem or whatever to anything.

Np, man!

-"Foundations of Economics", Varoufakis
-"A brief history of Neoliberalism", Harvey
-"Economic Planning in Yugoslavia", Vanek

Saying please is not really polite. Not wasting somebody time is. Learn 2 chan culture.

I already did, read my post.
After reading some more about Marx's approach, I think the social status of a certain type of labour (and by that I mean it's potential to produce commodities that satisfy societies wants) is missing the point.

Thanks.

If something is scarce it will demand more labor, and consequentely have more value, and scarcety don't demand labor, profits that do it.
Marx did consider training and the diferent values of diferent types of labor, he just simplified for argument sake.

Correction
If something is scarce it will take more labor to find/extraxt it, and consequentely have more value, and scarcety by itself doesn't demand labor, profits that do it.

Marx did consider training and the diferent values of diferent types of labor, he just simplified for argument sake.

Non sequitur by Marx. Commodity money is not necessary for labour being the source of value for commodities. Certificates denoting ownership of something do not need to be themselves made of something that corresponds to that value.

pls email [email protected]/* */ if you're a cat named sakamoto and want a cute furret to lick your paws
I'd think Irish Wojack would have a sack of potatos nearby in that pic.

We elect a representative democracy by way of general and by-elections. Referenda are opinion polls. When was the last time you thought the top 40 had a decent quota of actually good songs, right? This is the future of the country, not the X-Factor.

Stupid opinions (almost a tautology) should not govern the direction of those whom we elect to make difficult but informed decision on our behalf. If we governed entirely by plebiscite, we would not have had an agricultural or industrial revolution, no empire and would not be on the world stage as we now are.

Plebiscites take the temperature of a country, that's all. They are not a mandate, and if a stupid outcome (barely) pokes its head up, then it's the job of the House of Lords and the Judiciary to take a duty of care to the country, to ensure it doesn't plunge itself into a ravine.

Fingers still crossed that they're still not too pussywhipped and cowed by racist troglodytes to step in and do their job.

Yep, there we go: 'sovereignty'. Do you know what that word means? Do you know that we already had that, all along? Do you know that immigration and border control will remain exactly as it was before? UKIP and BJ cucked you good m8.

Which Sorcha?

But from the looks of it, you likely got assassinated at range, which is Harby's biggest weakness now. If that was your issue, then you need Shield Guards to super protect Harby.

If that's the case, I'd suggest finding space for Rhoven and Co, and possibly finding some space(Likely dropping Avatar, he's generally regarded as overcosted at this moment) for a Vigilant.

Leaves you 3 points to play with and four shield guards for Harby.

...

The sound of hoofbeats echoes in your memories, bringing back thoughts of Master and his steed. You won't be ridden down, and you won't try to hide; both are just waiting to earn Master's wrath. Or this thing's; you focus while you run, shaking off the memories that threaten to cloud your mind.

You aren't back in the Labyrinth, and there are things here worse than this rider. You hope.

You veer away from the remains of the Hollow Tree Cottage. The rider isn't expecting it, and you grin when you hear him pull his mount up. The thing screeches again, its voice a high-pitched whine, and turns to pick up your trail again.

You tuck the key into the inside pocket of your jacket and run for all your life is worth. The path, darkening further as the Hedge closes in around you, is lit now only by the vine-coated street lamps that tell you the mortal world is close.

One flickers on ahead of you, revealing a sharp ridge that splits the path. You pull up short, turning to see where the rider is, and manage to duck the lash of his whip just in time.

The crack you hear isn't stone. It's flesh. The ridge that splits the path gets up, shedding dirt from its angular features. In slow horror you turn your head and see the bleeding, wedge-like face of the beast. Its legs are devoid of claws, but its wide mouth is filled with fangs, and the lashing tail it uncoils is tipped with shards of glass.

"Surrender the key and I will spare your life from this beast," the rider offers in its high-pitched, whining voice. It cracks its whip into the air, threateningly. "Swiftly, slave!"


docs.google.com/document/d/1j1acQdUzpxvWPNOJQ6OlX61dc4JLWJ5dmQcQ_EB18Lw/edit?usp=sharing

You lose HEAD START.

Current Health: 7/7
Current Glamour: 6/10

Sorry about the long write time, work kicked my ass. I'ma get some sleep now.

When's Holla Forums gonna stop worshipping him as some sort of deity and accept Marx was fundamentally flawed?

Frequeny

Were there really plotholes in Mother 3? It's been so long since I played it; what were they?

I never understood why so many people on /vr/ try to convince people not to play Mother 1. It's a fantastic game, it's not hard. If you want to appreciate the franchise you should play the first one. There's only thee fucking games.


No way. In Mother 1 you go back to your ordinary life at the end of the game. In Mother 3 you find out literally all of civilization has been destroyed previously, and Nowhere Island is literally the only thing left. You have to fight your own family member who you thought died but simply became a player character for Porkey, the universe's biggest asshole. Then NOTHING exists after that. Then you realize Porkey is a sympathetic character because he's just lonely as shit but has the power of an omniscent all powerful god so he can't understand how to make friends, and his only friend is long dead. In fact, he's always wanted ot be Ness' friend but he couldn't show it any other way than being an asshole because his dad beat him and shit.

JUST

FUCK MY FEELS UP


Mother 1 is really heart felt and touching, don't get me wrong. But m3 is existential at points.

To be fair everything you do from that moment on could be your answer. So you just go through life then on your deathbed just say "This", then he will be like "THIS WHAT? THIS WHAT FATHER?"

"This is reality"

wow…

Are the mods asleep?

piracy then

You are not going to make 10% returns actively trading. You are very unlikely to beat the market actively trading, and the market averages 9%.

You will be better off buying an index fund and ignoring it than actively trading, and even then you will have years where your returns are less than 0 because the market is volatile like this.

The only people I know who could reliably make returns were HFT traders, and they are really fucking smart and eventually left that industry because it was becoming too competitive.

In Leafland they go for 2k.
I know it's made to be compact but it really was tiny, breh.

GET 'EM WET SHAGGY

good post tbqh

aww. he's a doorbell

I can't seem to find a source for "Tamago" (the quiet one), can anybody provide a link?

illustrator doesn't seem optimal for organic hand-made drawings maybe ask >>>/ic/ or try to make your own brushes also you can add '.5' to change the stroke value and havr you tried manga studio?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ifFAgyAHtCY

"Economics" is bullshit. People get what they deserve. If you disagree, you are delusional and just want to take what you didn't earn. Communism will just destroy your country because it will reward laziness so nobody will work and then everyone will starve. Capitalism is the most humane system because it keeps society from collapsing.

You are stupid

me

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
The rest of your post is filled with truly excellent memes.

...

...

...

What i want

WTF i'm a globalist now

So *sniff cocaine from the table* i have this mad idea fams:
How about in a council communist society still in the socialists phase

We implement council workers exclusive sub markets for the workers that own their means of production ??

So the thing that being produced in the self governing factories have 2 exchange values one for those who are councilist workers "they will have membership card to show to the cashier similar to credit card" , and another one for the rest

This 1 commodity 2 price system will split exchanged value of the commodity for 2 Socially necessary labor time one for the capitalist where the exchanged value rise, and another for councilists workers where the price is lowered.

Whatcha thinkin comrades?
I have been reading a lot of left Rothbardian and LeftCom lit lately

UGGHHH what a freaking OUTRAGE that those liberal KEKS are doing whatever they want with the channel they own!!! *long ass wet humiliating fart into the microphone, and the whole school knows it*

Why would a white person have to care for a black person, black people don't care about white people, give us reasons we should care about them, at all.
Whoever held the sign needs to understand, if something bad happens to her, the last person to help her will be black.

Howdy Patton!

This

No because NEET's couldn't afford coffee back then

this is pasta now I guess but I'm the one who actually posted it originally

Kek good one

I'm so fucking done with this shit.
Once I got my diploma's I'm out of here.

...

Giving people free shit never worked never will.
Giving people the opportunity to work on the other hand has.

YEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

I go back and forth on loving and hating houston. it's a shithole but I'm beginning to recognize the reasons for that, and it's not any of the reasons my liberal younger self thought.

nig i have the RIGHT to work and the right to share my work with others not for a fucking lazy ass boss to make money of my back in his comfy office.

I work out every day.

This is exactly why we want to get rid of landlords, intellectual property owners, shareholders and the so called "entrepreneurs".

Those who won't work, shall not eat.

Stop sucking dick in london and leave my country, you cunt.

Russians are white niggers

Actually most Chan people are fairly high functioning, educational achievement, emergent practice skill development and earning capacity - the use of these sites is a major research topic of mine.

There is NO barrier to posting though but potentially the perspective given from seeing social failure in such a permissive environment is a powerful self help and guidance tool.

Also I am literally a millionare with a healthy son.

Why are you asking us? You guys love to taunt about how you're so progressive. You should have done it right away instead of coming here. What would Trudeau think?

Hop to to licking that dog cum Avery

Why do commiecucks vote against their economic interests?

I call it the embarassed commissar syndrome.

GDP sure tell us everything about the quality of life those people had, just look at all those nations with big GDPS like Brazil and Mexico.

Oh look another lefty/pol/ teenager who is completely economically illiterate. Google what GDP per capita means before posting little guy.

google wealth distribution or hdi index or purchasing power etc etc.

gdp per capita is almost entirely meaningless

It's like you're not even trying.

TOP KEK

Qatar has a higher Per Capita GDP than Norway. Which one would you rather live in?

Err, isn't that based on the amount of currency units changing hands divided by total population? Two problems:
1. How do you compare between two countries that use different currencies? Currencies have exchange rates, but, and this might be news to you, you do usually NOT obtain the same basket of goods in two countries at the price implied by that. In the real world, there are all sorts of government interventions, tariffs, different sales taxes for different product types etc. And even without that, the free market wouldn't result in the basket of goods costing what the exchange rate implies because you can't teleport things, transport takes time and energy. If abstracting away transportation was just a small change away from reality, we wouldn't have vastly different prices for empty pieces of land in different places.

2. Since GDP measures only what is exchanged for money, it does not take account of allocation of products and services by other forms, whether it is family or bureaucracy. You might argue that these are less efficient than markets, but surely it is disingenuous to pretend they don't exist. Surely a bureaucratic allocation of consumer items and services had a bigger role in the countries of the Eastern Block than West Germany, France, USA, and so on. As such, a direct GDP measure is not useful for comparison between countries that have big differences in what types of products and services are allocated by paying with money. A standard based only on what can be acquired by money by definition will make societies that heavily rely on other forms of allocation look worse than they are.

Example: Your mother plans to give you a birthday cake. She can decide that the cake can be bought in finished form, or decide that she buys ingredients for less money and then puts in unpaid work to make a cake out of that. According to GDP, the first option counts as "better" for the economy. Likewise, relatives occasionally taking care of your children for free counts as "worse" than paying a babysitter.

When you use your noggin for a bit it should become obvious that GDP isn't particularly useful outside of analysis that deals changes over the period of a few years within one and the same country. For a robust way of measuring quality of life I would rather use the average lifespan. (And even if you love looking at money streams, doesn't Net DP per capita make more sense?)

Qatar. Norway is an autistic economy.

What did he mean by this?

thats a brazilian not a Poo

Eggs and meat every morning.


There is a reason you can live for a month without eating. Our ancestors used to have to from time to time.

Are you even trying fucknut?

OK

but if the electoral college votes are spread by population doesn't that just make democratic states in commiefornia more powerful

this was a good thread, bump

Such a thing doesn't exist.

-"Production of commodities by means of commoditites", Sraffa
-"Contending economic theories", Wolff

I'm confused, I know Sraffa was a Neo-Ricardian but was he a socialist?

He had contact with the Italian socialist party, but I don't know his personal views on the matter.

Reposting previous recent thread on political economy

web.archive.org/web/20161211064505/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/1131239.html

I really don't understand the TSSI, or the NI.

The idea that Sraffa wasn't a Marxist comes from the impact of the book Marx after Sraffa, which claims to use Sraffa's findings to attack Marx, and Andrew Kliman and the like bought into that interpretation of Sraffa, and disagree with that version of Sraffa.

PCMC is written like something a lawyer would say who doesn't want to admit to anything. It's up to debate to what extent that was intended as internal critique of standard assumptions in economics, and to what extent it was intended to describe the real world. (That interpretation issue sounds familiar, doesn't it?)

Saw this interesting article on the LTV

unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/reconsidering-the-labour-theory-of-value/

Is is accurate? I'm beginning to get the hang of Marxian economics I think. Although the endless use of "social" confuses me

Sraffa did not assume that the profit rate is technically/physically determined. The determination of the profit rate is outside the model, the profit rate enters the model as a given fact. There are some physical boundaries to what the profit rate can be, people have to eat, the rest is class struggle.

mods pls cycle

All three models (classic LTV, Saffra's and TSSI) were all proven to make fairly accurate predictions of aggregate prices. For some reason TSSI was slightly more accurate.

users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

Not a bad idea.

Sraffa was based, he essentially BTFO Wittgenstein.

Bump for Kalecki - who was right and did nothing wrong.

I don't see the point in using labour values to calculate modern prices considering we no longer use commodity money. I'd trust Sraffa over the TSSI to describe prices today than I would orthodox Marxism. Look at the GDP when measured in gold, and when measured in fiat currency. It's very clear that prices do not behave the same way with fiat currency as they do with commodity money and they require a different analysis. I have a copy of Klimans "Reclaiming Capital" I plan on reading. I'm more interested in seeing how the TSSI can refute the transformation problem than how it predicts prices. I'd like to see the paper you got this from, I'm a little suspicious.

Yeah, sounds a lot like Marx. I know Sraffa has been integrated by some Marxian economist, and I plan on reading the Sraffa book posted in the thread at some point after I get through Capital.


Was Kalecki a socialist?


I like unlearningecon, he hasn't actually read Marx (or at least he hasn't at the time he wrote that article). I prefer his critiques of Neoclassical economics to

Is anyone here familiar with the Cambridge Capital controversies? Wikipedia says that virtually all Neoclassical models were BTFO, but it's barely talked about in the States.

He included a link to the paper…

Throughout his whole life.

...

My mistake, it was 2:00 am when I read that.


I'll have to read him then. But he rejected labour theory?

WEW

...

Zizek did something productive with his autism, tho, unlike chris.

Can you imagine a world where Chris chan was exposed to Marx's work instead of Sonic?

Imagine the masterpiece Chris would write if he weren't Chris.

Yeah he would be Zizek 2.0

No, it quite literally is not commodity money. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have an entire internet to learn, use it.

No, I know what you mean by commodity money. I'm saying that all money is treated like a commodity. The american dollar is bought and sold on an open market.

No one ever denied this. Please read Capital, Marx is very clear that token money can only be there to represent a commodity, fiat money is not tied to anything besides the State. So this means that exchange is no longer based on exchange value in a Marxian sense.

You're still not getting it. I'm not talking about what the money represents, I'm talking about its effects and how it is treated. There is no functional difference in the effects of fiat versus "commodity" money. The value of commodity money will fluctuate too given the amount that is printed, and the demand for liquidity. Fiat money is tied to more than just a state, but to an entire political economy, the state and the private economy associated with it.

You have been implying there would be a big difference if the US had kept the gold standard or whatever. Assuming you are

That graph is extremely misleading, for the exchange value of gold itself, by virtue of backing up the US dollar, would have been very different that it actually was.

There is if we're talking about Marxian labour theory which is predicated on commodities expressing themselves in each other through exchange by virtue of the fact they are products of human labour. This is not the case with fiat money, it no longer expresses labour. It functions differently than the gold standard would for a Marxian analysis. I never said anything about it being traded differently, I'm saying it can't express labour values through exchange because it hold no value of its own.


When I said it's tied to the State, I meant the whole state. Not just the bureaucracy. It functions completely different than commodity money, the massive increase in GDP of money compared to gold is evident of that. You did not have the inflation you have now when we used commodity money, it functions differently and should be analyzed differently from a Marxian perspective. I implore you to provide evidence of prices functioning the same under fiat money as they did under the gold standard. You will find none.

The exchange value of gold is the exchange value of gold. One ounce of gold would have the SNLT of one ounce of gold in countries with similar productivity.

Again, we are talking about Marxian analysis here. If you are coming at this from a different angle than I am, I apologize for misunderstanding. I

Bump for Kalecki.

Bump for ECONOMICS!

I PRESENT TO YOU, THE LAST 100 YEARS HISTORY OF COMMODITY MONEY, FIAT MONEY, AND THE PRICE OF GOLD.

WHO GOT RICH FROM FIAT MONEY? THE BANKERS WHO OWNED GOLD

WHO IS POOR FROM FIAT MONEY? THE WORKERS. FIAT MONEY ENTITLES THE OWNER TO LITERALLY ZERO WEALTH, UNLIKE COMMODITY MONEY WHICH IS EXCHANGABLE FOR PHYSICAL WEALTH.

It was never supposed to "stop inflation", fiat currency was put it to stop trade from falling apart during crashes.

IM TALKING IN CAPS BECAUSE ANYONE WHO THINKS FIAT MONEY IS OK IS RETARDED

YOU DONT GET IT.

COMMODITY MONEY REPRESENTS AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL COMMODITY. THE INHERENT WEALTH IN COMMODITY MONEY IS DUE TO THE MONEY BEING EXCHANGABLE INTO GOLD OR SILVER. THIS MEANS THAT NO MATTER HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THE CURRENCY ITSELF, IT IS ALWAYS WORTH PHYSICAL WEALTH. IN SHORT, IF YOU OWN $100 OF COMMODITY MONEY, THERE IS $100 OF GOLD SITTING IN A BANK WHICH YOU CAN REDEEM. THUS, THE COMMODITY MONEY IS A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF CURRENCY WHICH ENTITLES THE OWNER TO PHYSICAL WEALTH

FIAT MONEY ENTITLES THE OWNER TO NO ACTUAL WEALTH. IT IS MONOPOLY MONEY THAT IS ONLY WORTH ANYTHING BECAUSE THE MONOPOLY MAN SAYS IT IS. IF SOMEONE SHOOTS THE MONOPOLY MAN, THE MONEY IS COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

FIAT MONEY IS USED BY THE BOURGEOISIE IN ORDER TO STAY IN EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF SOCIETY. WITH THERE LARGE SUMS OF FIAT MONEY, GENERATED BY NIXON'S DECLARATION THAT THE US DOLLAR IS FIAT, WHICH CAUSED THE SKYROCKETING OF GOLD PRICES, ANYONE WITH GOLD OWNERSHIP BECAME EXTREMELY WEALTHY, EXTREMELY QUICK. THIS MONEY IS THEN LENT OUT TO PEOPLE WHO DONT HAVE AS MUCH, WHERE THEY ARE FORCED TO PAY COMPOUNDING INTEREST.
FIAT MONEY SYSTEM ENSURES THAT THE BOURGEOISIE CAN MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF SOCIETY

Keep believing what they tell you, goy.

read this:


examples of fiat money in America:
fiat money was released by wealthy individuals so that taxes were payable by farmers who may not have access to gold or silver specie, but had access to other wealth such as horses, crops etc… In a money-based society, this is the only acceptable use of fiat… to distribute when there is no other money to be distributed

B. Franklin believed that Fiat money was a horrible idea, as the colonies tried it during the revolution. By the end of the revolution their fiat money was only worth 1/5th its original value.

This led to…
Declares that only gold or silver be accepted as official currency to the gov't. This held in place until Nixon came along in 1971

Confederate states tried printing fiat money. It became worthless by the end of the war

It has exchange value, which is what an ideal means of exchange should have and should not be something that has any use value like gold which could be used in electronics or jewellery but instead is hoarded by speculators inflating it's nominal value.

So why not base our currency on good will towards others? The more accepting our society is, the richer they are.

Seriously, why not? it fits your constraints. Good will can have exchange value just like fiat money if someone with authority says it does…. Good will has no physical use in production. and Good will may be hoarded by speculators, causing its value to inflate.

Do you see where your argument is faulty?

Do you play Monopoly without the money?

We use labour vouchers

Do you use monopoly money in real life?

im sorry but fiat money is not the issue. the issue it the character of the government that issues it. going back to the gold standard is the same logic that says we should return to feudalism because capitalism is bad

accelerate the contradictions

The current economic system literally pays the prole with valueless money, leaving those with actual wealth (property, etc..) in total irrevocable control

I would argue our current system is a form of financial fuedalism where us surfs live off the wealth of our feudal banker lords.

It's no different, I'm just pointing out his flawed reasoning.

Monopoly money in the context of the game has no value other than exchange akin to fiat money, and he argues that we may as well as he puts it "base our currency on good will towards others".

Except you can't put measure something nebulous like "good will", Monopoly already function as intended with the paper money as like with fiat money, it has a discrete value which is an inherent characteristic of currency for the exchange of scarce commodities unlike the obtuse nebulous notion of good will.

I'm a communist I want to abolish all currency. A high constant capital/ variable capital organic composition of capital is what Marx predicts will lead to a collapse on the basis of commodity exchange value in the Grundrisse. Keynes confirmed this in the 1930's when he talked about "technological unemployment".


Jesus stop bitching, you're freaking out about fiat currency on a communist board. The contradiction that causes fiat currency to inevitably give way to commodity money is a contradiction capitalism.

I totally believe in abolishing currency.

But as stated here:


our current form of currency is only serving to weaken the common man, rather than actually enriching him.

It really doesn't make a difference. When a crisis hits rich people will just hoard gold and trade will grind to a halt. That's why pretty much every country went off the gold standard. Currency is shitty, but going back to the gold standard is no improvement.

This is a bump for Sraffa being right.

What do you think about Silvio Gesell and his Freiwirtschaft model? He was part of the Bavarian Soviet but anti-Marxist.

community-exchange.org/docs/Gesell/en/neo/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freigeld

the reason why inflation spiked in the 70's had to do with supply shocks and other factors, it wasn't because of fiat currency, fiat currency is far more stable than currency under the gold standard

How do I get into feudalism/middle ages economics?

People have knows for like 40 years than the expanding money supply made the inflation
This was how Milton Friedman got famous. Then his solutions were put in, and inflation went down

Sorry for small image
Also this is just my textbook version of history

at massive social cost.

It's a self-fulfilling bump

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

WEW LAD

May this help you on your quest, noble traveler.

There are also lots of wikipedia articles on the subject

Back from the dead

Kek, no monetarism was completely bunk. Didn't work in Chile, United States or Britain.

Thanks

Bump with pdfs

...

...