I think you remember Academic Agent, a pretentious cunt that previously had debated Muke, FinnBol and BadMouse, and despite all his ignorance about Marxism he decided to debate a Marxist (who actually read Marx) on the Labor Theory of Value. I thought I share this because I thoroughly enjoyed it very much and for newcomers it might also be quite helpful to see what the LTV says and how to defend it against reactionaries. Why somebody would agree to debate one about a specific economic theory while being completely ignorant on the topic to the point where the guy clearly didn't even read the Wikipedia article about it is beyond me and can only be explained by utterly arrogance towards Marxists.
Academic Agent quickly realizes he is completely outmatched, loses his temper to the point where he calls his opponent a twat and screams "SHUT THE FUCK UP". He then later says stuff like this:
Classical Liberal who hates commies but flirts with Pinochet and Hitler profile pictures in his comments
He sounds like he is 50 or something but is probably barely 30
No idea, neutral I guess, other videos on her channel are debates about apolticial philosophical stuff
That lady looks and talks quite nice.
this guy literally knows nothing
I'm not going to watch 4 hours of some retards mumbling
3h9min onward for example leads to an absolute meltdown
SHUT UP JACK SHUT UP
SHUT THE FUCK UP
1h25m is when the marxist exposes academic agent lying about reading Capital.
Sounds funny but yeah I'm not watching 3 and a half hours, if someone made a highlight reel it would be dank.
Good god I'm rolling here, this academic agent guy is such a brainlet
Oh my fucking god
Nothing gets my dick harder than watching pseudointellectuals only respected for their British accent have public meltdowns.
I don't know if the Marxist guy was trying to piss him off, but he did a damn good job.
CAPITALISM WILL BREAK DOWN BECAUSE PRICE OF BREAD
That moderator sounds exasperated as fuck.
Lol, most of what academic agent said was the most superficial nonsense that even a child could learn.
JACK JACK JACK
I'm so embarrassed for this guy.
The best part is his idea of 'economics' is unsupported assertions and aesthetic judgements about wives. Really fires up my neurons.
Jesus christ this is good. Listened from 1:25 to 1:50 and it's so obvious AA has absolutely no idea what the LTV even is.
FinBol and DemSoc01 already showed him to be both a complete idiot and a dishonest cunt, this just proves it again.
This idiot continues to embarrass himself in the group chat later. Seems like all his listeners are smarter than him.
This Jack guy is great, he should make a youtube channel
Fun times resume at about 3:05
Why are right wingers such brainlets?
This is why we really need to be teaching more basic logic in elementary school. Too much focus on memorizing vocabulary and equations and not enough on the actual process of developing and refuting ideas.
Because brainlets are right wingers
Honestly he could have shut Cuckademic Agent up much faster and much harder if he just said that what his neoclassical-marginalist ass calls "value" is indeed utility, which Marx agrees is subjective (use-value). The point is that when Marx otherwise speaks of value he speaking of exchange value, omitting the "exchange" before that. (Exchange) value and indeed also price (quantitative exchange value measured in money-capital), however, are not subjective at all, and depend on ratio of social labor which influence the rate of exchange and profitability which influences the average amount of social labor again and so on. Good showing otherwise.
This is a good example for why I never refer to "rate of profit" without adding "on investment". It's so easy to misconstrue it as profit itself and once it's been misinterpreted it is very difficult to get around people talking over each other.
The lack of philosophy and politics on curricula is a major indictment of modern education systems.
I've learned basic logic and I'm still a brainlet :(
SHUT THE FUCK UP JACK SHUT THE FUCK UP TWAT
This Jack guy has an impressive amount of patience considering he was ganged up most of the time.
Useless moderator, she was as much out of her depth as the neoclassical tard.
Can you imagine the utter arrogance these right-wing "sceptic" types must have when they thing they can debate an economic theory that was developed over 100 years by one of the most influential economists by not even reading the Wikipedia introduction about it? Can imagine the utter smugness and megalomania they must have when they think that because somebody is a Marxist, they can win any debate just by resorting to "basic economics xD" which consists of a single short article they've read at the Mises Institute two years ago? During the debate AAs argument at some point was that Marx never had a real job.
And here is the thing that really grinds my gears: These people commit intellectual suicide and their followers STILL think they won and write stuff like "LEFTISTS BTFO xD". It's like I would agree to debate a biologist on the citric acid cycle, but haven't even googled it before, get utterly put in my place and then my followers comment "biology cucks BTFO ebin xD". No wonder these types would more than willingly support fascism when they believe screaming STFU at someone is winning a debate.
lmao when he's gonna explain the falling rate of profit and starts talking about TV's getting cheaper
I got the feeling even the AnCaps that joined latter got the impression that Academic Agent was an idiot and engaged with the guy more honestly with critical curiosity. I think they realized what was going on here.
SHUT UP JACK YOU ARE SO ANNOYING
I hope some smug misinformed moron debates me on the citric acid cycle so I can BTFO them some day. We biologists always have evolution vs creationists but it's such a low-hanging fruit.
holy shit thank you for this timestamp comrade im laughing my ass off holy shit
this moderator is an absolute idiot. If this was in an actual academic setting 'academic agent' would have been laughed out of the room
Couple issues with that strategy: The way neoclassical economists talk about utility is a bit different from how classical economists and Marx talked about use-value. Neoclassicals talk about about is as something totally subjective and as something that is as a common default assumption private and unknown to others, whereas the other guys talked about it as something that is kinda obvious (a bed is for sleeping, a melon is for eating, etc.) even if people have different needs. I don't need a wheelchair, yet I understand what a wheelchair is for.
It seems that Marx did talk about value and exchange value as very closely related, but they are not literally the same concept, he said that "the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed." marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
I know but that's never going to happen because nobody with a sane mind would want to debate somebody who actually studied something while being clueless on the entire subject. This is also the case with philosophy and other stuff that isn't hard science. Who would agree to debate Schopenhauer (with the claim "it's rubbish") without even read a single line of him? People only think that with Marx, for some reason people think Marx was this crazy guy who was incorrect about literally everything etc. In the end it works in our favor imo.
Did you know that apperently Academic Agent apparently works in academia and teaches people about Marx, according to his claims? If that's true then I wanna kill myself
The worst thing is that many of these channels, like sargon, computing forever, lauren sothern, etc, etc have more subscribers than the entire far left community combine.
I listened up to 1hr30 so far. Seems like Academic Agent has an argument hidden in his mess of tantrums, but the argument is along the lines of the theory is internally consistent (as far as he knows, since he obviously doesn't know the LTV), it seems it is observably true in the cases it describes, but the economy as a whole has changed such that the majority of products being sold are monopolized by intellectual property, and so we live in a system more purely defined by rent rather than value. The law grants capitalists not just dominion over their property, but dominion over the production of certain commodities entirely, or at least their branded forms.
Whether or not this actually negates the LTVs predictions entirely would still be unclear, but at least it is something resembling an argument as to why we might consider abandoning the notion that we will see the LTV's predictions from to fruition, because prices are so distorted that value is not a great predictor of equilibrium prices.
Listening to AA trying to respond to Jack while clearly not understanding a single word he said was excruciating, but I'm actually glad I listened to this. I haven't read Capital and feel like I understand the LTV a bit better now and know how easy some of the generic arguments against it are to refute.
also about this how obvious is it that this guy listened to Richard Dawkins debate some creationist and now thinks he's a fucking genius?
Didn't Adam Smith initally come up with some form of the LTV that Marx developed further? It's not really an argument in and of itself but it seems like a great tool to get these le basic economigs types to reconsider. I think a lot of them just assume the LTV is wrong because it has to do with Marxism and they think Marxism is about forcing video game developers to stop putting tits in their games.
Smith, Ricardo and Marx all observed the LTV, it wasn't until later that economics became an ideological field rather than an analytical one.
I'm not sure about that, someone on /liberty/ actually tried reading Smith and quickly realized that he was not /theirguy/.
He should be named and shamed, not so that he may get fired but would you want to be taught by this moron who has no intellectual integrity? But then again if you're only enrolling into university I guess you won't know any better.
He still didn't understand at the end, a falling RATE of profit does not mean profits have to overall decline.
AA was arguing that LTV was contradicted because businesses will just sell more TVs even if the profit made on each one was less than before but that was besides the point.
Does he not understand what rate means?
It was pointed out in the beginning of the debate that Ricardo also tried to get to the equilibrium of prices and AA quickly responded to that by saying "well, Ricardo also has been proven to be wrong and outdated". It seems like these "basic economics" types believe in nothing else but hard-on Mises/Friedman/Rothbard/Hayek stuff and discard everybody else to be lunatics, from the classics to post-Keynesians. That's three Žižekian gigatons of ideology. The best way to shut them down is actually ask when this Austrian/Chicago School stuff has been implemented, and I failed so horribly under Pinochet that he had to re-nationalize tons of key industries.
LOL he literally can't address a point. He is so exasperated. If this dude is actually a professor he must work at a community college.
I know it's a meme to say "not an argument", but he actually doesn't understand argument, making claims, how to address claims. He got pissed because Jack kept asking him if he was equivocating value, and he didn't get it. He didn't understand that in order to address a claim, you have to do it on its own terms. He couldn't just say "nah, Marx is bullshit because my definition of value is different than the one he is using, and so everything falls apart".
Academic Agents grasp of economic theory amounts to stating the fact that Manchester United jerseys are more expensive than normal jerseys because they print their franchise on it.
Guy is an absolute sharlatan and I don't believe for a second he actually read those books he keeps spamming on Twitter
A bit annoyed that Jack doesn't call aa a charlatan outright like he deserves. This is the natural result of pseudo-intellectuals like him an sargon who get all their arguments from how easy it is to smugly dismiss something. Faced with actual theory, they devolve.
Everybody involved seems to be an amateur, it's just that Jack is the only one who done the minimum work to actually understand Marxist economics.
I disagree, I think he thoroughly demonstrated he was a charlatan around the 1:30-1:45 mark by switching tactics from honestly debating and making the state of the argument clear, to just viciously beating AA with the rhetorical tactic of taunting him with "you tell me what the predictions are, you tell me what the theory says, why did you lie that you've read and understood Capital if you can't even tell me anything about the theory?" as AA hopelessly kept muttering and blatantly attempting to remove the burden from himself by saying thing like "I think you need to prove it".
"uhm.. well… that uh… what Marx said"
"what did marx say?"
"well… that… uhm… th-that capitalism would fail because of… well bec-because of what he said"
"that it would collapse in 2017? He didn't say that"
"lets move on please"
He certainly demonstrated that, but does not give aa the treatment that a charlatan deserves. An ignorant observer struggling to grasp LTV should be told outright that aa has also failed to grasp LTV. Jack gives him too much space to wiggle, he allows aa to retreat into ignorant arguments without naming them as such.
Rinse and repeat for 3 hours from the one hour point onward. This liberal is a total tard, like what the hell how much of a cuck can you be and still live with yourself?
Academic Agent's response. It's pretty top kek, his entire criticism of it was that the format was against him. Then he claims that the argument/debate was basically "Is value is subjective?", and claimed that he was strong handed into using Marxist terminology. Which is just a flat out lie, because literally the debate from the onset was about the validity of Marx's Labour Theory of Value. How the hell are you going to disprove the theory if you don't know the premises or definitions used within it?
Also he encourages his followers not to watch the debate, which is also funny.
lel, did he run away and make that video the moment he left? Everyone else stuck around for a few hours to continue the conversation (much more productively than the debate itself).
webm for smugposting
Does anybody have Jack's account somewhere? Like youtube, twitter, etc?
Didn't expect to spend my day listening to e-celebs blathering, but I was entertained and actually did increase my understanding of the labor theory of value with this.
Bretty gud. Should have included his later tantrums tho where he literally screams swearing words tho
what time is that at?
THE FALLING PRICE- DO YOU KNOW- SHUT UP FOR FUCKS SAKE SHUT UP DO YOU KNOW- SHUT UP YOU'RE ANNOYING FOR FUCKS SAKE DO YOU KN- SHUT UP -OW FOR FUCKS SAKE FOR FUCKS SAKE SHUT -DO YOU KNOW WHAT SHUT UP YES YEP -THE PREDICTIONS ARE THAT THE - SHUT UP
honestly they were both being jackasses
Can you really blame Jack when AA spends almost all his time nor even making an argument?
lol Jack was being a "NOT AN ARGUMENT" nerd, but it was satisfying because it made AA furious and I don't actually feel that Jack was being unfair. When somebody like Molyneux acts like a pedantic nerd and yells "NOT AN ARGUMENT!", he is often behaving like a sophist. Jack was actually keeping the argument confined to proper terms, and AA sperged out for about an hour because he realized he wasn't going to be allowed to just spew speculative, retarded opinions all over the internet without being called out.
See I think he already loses his temper shortly before that but arround 6 minutes after that mark (building up to it) he starts screaming and yells "twat" into the mic as Jack goes on explaining it
Yeah that was good. Most people debating these "sceptics" charlatans allow themselves to get sidetracked but this time the guy actually stayed on the topic, like a proper academic should actually do
lmao Muke, did you see he just shared this on his Twitter? Is this guy thiat delusional to think that this compilation is supposed to make him look good? I'm shocked right now
he shared it on twitter?
Academic Agent's youtube comment on not knowing what C + V = S is and basically being called out for not reading.
"This sort of thing of "on the spot testing" on the spur of the moment would not fly at an actual academic conference because it is dirty tactics, and nothing to do with anything.
I made it clear I understood what value meant in that theory, and made it clear that I explicitely REJECT that definition of value because it is wrong. Value is subjective, not objective. The price is a reflection of how much people want something. Labour has NOTHING to do with it. Nothing. The amount of labour doesn't imbue anything with magical "value". The object being sold has a use-value. I even made jack admit this when I went through why the Baker would buy the super oven. He values it for its use and the price he pays is a refelction of that.
I mean keep being a intellectually dishonest as this, Jack convinced not a single person who wasn't already a deluded Marxist."
its sad because he knows he's wrong but his pride gets in the way of admitting it and trying to learn. that's the problem with these public debates you have to stand your ground and put on a show of an opposition so no one can ever learn anything which should be the purpose of debate to elicit the truth and rarely does anyone have the humility to publicly admit to being wrong. So he'll just continue to dig himself into a deeper hole.
He's worse than Sargon. At least Sargon deep down knows he has no clue of anything and therefore is always extremly obsfucating and vague on his statements (his entire monologues often have absolutely zero tangible content), but this "Academic Agent" seems to seriously believe he actually knows stuff and is not afraid to get into specific debates he knows nothing about. That's a lack of self-preservation instinct.
People should just start referring to proper debates as dialectic conversations and the shitslinging circuses taught by high school debate teams as shitslinging circuses.
Yeah, debates are a fight. Sometimes it happens, but you don't expect a fighter in the ring to just concede at some point and give up. Or maybe a sports team for that matter. Same with debaters, they won't concede and "learn" from a debate. They're there to just argue with each other as performance and then the audience decides who won.
Ultimately not very productive as a learning exercise. I'd never go into a "debate" with another person to learn. I'd ask them questions and discuss things.
It is kinda a beautiful thing to behold.
Because they tie directly to outrage culture in general. They're not serious people with serious politics, they produce silly ideologies that lead to ruin. They appease the exact same retards who think rageaholics videos are profound - constant cynicism = epic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
This user makes a good point. High school 'debate' teams and competitions and societies have utterly ruined the conception of what a debate is. The lack of philosophical education in schools we should bring back rhetoric as a formal subject as well tbh has created a culture of loud obnoxious listing of misunderstood 'logical fallacies' and sophistry in place of reasoned exchange of arguments. Our intellectual culture has been diminished.
I'm literally 14 minutes in and AA is shilling some game on steam. WOW
Even this is true, how is a system in which you work yourself to death by putting ketchup on a burger bun within 3 minutes in any way desirably
Is "play some MMO" the lolbert equivalent of Humans vs Orcs?
It's a multiplayer game where you have to make burgers on an assembly line in a fast food resturant against an opposite team, and whoever shits out more burgers wins.
I was referring to their need to point to fictional universes for examples of their system. It would be like us constantly saying Star Trek as proof of socialism working.
Wait, Star Trek isn't proof of socialism working? What the fuck are we even doing? I decided a long time ago I was either going to support a Star Trek politics, or a Harry Potter politics.
So what did we learn from this debate? What did Academic Agent did wrong that we should avoid in our next debate? What did Jack do right that should be considered for our next debate?
Didn't AA or some other guy try to tell Muke or someone after the 3v3 debate to play a certain video game to figure out what he meant?
Dialectics is for the participants to figure out the truth, usually involving logic and reason, while debates are specifically to convince the speculators using rhetoric. I think too many people don't understand this distinction and think the point of a debate is to convince the other person, when the point is to convince the audience. This leads to clusterfucks like here where Jack is acting like this is a dialectical dialogue when its a public debate which creates a "I must win" mindset in AA instead of a "I must find out the truth". Debates can work if either participant isn't willing to change their mind but both of them are committed to actually being rhetorical for the sake of the audience, but a dialogue can only work if both speakers are willing to change their mind.
Someone Pin this The actual Debate is legitimately deepening my understanding of the LTV this Jack guy is dank as fuck
The counter to that is that there are mass-produced items sold millions of times at one and the same price. Surely all those buyers of a thing buying it at the same price don't evaluate it to have the same importance, they only have in common that their individually felt threshold prices (maximum price where you still feel you are better off with getting the thing paying that amount money) are below or equal to the actual price. This gap between threshold and actual price can be small for some people and huge for others.
A super-rich person pays more for some flimflam than food, not because he wants flimflam more than the food he obtains, but because food is as cheap as it is.
Jack needs to start his own youtube channel. I DM'ed him.
every time. Liberals really can't handle the bantz. every time they get BTFO they have a mental breakdown
Was that Sargon's reaction to the debate?
no, it was a reaction to the "Hardon for Assad" twitter account
lmao. doesn't he understand that by getting so triggered by shit like that he only makes himself look like a huge retard?
I stopped watching when AA said that Marx never worked
guys I think we need to cyber bully AA as much as we possibly can after this. it's just too good.
he's been autistically replying to every comment calling him a moron on muke's video and the full debate video. tell him he got absolutely BTFO and call him an autistic brainlet bitch or something. maybe harass him on twitter too (i don't have twitter tho)
That sounds really mean.
that's the point
No buly plz
The debating skills AA demonstrates here are so shitty that it feels like I am actually seeing a live video of the face of that woman.
Well that doesn't sound very nice at all and so I can't condone that course of action.
he told /ourguy/ jack to shut the fuck up and called him a twat
So? It sounds like Jack got the better of him in the end.
Shouldn't you be spending your time more constructively?
you're right gonna go start a reading group rn
Source? This sounds like a laugh
That sounds like a good idea.
My boy jack taking none of that shit, didn't even deign it with an answer
He's not admitting he got fucked. He's still saying he has in fact read all three volumes of capital (and other works of Marx). In one comment he said that the LTV had to be wrong because Marx had "two incompatible types of value going on" (use- and exchange value) and you can't have two different types of value because value is value. Is he seriously fucking retarded or something? How can one man think he's some sort of genius and brag about all the books he's read, but in reality be this fucking stupid?
this level of discourse is so pathetically low imagine being so feeble you are incapable of approaching marx altogether
literal Newspeak shit
A shame he didn't and won't be reading The Road To Wigan Pier or Homage To Catalonia.
Someone should tell him that differentiating between kinds of value like exchange and use value is part of basic economics, we're not even talking about Marxian economics here.
Apparently, Adam Smith and friends were all "debunked" by price theory
Oh boy, someone's in a mood.
The comments are so amazing.
This guy is mentally broken. Maybe I'm misjudging, but I think Sargon would have the temperament to weather this shit. AA just had a meltdown where he had to tell every commenter that he wasn't owned, and that the only reason the debate was a shit show was because "Jack is religious!!! I don't even need to address his arguments because he is a retard!!! VALUE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE I'VE READ CAPITAL 20 TIMES!!!"
I think he also once told Muke on twitter to play Victoria II to get a better understanding of how capitalism works. Some one got a link to that or a screenshot?
I can't tell which it is!
Academic agent is now literally blocking every leftist on Twitter. Even people like Mexie who have been nice all the time. If this goes on like that I might feel sorry for him at some point.
I don't understand his point about how Marxists are now radical Christians. Is his point that we are radical or that we believe in things? Because that is true for literally every idea on the planet, even negative ones. So he is saying that we are like Christian's because we follow common theory and literature? Because that is also true of his ideology. But the difference is that you can prove that Christian theology is logically unsound as ultimately you can point out that Belief in God relies on faith. Notice how you have to work within the frame work of the theory to prove it wrong. I can't just say "Your belief in God is wrong because I don't believe in God." I have to say (to be logically tight) "your belief in God is wrong because there is no evidence that can totally prove his existence and your belief in him relies totally or atleast largely on faith." I mean to be totally honest you can't disprove God because it is unfalsifiable, but that is beyond the scope of my point. The debate is about marx’s LTV, so saying “LTV is wrong because my definition of value works within the context of my theory” isn't a rebuttal. Saying LTV is wrong because exchange value is subjective”is still wrong because that is just a claim you need to go further to support it. You could say “the LTV is wrong because surplus value isn't the primary/ only effect on a goods exchange value” I mean sure you have to build up facts and evidence to back that up as well but atleast it is a start. If the debate was question was “how is value determined in economics” then maybe AA’s retardation would be slightly more acceptable but regurdless from the onset that was not the debate. The debate was about marx’s LTV and to prove it wrong you need to point to logical inconsistencies.
Also look at this post from a YouTube comment of AA’s:
So AA doesn't actually care about a debate in theory because he has convinced himself that his theory isn't theory it is just “the real world.” pretty spooky tbh. The whole structure of Marxist theory is extrapolated from marx's definition value and the arguements used to support that theory of value. AA did nothing to directly attack marx’s theory instead just shilling his personal theory which he didn't even point out how his theory contradicted marx’s. And to top it off there is the irony of the fact that he keeps saying he is only interested in the "real world" while simultaneously encouraging people to understand his concepts via video games.
I have never seen someone be this embarrassingly assmad. At least some of the imbeciles he has for followers will be made to reconsider their ideologies.
What is he even trying to say? I'm a brainlet when it comes to LTV, but this sounds like some irrelevant bullshit.
Basically when you say that labor somehow matters for the equilibrium price of a product, you are getting banned because this guy gets assmad about economic theories that are completely un-emotional but can't be right because Marx never worked a day in his life.
tbqh this is the first time I actually saw communists overwhelmingly destroying one of these sceptic reactionaries. Almost noone rushed to his defends. We usually always fought an uphill battle online, but this time we didn't. Feels good. I'm too used to scroll to dozens of helicopter ride comments before seeing an actual leftist voice.
That's the best part about it, he wasn't. Most of the time he sat there and let him "bonkers". He only really got mad when it was obvious he hadn't read anything and was talking out of his. I don't know who this jack guy is, but we should keep him.
*call him bonkers
he blocked me too
what a fucking beta
No, actually. I seriously don't think he cares. Outrage apparently is his brand.
He blocked pretty much every leftist twitter account he knew now, including Muke, Mexie, and some random ones.
Forget LTV, he doesn't even understand the difference between exchange value and use value.
This comment best sums up AA in the "debate".
Holy shit, given the chance, commies are even more destructive at bullying than Holla Forums
Mind you, AA isn't exactly hard to bully
Well, he's not wrong.
Nah not really tbh, the only things that are produced in monopolistic ways currently are high technology items that use minimal labour. Since these commodities are the precursors to production and not final goods they add only slight lag to the lowering of the SNLT for the derivative commodities.
For example the paper machines at the factory have only three supplies worldwide. Those machines have arbitrarily high price due to this oligopoly. However the downstream products like paper etc which are heavily dependant on labour to produce are freely reproduceable.
You get what I mean?
stop shilling that shit channel
That Jack guy said he is willing to take on more "rational" people. That's going to be like porn. Porn for the Socialist Soul(TM).
A bunch of people already stuck around to continue learning in the aftershow chat.
It's kinda funny to see how you can fool right-wing retards into thinking you're smart by having a British accent and an old-timey profile picture/avatar (le gentlesir *tips cigarette*).
But capitalists are braindead idiots in Vicky 2 and any sensible player tries to get fascists, reactionaries or Bolsheviks in power so as to get at least some semblance of economic planning going to prevent the cappies from fucking everything up.
I'm not gonna torture myself by watching that. You know it's just gonna be the same shit he said in the debate except Jack's not gonna be there to expose how terrible TAA's understanding of the LTV is.
Kek, he really hasn't read it. Originally it was "a few years ago" and now it's "at least a decade ago" - he must think people are stupid.
I watched it. Here's the summary: 1. value is always subjective because I said so and leftists always attack my character instead of what I say 2. use-value and exchange-value are not different things because ＲＥＡＬ ＷＯＲＬＤ 3. most of the video is him reading from the article linked in the description that "debunks" LTV by ignoring the SNLT, basically mudpies and then some esotericism about a supposed Copernican revolution in economics 4. he then claims that Marx is simply wrong and that's why he won't talk about it anymore, it's a settled issue and this is simply how it works and if you disagree you are dumb
God this is so hot. Every time I see an anime I just gotta whip my dick out and JACK OFF You fellas are talking to a man who nutted seven times today, and it's not even noon where I live. A B C Always B Cummin
you're joking right?
why anime artists only know how to draw 1 face with little ittybitty small variations? all any characters are always beautiful and when they're not they're that shitty joke character & the only odd one out. The majority of the world is ugly & different come on anime step it up.
i want to see him debate sargon
can anyone link to the clip where he calls a little girl with downs syndrome a retarded kike nigger faggot or something like that
was it good
How fucking dumb can you be? Does he realize he not only attacks Marxists by saying that but als every fucking economists from Adam Smith to Steve Keen that isn't part of the Austrian School? I legitimately believe that if this guy was alive in the Renaissance he would gladly burn Gallileo Galilei because "Astronomy is subjective in the REAL WORLD".
And now he makes this video and blocks everyone on Twitter who would make an argument against and just claims he has won this and moves on now!! And the guy still has retarded right-wing followers!!! GODDAMMIT THIS ACTUALLY MAKES ME ANGRY SO INFURIATING.
HE STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MARX MEANS BY VALUE REEEEEEEEEE
Yeah, I feel you. And I don't actually think that the market is defined by monopolies of intellectual property, but I thought for a moment that there was a glimmer of this idea in Academic Agent's mind as a criticism, but that he just couldn't explain it because he was still too hung up on insisting that "BASIC ECONOMICS" and "VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE" disproved the LTV.
I do think it is pretty incredible though that advanced countries like the United States can seem to run their entire economies on downstream industries that often don't even involve manufacturing products at all, but just services and other jobs reliant on the surplus of the upstream economy.
I remember when I was younger and not a socialist, and not even very familiar with "BASIC ECONOMICS" I would consider this problem as something very confusing. How is it that everybody I see seems to work in offices and stores, and yet we still have all of this stuff? Of course as a kid I didn't really have any idea what the real constitution of the US economy was, but why did it seem like the majority of people worked in stores like Best Buy and at offices downtown? Why were we able to pay each other money to buy it when everything I saw said "made in china"?
Wrong. Debates' purpose is to gain political power.
I didn't understand any of that, I'm gonna try reading his book.
The first s e v e n minutes: Then, he starts reading this article: We're Still Haunted by the Labor Theory of Value by Steven Horwitz (fee.org/articles/were-still-haunted-by-the-labor-theory-of-value/) which presents the mudpie argument. (Example is: Students want a good grade for working a lot on a paper regardless of quality. That's dumb, checkmate Karl Marx. Even though "Academic Agent" himself mentioned the qualification "socially necessary" earlier, so he should know that the LTV isn't about raw labor hours.) The article claims that the shift from classical economics and objective values to marginal economics and subjective values was much like the revolution in astronomy going from the model of the solar system where the earth is in the center to the one where the sun is in the center. Problem: the economic model goes from claims about in principle observable, measurable physical quantities in the outside world to speculation about what is supposed to happen in the worlds inside the heads of people, explaining prices and quantities by that after the fact. When you see sheep with maggots in their assholes, do you think you crucially need some sheep-theory of value in order to deduct who is the parasite here? The sheep can live without the arse-maggots, but not vice versa. Likewise, a passive landlord takes without really providing anything. The thing he "provides" is that he removes a restriction to access that he himself is the cause of.
"Academic Agent" then claims that prices work the same for all sorts of things, whether a Manchester United shirt, a unique piece of art, or generic bread. Problem with that claim is that not even a neoclassical or Austrian-inspired economists would claim that, as they do make a distinction between competitive sectors and monopolies. The MU shirt's price is of course affected by trademark law making it a monopoly. >What Menger and others argued was that value is 'subjective (…) What matters for understanding economic value is the perception of usefulness in pursuit of human purposes and plans, not some “objective” value of the good or service. Problem: A mass-produced item is not sold at a million different prices, instead thousands or even millions of people pay the same price. How does that happen? Do their individual evaluations coincide? I find that rather implausible. >Understood correctly through the subjective theory of value, capitalism is fundamentally a communication process through which humans try to sort out how best to make use of our limited resources to satisfy our most urgent wants. Contradiction: If the measure is subjective, how can you claim it being objectively striving towards delivering the best result? Do billionaires have the most urgent wants? Pure insanity.
Oh, forgot to say this: Have fun sharing this post on facebook, twitter, and sho on :o)
The monopoly of intellectual property is even contentious among libertarians, so it's funny that Academic Agent seemed oblivious to the idea that intellectual property could be considered a monopoly in the case of something like Coca-Cola. Obviously Coca-Cola still competes with other brands of soda, but as Jack said, if Coca-Cola could be reproduced by any manufacturer, we'd expect the price attached to that brand to decrease..
he is not even owned by himself. he is owned by Capitalism totally. His mind is a cluster fuck, he is Patrick Bateman but with nothing of the handsome.
Gotta say - hearing his tism tantrum almost reduce him to tears made my dick hard
Wait. The fuck. Maybe I'm slow but when was Lardgon of Cuckkad Twitter account suspended?
GOOD. I guess its old news but GOOD. He is a retard.
He is one of those bosses that goes apeshit when he starts realizing that all he ever believed in isn't real. He will enter a psycho rage and kill a worker or something.
It's the same thing as a religious fanatic getting questioned. But in Capitalist form.
Yeah he's incredibly insecure and short tempered. Man's gotta know his limits.
Holla Forums eternally BTFO
Funny thing is that a lot of this free market bullshit gets BTFO in my old high school economics book, so I don't really get the whole "read muh basic economics leftycucks XD" meme.
Plus if you ever take anything past micro/macro you learn that all that basic economics stuff is bullshit because it applies to a perfect system with only 1-3 changing variables. Hell thats why its called perfect competition because it is literally impossible to achieve
Basic Economics is a book by Thomas Sowell. They don't care about actual economics, they just want you to take their cult seriously.
O-oh, now I feel silly. I always thought they meant literal basic economics.
How long is it, is it correct and should I read it.
Does he really believe that diminishing marginal utility is some profound and complex concept you need to learn by reading big books? I heard about that shit in school. And if you didn't, you can fix that issue with five minutes of your time and Wikipedia.
Diminishing marginal returns in production is something which already got mentioned by David Ricardo, in his treatment of land. (Simple model: Farmers work on the best land for producing some homogeneous thing, then demand goes up, land of decreasing quality starts getting put into use to meet demand, and it is the land of the worst quality that determines the price, since that farmer also has to make ends meet; and what the other more lucky farmers receive above that is called the rent of the land.) Neoclassical economics treats diminishing returns in production as the standard case, though they don't have an empirical justification for that. The "justification" is that it makes the model elegant. Talk about astrology-tier reasoning.
Diminishing marginal returns in consumption is entirely compatible with the LTV (and also a good argument for a more equitable distribution of income by the way). So, bottom line: He is a fucking idiot.
It's pure ideology.
I have a hard time comprehending this complete subjectivist view of value. Obviously there are some types of goods where labour inputs are not relevant to the price, say rare collector's items, but that's not the kind of economic activity that Marx is primarily concerned with. Is he saying that subjective utility determines value in EVERY type of productive labour? So if you're producing chairs or something, and you introduce a radically more efficient way to speed up the labour involved, this has no impact on price formations, those are still completely subjective to the consumer's valuation of the item?
Like I don't even know how this make sense, you're basically excluding the entire social process of production to make your theory. I hope this is just crazy Austrian metaphysics.
he's a chicago schooler so take a guess
They are only interested in a single individual.
anyone want to btfo this fag or at least make him so assmad he cries
I think it is akin to metaphysics = religion = aquinas. so they stop thinking on such things in the rational community.
Yes, and it is not something that subjective value predicts either, it is something subjective value explains after the exchanges are made. Imagine how fucking cool it would be if you had a secret actually working accurate predictive model for trades with unique art pieces and rare things that aren't produced anymore $_$ But these trades are too crazy and erratic. To come back to the flawed comparison mentioned from the essay he read (>>1954701), the reason humanity could figure out the movements of planets is that we ourselves don't influence any of that and there are regularities. With the economy, we have 1. our fingers in that thing the whole time and 2. there is a lot of random shit that just lacks regularity for us to build and test models. Does he himself understand what he is saying? Probably not.
As someone who's studied Aquins for a time and taken classes on his philosophy, I'd say he had too much intellectual integrity to adhere to meme economics for online pseuds.
Also ironically Marx quotes Aristotle as an early example of the distinction between use and exchange value.
no thanks, I'm not a succdem
in general things that more hard than "this is sjw newspeak" tend to be too much for your avg. youtuber angry commentator.
So, anybody wants to make a video about "Academic" Agent's "rebuttal"?
One of us should pretend to be an ancap and hop in there to fuck with them.
yes yes yes yes
I don't remember him making that "argument".
If anybody thinks about doing that: Don't half-ass it like your name is Academic Agent. There are a lot of juicy quotes of Mises, Rothbard, etc. Have these on hand, and directly quote them at length, deadpan. Mises temporarily supporting Italian fascism as the lesser evil against socialists. Some guy whining about the lack of reparations for former slave owners. Ayn Rand saying respect private property, but taking land from others is ok if they are savages. Don't make up a wacky personality, be a vessel of truth about a pig-disgusting position that is not in need of any hyperbole. Quote, quote, quote, and keep your own words to a minimum.
This. Just be a complete neoliberal fascist shill
not an argument, academic agent!!
For anybody who wants to play ancap: Read this AFAQ section, get the sources of that, and you have a lot of stuff to read aloud to make the discussion super-awkward: Do "libertarian"-capitalists support slavery? anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF2.html#secf22 But wait, there is more: Fascism as the lesser evil: Ludwig von Mises, (1927). Note that Mises did not think of Fascism as his favorite thing ever, but "merely" a defense, protecting private ownership of the means of production against commies: With Mises himself being Jewish, his support of Fascism as a lesser evil maybe wasn't his most clever decision in life. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand Private property is for humans, not savages, duh: Green issues are gay: >Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death. >-The Objectivist February 1971
JACK LITERALLY COULDN'T BE MORE /OURGUY/ EVEN IF HE TRIED
Nah, watched it all and found it to be both entertaining and educational. Jack knows what he's talking about and deflects every "criticism" that Academic Agent has to throw at him, mainly because AA has no idea what he's talking about and none of them really even touch the theory. Only downside to wacthing it is that they tend to retread the same ground over and over again, because AA keeps on insisting that it's not applicable in the real world without providing proof. The video has timestamps in the description to all of the retreads so you can skip those if you don't find it funny how worked up Academic Agent gets. After the timestamps end the video switches over to a question format where the audience asks questions, which imo is the most educational part since Jack gets to expand on some of the things he was alluding to earlier in the debate
This is gonna be a fun couple hours. I watched the debate with him, Finnbol & co and he was by far the least knowledgeable and smuggest moron on it - always too insecure to directly attack what was said.
this guy's a creep
I think this dude might be either genuinely autistic, or have some kind of anti-social personality disorder.
Umm… what a scary girl…
Does anyone know if AA actually is an academic? Because he reminds me of autists at their first seminar
Good God, its like if Zizek was a burger and was capable of shooting an AK into a crowd.
Could someone dox him?
Sometimes you have to weigh up the pros and cons, and I would honestly prefer AA to exist forever.
Isn't the value of labor subjective, though? Didn't Marx say something about if a guy works for hours on something useless, it's still useless and the work put in doesn't change its value.
Yes. That's why he uses the term socially necessary labour time, which is like a median of the time it takes to produce a commodity.
Another thing about why the analogy between the change towards modeling the solar system as heliocentric and the "advancement" of economics from classical to neoclassical is off: Both the old model of the solar system and the heliocentric one have the same scope: describing the movements of the planets in the solar system. The labor theory of value has a different scope than the epic rational science of saying everything is subjective lawl. Explaining what price unique art pieces fetch is simply not within the scope of the LTV. This is fundamentally different from trying to patch up an old model with new complicated extra rules when the model is contradicted by what the data is supposed to predict, which is what the article implies.
I feel like I have seen that faulty analogy a dozen times before. Why are mainstream econ writers so bad at logic?
Yes, no one cares if you work 100 hours on a sock puppet if no one is willing to pay you 100 hours of labor for it. The idea is that most things created in factories are things people want, so it usually becomes a non-issue. Since capitalists can't lower prices below what they used on production, it also means that cost of production and price are linked. They are additionally influenced by supply and demand. Subjectivity is two fold, first in the product needing demand, and second in the degree of said demand. This does not mean that value is completely subjective. Since there still is the labor cost and input resource cost (which is also created by labor, so can be abstracted to being labor costs). In this specific case when Marx writes value, it is the equilibrium market price (remember not to mix up price and exchange-value). This means the market price if there is no change due to supply and demand. Marx used empirical data to show that real market prices fluctuate around a certain price point (it almost never is the same as the actual price, but is never far from it either). This point which can almost be called an average is the equilibrium market price. Because of how prices are set in capitalist production, meant that these equilibrium prices are proportional to the amount of labor time. Obviously, because more labor time requires more wages. But also because items that require a long time to create are perceived as more valuable (you are willing to pay more for something which would require a lot of effort to create yourself).
This was on purpose. If you compare Marx to neoclassical it becomes clear that the neoclassical economists purposefully ignored vital parts of the economy to remove calss struggle from the picture. Where Marx explains the duality of the economy. Neoclassical takes a one sided approach. Marx explains that the free exchange between individuals has another side to it. Production under capitalism is quite opposed to that. It is coercion process. Workers are forced to work because the only way they can get food to through their selling labor power for money. The free exchange is, in reality, a forced exchange. Because neoclassical economics ignore this, their free exchange remains free. There is no coercion, there is no class struggle. The side effect of removing the production process is that prices and value are all subjective. Note that Marx never claimed that supply and demand had no influence, he just claimed that it was far from everything that influenced prices. Neoclassical economics is retarded in the sense that they go all in on supply and demand. They claim everything is 100% based on supply and demand. They take a particular and conflate it to be the universal, which shows their philosophical bankruptcy.
If it's useless it has no value. Only commodities in exchange have value.
Is there some book on this that goes into detail? Sounds really fascinating.
😐 Mein Kampf
I hope that Voltaire guy is one of you boys, the other 2 are established ancap accounts.
Subjective value theory is basically believing that the universe is absurd and that nothing is real. It's fucking controlled insanity. This should be obvious to anyone who has a brain, but Austrian Economics is pure ideology.
Already posted and archived and taken apart >>1954701 Academic Agent is absolutely delusional if he believes that the prices of mass-produced items in a competitive environment are set independently of production cost and that prices are all down to feelings.
Millions of consumers buy a mass-produced item at one and the same price. That doesn't mean they evaluate it the same, just that that the price is equal or lower than the threshold where the decision pivots from not buying to buying. Different buyers can have very different threshold values regarding the same item.
The rule of thumb for consuming something repeatedly is that the additional happiness you gain shrinks. Something that is cheap you can consume more often, meaning you don't get that much happiness out of it. So, marginalist thinking is not at odds with prices being strongly influenced by the production structure, and in a way your subjective evaluation actually follows that structure: You get more per-unit happiness out of consuming expensive things, because you consume them less often, which you do because they are so expensive. To a great extent your feelings follow what happens in the world around you, rather than steering the world in the direction you want.
Doubt this will be going up on his own channel lmao
He recommended that people don't watch it.
He knows that the LTV is older than his esoteric bullshit?
Abstractions work if they are coherent with reality. Why do people who believe in neoclassical theory think that they can abstract reality away? They are still completely ignoring the production process as if it doesn't matter at all.
He is complaining about Antifa and their violence without mentioning anything bad about the far-right or even the fucking terror attack. Why do all "classical liberals" turn out to be just "polite" Nazis?
Allegedly the driver was scared of protesters with baseball bats, so decided to run them over :^)
Academic Agent speaks unintelligently despite his pedantic brogue, but it doesn't mean that he is wrong. Jack does plenty of weasling and ad-hominems. He never contributes anectdotes that could potentially dampen the force his own arguments. Jack wanted to mute his opponent not to search for truth.
You don't search for truths in debates. Debates are with very rare exceptions no more than spaces for eristic. An actual argument that is dialectical is far rarer, and having one with someone who engages in such autistic screeching is impossible in the first place. That and audiences don't want truth, but to get the rush out of watching verbal combat.
I wanted to also mention that Jack begs the question that "value" should be defined only in Marxist terms, offering the excuse that it's more scientifically rigorous ("objective") than other definitions. Socialists keep trying to redefine the meanings of common words such as "gender."
How did you find us, Academic Agent?
Your on the wrong leftypol AA. Go to 8ch.pl
Economists other than Marx have tried to define "value" in objective terms, in order to explain why commodities generally have a price point they fluctuate around due to supply and demand. AA doesn't offer a credible theory of equilibrium prices other than, essentially, because they just are that way, or is denying the existence of equilibrium prices (which have been empirically shown to exist). AA then goes off on some notion that "knowledge" is equated to value, but doesn't provide any theory or predictions of that assertion besides that one time his dad was paid by a factory and some Steam game he plugged.
Arbitrarily defining words is a favorite debate tactic of rightist turds, which is why Randians create their own Wikipedia with ideologically correct articles and whatnot. But AA fails to even create a coherent definition of "value", which is kind of essential if you're going to present a theory about why prices generally are where in observable, empirical reality.
are where they are in observable, empirical reality. Stupid typo.
Egalitarianism did that.
Now they are getting rid of basic Algebra as a college prerequisite in California because it "excludes minorities". Smart.
fucking actually? jesus christ liberals definitely DEFINITELY get the bullet too.
Why would anecdotes be relevent to a discussion of economic theory?
The fact that workers do not need algebra did that. Bourgeois education is intended to do nothing beyond produce workers.
california is switching to charter schools because of their retarded property tax laws so i understand why they would want to make sure uneducated dullards could also get into college
I hate everything about that garbage state.
its a nightmare
How the fuck could someone think like this. Its disturbing. There are degrees of quality in a given product. A cheap car. A high end car. Products are often built specifically for higher net worth consumers. Chances are the Super-rich person doesn't desire the flimflam. We you begin to earn a lot of money your lifestyle often just gets more expensive commensurate with your earnings. Rich people don't really shop at walmart. Thats the beauty of capitalism. It often adapts with ones income.
amazing. the beauty of buying the same produce that walmart sells at a 200% markup from whole foods - truly the most amazing economic system ever devised
tbh i dont are, algebra is not needed for history or many liberal arts degrees
How can you proceed with the logic that all products are built/assembled equally and provide equal value? How fucking pleb does it get?
Its a basic math. Principles of problem solving etc. I think you could make the case for geometry and upwards of that in terms of complexity. But basic Algebra 1 and 2? No. That should be a college prerequisite. You have to draw the line somewhere. If Algebra is the make or brake issue on your ability to attend college you shouldn't be in college. Colleges are in serious crisis right now. They are being devalued in terms of quality in order to accommodate a lower Autism Level spectrum. Thats a result of demographics.
The existence of luxury items (which have to compete against each other) does not mean VALUE IS ARBITRARY LALALALALALA.
I don't see what is beautiful about making shit for rich people just because and lots of surplus value being wasted on rich peoples' vanity, nor do I see the beauty in manufacturing lots of useless spinner toys because they're trendy. To each their own I guess.
Listen to this shit…
Chris Edley, former dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, called removing the intermediate algebra requirement a civil rights issue because a disproportionate number of black and Latino students failed to pass remedial courses based on algebra. Most of the students were pursuing careers outside of the sciences and math. “The test of being successful in first-year law school has to do with logic, with being analytical. It doesn’t have to do at all with quantitative skills,” he said in an interview.
Math isn't logical he says. This is the future the neo-liberals are delivering.
Ideology is antithetical to math.
I don't know how anyone learns anything in the school system. Basically everything I ever learned I got from devouring books on my own, and that worked up until I went apeshit around 13-14 and just gave up on education.
At least I dodged massive student debt, in exchange for being part of the permanent underclass.
This sentence makes no sense in respect to what I said regarding rich people just paying more for marked up shit they could by for less. I said they pay more for better quality products. Not the same products. The picture was an example.
Its a reward system. Earn more money and earn better things. Its not complicated.
If the rich person is buying something more expensive simply because it's more expensive and not for any qualitative reason, they're stupid. If you're arguing that stupidity and ignorance are the bedrock of capitalism, by all means keep doing so. It makes my job a lot easier.
No they buy it because they can afford the higher quality. How can you not grasp this? How the fuck man?
These are fucking really easy concepts to grasp. A rich person isn't buying something JUST because its more expensive. They are buying it because it is often better then a cheaper version and they can afford it.
Look at the 2 cars and think really really hard. You can do it.
How is the more expensive car better? You have to specify why someone would want to pay more and find a way to quantify HOW it's better rather than just say "durrr it's better". Obviously there is a difference of quality between one car and another, but there is a range of products that can be called "cars" that conform to certain use-value (transportation, and everything that goes with it).
What guarantees that the rich person will automatically buy the better car, if they only feel the need for the cheap car for their purposes? You're making an assumption that rich people just want better things just because and taking that as a given. There is no reason the rich person wouldn't, for example, have a million dollars and decide to live at $25000/year for 50 years. Maybe they value retirement more than the luxury goods. So the whole argument about "incentives" and "adjusting to income" is just nonsense and batshit.
If the use of the better stuff is just to show off higher status, then what does that say about capitalism as a system? Why should society not aim to make a decent-quality car that is mass-produceable, rather than have the majority of the population drive used beat-up cars or none at all so that a few can have the really fancy cars? You're looking at the situation purely from a selfish perspective rather than a utilitarian perspective.
means exactly the same mass-produced items, transparently identical items, sold at the one and the same price. Multiple copies of mass-produced specific product A sell at one and the same price, multiple copies of mass-produced specific product B sell at the same price and so on. Sure, sure. But that wasn't the point at all. The point is about how limited the influence of subjective preferences really is. We do not really get a fantastic amount of information about how much people like a product when they buy it, and how much people like a product if it is something you can regularly consume is actually also influenced by its price (which actually follows from simple marginal-utility logic). See:
I never said guarantees. heres what i wrote…
…Products are often built specifically for higher net worth consumers. Chances are the Super-rich person doesn't desire the flimflam. We you begin to earn a lot of money your lifestyle often just gets more expensive commensurate with your earnings. Rich people don't really shop at walmart. Thats the beauty of capitalism. It often adapts with ones income.
No it's not. A wealthy person would never decide to stop earning money and live off of the paltry sum of 25k a year for fifty years. Money and how it is made, spent, and invested is a nascent thing. I mean this 50 year premise is fucking juvenile. Could someone make that decision? Ok yes. But would they? I am saying is that generally when you talk about high net worth individuals they spend their money on things of a higher quality/value. Thats observable. Thats obvious.
It does. Most cars are in a medium price range and marketed to middle income buyers. High end Luxury cars aren't
I can't keep doing this argument. You sound like a kid. Get it the fuck together.
(me) I'll better put it less ambiguously: Multiple copies of mass-produced specific product A sell at one and the same price X, multiple copies of mass-produced specific product B sell at the same price Y and so on.
idk what California is doing, but other states have changed remedial courses to corequisite status instead of prerequisites. Graduation rates went up, I don't think autism level has anything to do with it unless they are seriously fucking with the requirements/content.
The situation seems to have been that getting put into a remedial class meant you needed to take 2 fucking years of it, paying tuition/rent, and only get to take other courses after getting through it. Lots of people were apparently dropping out because they ran out of money or thought they were wasting their time.
Anyways, I don't think this is a bad thing, but if burgers could fix their fucking high schools this wouldn't be a problem. Can somebody remind me why burgers fund schools based on local property taxes instead of a centralized budget?
Your premise is essentially greed is the main reason for living. Your premise is retarded and so are you.
I don't see what this exchange has to do with the LTV…
That price is not arbitrarily set. If its a brand new product it uses some existing input from the marketplace, a similar product, or even its own production cost to price itself.
I ment Autism Level level
I ment intelligence quotient. It spits out Autism when I type the abbreviation.
It doesn't have anything to do with LTV really.>>1971309 debunked his retardation better than I did but I don't think he's going to get past his notions of selfishness. Ideology is a hell of a drug.
Education is a racket, that's why we have the fucked up system that we do.
Thats not my premise kid. Greed/desire are a powerful incentive for someone to do something but it is not the only reason for someone to do something.
You're too retarded for words. Read . Learn to read.
Yes its pay to play as regards secondary education. However state run education produces equally bad results. You can teach people really well but the truth is that it only has a marginal impact on their performance. Intelligence and cognitive ability are genetic and its unfair the way athletic ability is genetic.
I dunno, I'm a brainlet and I got Algebra 1 and 2 basically by following the textbook, no instruction from the teacher (I was basically thrown aside and left to fend for myself, and my mother had to fight for the textbook to be given to me.)
I think a lot of shit gets muddled by pure ideology. Like, the way they teach kids to read in school is intentionally designed to lower literacy. I was lucky enough to learn to read before entering K, mostly by the old-fashioned method (although I don't particularly recall, my memory is patchy and only starts after I was able to read).
I know what you meant, I'm saying that it's not what seems to matter here.
Basically, when universities end up doing the jobs of high schools and actively teaching people algebra, the students start passing. Algebra isn't hard enough that autism level starts mattering, it's the burger education at lower levels.
Switching the coreq remedials in 5 states have seen pass rates shot up from 20% to 65%, again, there's organizational stuff at work here that's trumping autism
I misread. To be honest I have 5 threads open and am debating 6 different people. This was completely lost in the shuffle.
My only argument I would make here is that. While it is generally true that price is not set independantly of production cost there are a multitude of times it is.
For example a company mass produces but finds itself in a financial bind. They might sell for less then the cost of production and write of the loss. This happens all the time. Companies will produce and sell at a loss or breakeven due to external financial pressure aside from the value the market places on its product.
First I lold at the debate. Then I lold at Academic Agent coming in this thread and melting down once again. never stop making an ass of yourself, please.
don't forget his desperate attempts to show he's not owned in the comment section of the debate video
That's not him.
nice try, academic agent
The burger education system - and really all of the capitalist state education systems - was built on segregation. The vast majority of students straight up aren't taught, they're penned and disciplined. It used to be far more obvious back when students were outright segregated into A and B classes and black kids weren't allowed in at all.
Now everyone is "supposed" to go to college, but the system doesn't really want everyone to succeed, so they have to lower standards rather than admit what they're really doing. Bonus - the universities get to charge for doing what the high schools are supposed to do, and the student is getting essentially a worthless piece of paper because no one is going to hire someone who took remedial classes in college.
Fuck credentialism and fuck the whole education system. It is like I said, a racket.
I simply figured the comments would be way more douchey, and in no way ever saying something like he misread X, because AA thinks he's perfect and makes no mistakes.
What? I'm a neckbeard from Holla Forums I come here to get out of the Echo chamber and have debates. I'm not that kid from that video.
This is really bad man. Its is a really bad understanding of the issues. I'm sorry but things like education require some form of measurement. There needs to be credentials. What the fuck are we even talking about anymore?!?
It's a problem when the credential most students get doesn't translate to anything, and people are basically forced to go in order to flip burgers at BK. It's even worse when selected children are singled out at the lower levels and their lives are ruined, like mine was, and they're rendered unemployable, even if they eventually can do something with their lives.
Education is good, but burgers have fucked up their entire education system from top to bottom. Phds don't get jobs, undergrads transformed into loan sponges, grade schools privatized, daycares non-existent. They made a system that's the most naked form of class segregation possible and they are fucking up kids in the process.
But people should be educated. It's a fucking obligation.
Are you the autism level guy?
Yeah, I wish education were different, but it basically has to be rebuilt from the ground up. What we've had going (both state and private-run charters) is bullshit from its inception.
Stop blaming the uneven success distribution on the system, the teachers, the policies, racism, classism, sexism, ismsind sisnjx
Why can't the left into reality.
Hang yourself Holla Forumsyp
Shut the fuck up. You'll do nuttin.
Nice job, it's a good one
Of course the real reason is the jews, right? Why cant right into reality
That would be an over simplification. But I can run down the gamut of media/entertainment/publishing companies that leftist jewish people run and explain how any one group having that uneven distribution is dangerous. And I mean that of white non jews as well.
Not everyone on Holla Forums is a racist and there are plenty of anti-semites here.
Just a little into reality for ya
Stop blaming the uneven success distribution on the system, the jews, the blacks, the Mexicans taking our jerbs, the feminazis, balhalhbalha
Why can't the right shut the fuck up?
You had me up until that point
you will never fuck
I see the damage control is at full steam now.
I'm married and have kids. 0/10 dipshit.
Listen, blaming policies for results is just leftist nonsense, everybody knows policies aren't real.
So it's fucking nothing? Why are people angry about this?
I feel bad for your family
It's a slippery slope and its not "nothing"
Esp when we are going down this line of thinking…
Chris Edley, former dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, called removing the intermediate algebra requirement a civil rights issue because a disproportionate number of black and Latino students failed to pass remedial courses based on algebra. Most of the students were pursuing careers outside of the sciences and math. “The test of being successful in first-year law school has to do with logic, with being analytical. It doesn’t have to do at all with quantitative skills,” he said in an interview.
This book has no relevance in modern life. We need to get over 200 year old books that have no practical effect. Two idiots arguing about nothing. What the fuck does this forum even talk about these days?
You're getting pretty edgy there on the anonymous leftwing neckboard.
This is the weirdest strawman I have ever seen. Did you mistake Space Jam for Das Kapital or something? I don't even know what your point is, other than your imaginary communist basketball team stinks at basketball.
You're sounding pretty fucking retarded right now, senpai.
How is it a slippery slope? Why would an English major need "intermediate algebra" (not basic, intermediate). They can now take some other maths course instead, like logic or something that is actually useful for them.
It's definitely an improvement.
You fucking retarded, son? If you can't do order of operations, you likely can't successfully brief a case, write a first year memo, properly IRAC during a law exam. You definitely have Down Syndrome.
200 year old books are going to be relevant as long as we have a 300 year old economic model at use.
You should have taken some English classes to improve your reading comprehension retard
You think that's edgy? You really are a pussy
you're probably married to an aryan beauty who sleeps in a maga hat and you have two children with no defects
You're the one who thinks proficiency in math doesn't have a thing to do with one's logical abilities or Autism Level. You think someone who can't understand the distributive property has the ability to adequately represent someone - procedurally and substantively - in a court of law.
This is no longer Holla Forums. It's /fuckingretarded/
you have to go back >>>Holla Forums
What the fuck is an autism level?
I don't even get the reference. Who is that supposed to be? I'm the "nazi" right. Lol. sigh.
What's up with this newfag invasion?
Retard shit beyond the imagination.
I don't have time to lurk here all day every day, I have a job and a huge bucket list of books to read.
Fam, do yourself a favour and go back to reddit
word filter turns I.Q. into autism level
Muh secret club. Muh reddit spacing. Jesus christ the state of you faggots
tell us about your skull shape
You know you can just close the tab and leave, right?
rofl im friends with this guy and he fucking hates socialism
hes the heir of some oil fortune and spends all his money on figurines and doujinshi
At least it's not fucking dinner plates or smart salt shakers
Porky has made mentally ill consumers out of his own children.
Since Academic Agent will block anybody who questions his cred when it comes to knowing Marx or the LTV, not it's time to enter BULLY PHASE TWO. Wherever he is, wherever he goes, always tell everybody around him that he is an expert on Marxism who has written several books about Marx (three so far).
Academic Agent is digging a hole so deep for himself that he will soon start shoveling liquid magma.
>notw it's time to enter BULLY PHASE TWO.
It's one and a half hours long. Too big to webm.
I've been watching this video, and while it is very interesting, I'm still having trouble determining why we need to find out what the equilibrium price is, could any comrades please enlighten me on that?
This is how I understand it. So when supply and demand are in balance, we still pay a particular price for a good. What determines this price? It's not supply/demand, because those are fluctuations on the equilibrium price. The way Jack explains it is actually very simple: Assuming all other things are equal, the amount of unskilled labour taken to make a thing determines the price of that thing. It's to say that "value" is not some arbitrary amount nor is it subjective, because when everything else is taken away, the value of a thing is determined by how much labour goes into it.
Jack outlining the LTV to an interviewer while simultaneously shitting on Academic Agent in sprinklings throughout the interview: youtube.com/watch?v=bsKb4qC30Ro Also AA is in the comments trying to start shit again. It has been an all around pretty funny week pertaining to this little squabble.
The original posting of this video was deleted in the thread for some reason, so mods feel free to delete this post again if ya want
I'm confused, how do we know what the value of a given commodity is until it enters exchange and you have data for what its market price? Jack says if a worker is paid producing $200 of value from his labor, and he's paid for $100 of it, the other half is taken as profit. How do you measure the $200 before it enters exchange?
You must really trust your bank.
You know you can kys, right?
B T F O T F O
Holy shit this guy is absolute destroyer of worlds.
this guy's great.
The worker sells hos labour power to the capitalist for 100$. The capitalist then uses that labour power to make goods that he can sell for 200$. If the capitalist can sell them for 300$, the worker still gets 100$, and if he sells them for 50$ the worker still gets 100$. The labour is bought before the commodity is sold, the price of the commodity is determined by market conditions, with the equilibrium price being the cost of production.
so does market price=value then? How is the value of the individual laborer realized, unless the commodity is already in circulation? Does this mean that as the market saturates that his labor will subsequently be worth less?
I guess if juries can't understand the regression analyses underlying muh id/pol/, why should the lawyers who argue them, or the judges? Real fights take place in the street!
Not really. From what I understand, the exchange value of a commodity is the equilibrium price, ie. the cost of production (including labour costs). The actual market price fluctuates around that value, being either higher, and thus a profitable investment, or lower, and thus unprofitable. The value of the worker's labour is determined by the socially necessary labour time (SNLT), how many labour hours on average are required to produce a given commodity. As technology and the division of labour develops the SNLT falls, meaning a worker can produce more of a given commodity per hour of labour. The worker is not paid more, since he is still selling the same amount of labour, it's just used more efficiently, so the cost of production falls, allowing the capitalist to extract more surplus value until the price stabilises around the new cost of production (usually after a brief crisis of oversupply as everyone and their grandmother jumps on the automation bandwagon until supply greatly exceeds demand). The value of the worker's labour is realized when he is paid, the value of the commodity is realized when it is sold.
bless this beautiful man
Correction: the exchange value isn't the equilibrium price, but rather represents how much a commodity is worth compared to another commodity (with its value compared to a specific currency being its price in that currency). Exchange value is relative, it always has to be compared to something else
So the exploitation of the worker can't be known until after the commodity enters exchange and turns out to be either profitable or unprofitable? The value of labor itself is mediated through the exchange medium, money, but not the physical representative of labor itself, I assume? Also, what is equilibrium price?
The worker is exploited either way. Exploitation in the Marxist sense is when the worker is denied the full fruits of his labour, which he is when he is forced to use his labour power to produce commodities for the capitalist (which the capitalist keeps). Because the worker only has his labour power to sell, he is trapped in a cycle of constantly having to sell his labour to a capitalist in order to live, while the capitalist then sells the products of that labour without committing any labour of his own. If the capitalist fails to make a profit, and thus fails to extract surplus value from the worker, the worker is still exploited, he was just exploited poorly. Usually, though, the capitalist is able to turn a profit, because he is in a much better bargaining position than the worker, allowing the capitalist to pay the worker less than the value he creates (which is defined by the SNLT). The whole process of production is about turning goods of low value (like, say, wool) into goods of high value (clothes). That transformation requires labour, which is bought from the worker. The equilibrium price is the cost of production (the cost of raw materials - which are extracted through labour - and the labour costs of the commodity). Again, prices and exchange values are always relative, they don't exist in a vacuum but have to be compared to something else, and when the capitalist determines the price of his product, and what would be a valuable investment, the calculation he always makes is what will he get vs what he has to pay. If he can get more out of it than he pays, he invests, if he can't, he doesn't.
A big blog post about the debate. Spoiler alert: It turns out the contributions by Academic Agent in that debate were not so good. empiricalemperor.blogspot.com/2017/08/TheAcademicAgent.html
Because there may be a second debate coming up, and the board was being flooded with gay porn. So it makes sense to have a containment thread for the Academic Agent bullshit. Also this thread is top kek, and is an excellent introduction to newfags about the retardation of ancaps and right-wing ideology in general.
dont tell me jack agreed to that ridiculous 38 rule list
I don't have a twitter, someone tweet this meme i made of him at him?
you absolute madman
dude just make a twitter and join the left wing irony gang.
To be honest he sounds like an "alt-lite" faggot
Every society is ruled by elite
Hell, if you go outside the economic sphere communism REALLY breaks down. Pure materialism is fucking cancer
twitter.com/AcademicAgent/status/899945559611625473 CommieTweet: "You are equivocating on value again, as you have throughout the entire fucking debate with Jack." AA: "Stop lying." AA posts this quote from Marx: AA: "Marx is just incoherent when he talks about this because he was economically illiterate." I went to the source (marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm) and found this qualification in the same chapter: >In the process we are now considering it is of extreme importance, that no more time be consumed in the work of transforming the cotton into yarn than is necessary under the given social conditions. If under normal, i.e., average social conditions of production, a pounds of cotton ought to be made into b pounds of yarn by one hour’s labour, then a day’s labour does not count as 12 hours’ labour unless 12 a pounds of cotton have been made into 12 b pounds of yarn; for in the creation of value, the time that is socially necessary alone counts. Well, I haven't written three books about Marx, but this and similar qualifications throughout look to me like Marx did not mean that some particular ratio of work time by some particular people going into particular products always directly corresponds to the ratio of Marx-Values(TM), nor that Marx meant that ratios of Marx-Values(TM) or the concrete ratios of time going into making different products always directly correspond to price ratios. It rather looks like these are three different though related concepts. AA: "Can anyone calculate the labour-time in a pencil as Marx did with yarn?" Do you know the number of atoms in a pencil? No? See, that is proof that atoms don't exist. Academic Agent will get the Nobel prize in physics for that insight.
bumping to counter the pony spam
I'll live with my meme page, it already occupies too much of my time.