Am I the only that is frustrated that liberals don't question the implications of their view of the economy? Here we have a typical liberal video trying to explain automation and even acknowledges declining rate of exchange value for commodities; hand waves it away in the idea services are just worth more and doesn't ask why the exchange value of manufactured goods has declined.
Yet to me, my reaction to the video is "it is LTV stupid" yet of course liberals won't dare acknowledge LTV even exists and that all commodities lose value as labor time is reduced per unit. Instead they simply state services are worth more even though they go through service jobs that have been automated, then go on with the rest of the video as if there isn't major questions they have just raised with their explanation.
Am I the only that is frustrated that liberals don't question the implications of their view of the economy...
If services are worth more why are most service industry jobs so unprofitable?
Because liberals don't have a firm grasp on economics. They say services are worth more because Apple still makes tons of money thus just assume all that comes from services added to the commodity.
If liberals had a firm grasp on economics and acknowledged LTV, they wouldn't be liberals.
Psst.. It's *not* the LTV, stupid. It's a reduced cost of production, which is based on a total chain of costs grounded in nothing but wages set by a labor contract, you dingus.
Actually it is LTV, production costs have actually gone up over the decades yet labor time has gone down. This has resulted in reduced exchange value along with a falling rate of profit.
user, you really need to learn what you actually say. Marx himself admits that the existent price does not trend towards SNLT, but to costs of production around an equalized rate of profit.
Silly user, read a fucking book and >think< about the logical developments for once.
has there ever been an intelligent person who confronted you on Holla Forums?
Forgive the interjection, but most commonly, hasn't the production and exchange of commodity, both nationally and internationally, presupposed on the basis of "comparative advantage" or the HOS principle (notwithstanding its obvious empirical deficiencies). Failing to recognize, not the absence of an equalized rate of profit, but the inability of the underlying positive suppositions to assert themselves in the development and process of free trade relegates one to the defense of Ricardo or Smith in their Standard Trade Theory. The development and division of the industrial capacity of labor, done under industrial protectionism and then opened to international trade have, much rather than ground the basis for productive-cost based pricing, have seen the cost and development of capital intensive endowment factors developed elsewhere and financed (the trade balance offset purported to be neutralized naturally by the comparative advantage of the decrease of productive cost) by foreign or reserved private capital. This is not all to advance the idea that you're incorrect in your assumption of the decreasing cost of production, but rather that, within the schema of the development of the corpus of international economy - the classical supposed relation of cost of production, the rate of profit notwithstanding, to the final price is definitively unable to address the present dearth of appreciable material growth.
The above polemic aside, I'd love to hear your opinion on the development of the Jacobian and Kantian religious debate in Hegel' work
The cost of production (labour (i.e. wages), materials, costs for maintenance for tools/machines/etc) is a part of the LTV you dumbfuck.
Read a fucking book.
researchgate.net
Meant to add this as a resource - short expounding upon the ontology, as well as critique of, the modern standard trade theory and its descendants.
Only human labor contributes to exchange value, it is why despite many computers working to distribute pirated movies, games and porn to you, their work has zero exchange value.
That wasn't true in his day, isn't true in ours. Wages aren't decided by a basket price because guess what, moron? Those prices are set by wages ;), so wages set wages. And what really sets the wage? Labor contract and class struggle.
The global currency and labor arbitrage fucks a lot with Marx's general theory. Internal economies and how they relate to external economies ends up being a huge factor in ways that prices can decrease without SNLT as such decreasing (or even increasing).
False. Unused land, rent, etc. Marx himself acknowledges in chapter 3 of Capital vol.1 that his claim is false, so he hedges his claim by making one of the most retarded 'bite the bullet' assertions: not all things that have prices have value. This is in direct contradiction to the fact that price and all commodity exchanges de facto >necessarily< are value relations regardless of what he wanted it to be.
Marx was wrong, and you are wrong. It's such a basic mistake only a dogmatist materialist labor lover would make.
A Computer today does more calculations every second then all human calculators in human calculations in human history. Yet this computer labor doesn't add exchange value to the end product, all that does is the labor that goes into running the computer, yet the work the computer itself does adds zero exchange value. It is obvious if we achieved 100% automation where the means of production can produce without any human intervention that nothing would have any exchange value, just like how nothing nature produces has any exchange value.
How does ascribing a price preclude the commodity exchange? Could you expand?
A commodity is all you need for value. No production necessary. Why do you assume I'm as ignorant as you? I wrote about this shit years ago, not only did I make a better argument >for< the LTV than you do, which isn't based on any appeal to labor, but to subjects, I also realized this crucial problem of labor not being universal to commodities logically and empirically.
Think and quit parroting. This is a problem with just 'reading' without thinking, you get people like you who recite their church dogma as if it counts just because it sounds better than your normal word salad vomit.
Actually that's 100% correct and rather prophetic from Marx.
Of what? Labor?
Nice not an argument. Is it a commodity? Yes? It has value. Do >you< value it? No? Who cares, someone does so it has value. This has nothing to do with fetishism, it has to do with what you objectively do with commodities as commodities.
Come on, READ, people, seriously.
Under:
"Marx himself acknowledges in chapter 3 of Capital vol.1 that his claim is false, so he hedges his claim by making one of the most retarded 'bite the bullet' assertions: not all things that have prices have value. This is in direct contradiction to the fact that price and all commodity exchanges de facto >necessarily< are value relations regardless of what he wanted it to be." per
Then why does nature have exchange value, why isn't the labor of the sun calculated into our food? The reason is that it works without human intervention, same thing happens when you have means of production that doesn't need humans intervening. This is why internet piracy is far more effective then previous methods of piracy of media since now you have machines doing more of the work with humans didn't very little of the work of pirating, thus LTV makes modern piracy methods have less exchange value then previous methods.
I suspect AdamRuinsEverything is quite crypto-Marxist. His videos are what pushed me further and further left
Arbitrary price is just the fundamental gate of all commodities on the ground of property owners relating to each other and respecting this ownership based on nothing other than recognition of this property. There is no ground for the price other than what the owners will agree to exchange. This precludes the thesis that labor is universal to commodities and the substance of value since it breaks the rule and empirically proves it false.
Humans demand a return on their labor, and it is this demand for recogntion that creates the dynamic of value. Nature, and machines, DO create surplus, ridiculous amounts. Guess who alone claims it? Conscious subjects who make demands for value recognition and move it by spending. Read my Bunkermag article on this, it's not hard.
Of course automation is causing mass unemployment because of the for-profit production system so we should abolish capitalism in favor of producing according to need but it hasn't happened in my sector yet haha just work harder lazy poor people
...
Only if you expand the definition of "marxist" to the extent that Sargon does.