>no embeds

youtube.com/watch?v=WVNzmRn-0O4
How does this make you feel, Holla Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

sage

wtf I love socialism now

I'm not watching a 1 hr lecture just so I can tell you to fuck off.

If you are here on sincere grounds you need to TL;DW the main arguments. People here don't have the time to suffer through a 1+ hour long propaganda video.

Also,

So you admit defeat?

The dude is obsessed with bad boy Lincoln and defending the Confederates.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Sure if that means that you go away.

Nope.

Did you even watch your own video? Can you summarize it? No? Then fuck off.

lol butthurt

Why can't you give his main arguments? No one wants to listen to some propagandist drone on for an hour just for the sake of arguing on some Vietnamese stop motion board

He doesn't understand what Marx meant with exploitation. Exploitation is inherent in the capitalist mode of production. If it wasn't then capitalists wouldn't be able to make money. The marginal productivity argument doesn't fix this at all. Because even the capitalist who would pay the most, would still technically exploit them. Of course, a follower of von Mises wouldn't understand this. Because they dabbled too much in pure abstract economics instead of looking at how political economy affects the workers.
There is a disconnect between Marx and whatever this guy is trying to convey. Come back once you understand what is about faggot.

How about actually making a post instead of using long-ass youtube videos to debate for you?

...

HAHAHA

LEFTIES BTFO ETERNALLY

Read Marx and google this man

kill yourself faggot
You are a sad excuse for a human being. I would have qualms killing a rat like you.

You first.

Not watching this whole fucking thing, but right in the begining he's talking about how there would need to be a grand cartel to keep wages low in order to keep up worker's exploitation.

That is utter horseshit. Market forces drive down labor. Competition for jobs is one force that drives down the cost of labor. Another is the profit margin itself. No one wants to higher a worker at 10x the cost of his competitor because he wouldn't make as much.

I mean, come the fuck on. What kind of baseless shit is the rest of this video premised on?

...

...

Read Marx

did you want me to write you a book? I wrote some counterarguments. That's how debate works, bucko

Have you considered this?

Read Mises.

Have you considered this?

This bait is not even worth responding to when the OP is a brain dead moron trying to troll. Just report it. He needs to put more effort before getting those (You)

I seem to be doing pretty good so far.

quality thread

Thanks for the bump fam.

Wew.

Let me tell you how that actually goes.

You make 500 golf balls that each sell for a dollar each and your employer pays you a dollar for it. No employer tries to coax you over to their side with an offer of two dollars because that makes no fucking sense. There's a large and desperate reserve army of labor that constitute the unemployed in your society that would be happy to make golf balls at a dollar an hour because it would be better than nothing, and thus no employer has any incentive to pay you more than they have to. Your labor power is simply another commodity on the market to be bought and sold and there's no reason to pay more for a commodity than you have to.

If an employer did offer two dollars, his ranks would fill up very quickly, and this would either result in a more expensive product or a slimmer profit margin, which would only serve to make him less competitive. No, other employers would not have to offer more money to their employees, unemployment means there are typically many people who will be happy to take the lower pay. All this does for the employer paying out two dollars is double the labor costs.

In addition, even in a competitive labor market, an employer would never pay out exactly the "added value" of a worker. Employers don't employ people out of their own beneficence, they employ people because they think that whatever than employee produces will net them more money than if they didn't have that employee there. If the employee makes exactly what they produce for the company, the employer makes no money and thus has no reason to hire the worker.

TLDR - lolberts don't live in reality.

No thanks.

I would rather not tbh,

...

Really makes you think tbh.
Here's the full quote:

Not something he was using.

Jannies, please ban everyone who didn't sage this shitty troll thread.

FTFY

Firms do everything they can to reduce the impact the average worker has on the productive process. Getting "the best workers" has basically no impact until you get into a few higher up professional white collar positions.

They aren't.

I can't be bothered to sit through the whole thing but I'll work through the first argument. If a worker is more productive than other workers and employers all recognize this, then yes he will tend to be paid more, but only as a multiplier of what workers already tend to be paid. If, for example you pay two employees of average productivity 3 dollars each per day, but their labor adds 5 dollars per day to the products you sell, then a worker who adds 10 dollars to the products of his labor per day will tend to be paid 6 dollars. The the cost/benefit is the same for the capitalist.

Now why would the capitalist tend to pay less for the workers' labor power than what the labor produces in terms of value? Well it's true that competition among capitalists brings up the price of labor power, however competition among workers brings it down. There are more workers in a given country than capitalists can hire generally, in the US when times are good unemployment sits at around 5%. This is once again about as good as it gets in terms of leverage for workers, but notice that 1/20 workers are not being paid at all. The excess supply of workers is large enough to where capitalists can still get away with paying their workers a lower price for their than what the products of their labor sell for. If in a given country this is not the case (say capitalists end up paying workers almost as much for their labor power as their labor produces) the profits will be very low and less profitable firms within the country will tend to close down until wages drop back to a lower level. Either that, or firms will find ways to save on labor (the incentives to innovate are even greater in proportion as wages rise) and in doing so they will expel a certain portion of their labor, increasing the supply of labor and thus the rate of exploitation. If the rate of exploitation rises by more than c/v+1 rises (where c is constant and v is variable capital) then firms will become profitable again.

The ban was a bit much, mods.

You should learn to discern when your arguments are going to lead to a productive discussion. The very OP was proof that he was here just to shitpost and troll.