BADMOUSE vs. THATGUYT

Is the debate going to be moderated?

Why don't you go and inform the people then, Marxmaster Flash?

so basically we're all fucked and Leftism/rightism will only both continue to look completely autistic to outsiders….K.

So people who don't know what they're talking about are going to tell each other why the other person doesn't know what they're talking about…

Yup, that sounds about right for the contemporary left.

i see nothing but the 20th century ghosts tbh

This is going to be awful and a stuttering muttering mess.

As an evil STATIST capitalist who doesn't belong on this board I'm really amused by how anarchists and ancaps spend so much time attacking each other's almost completely irrelevant philosophies. Ancap is one of the most useless and impossible philosophies ever, and yet all sorts of leftists treat it like it's your most dangerous enemy. It's literally impossible; ancap can't work, which is why we've never seen it ever (ThatGuyT will surely do revisionism such that ancient Ireland and Iceland were ancap somehow though).

There should be a third guy in that debate. They should get a mainstream centrist economist who has memorized university textbooks and case studies and get him to demolish your almost equally stupid ideas (Ok ancap is a bit more stupid because at least anarchism makes sense, but they are both deeply deeply homosexual).

Leftists never debate mainstream economics because they'd get blown the fuck out. Marxism literally relies on taking 19th century capitalist economics which has now been debunked and taking it to its logical conclusion. Ancaps and Randians never debate mainstream economics because they believe in retarded economic creationism and have to instead pit their ideas against communism. You two need each other, you really do, and you'll never realize it. It's so pathetic.

I wouldn't worry too much. With ancap you get to take the heat off by focusing on a philosophy even more crazy than your own.

they can be informative if the people in the debates are well-read. The problem is we focus on the socialist youtuber debates rather than actual academic debates so this is more just leftypol namefag drama

We attack them more cause they've been a trendy group among young people recently and cause they stole our name twice

also if you want a debate between Keynesians and Marxists you can always just look it up. There are no Keynesian youtubers really or at least none worth noting, but there are debates out there

youtube.com/watch?v=g971--_OA0w

...

That Guy T genuinly seems interested i learning about Socialism and he's even gone out of his way to ask me questions on twitter. I think it might be possible to convert him to mutualism, provided he dosnt get scared off in his education process.

I feel like this debate is just going to dig himself further into his ideas, as debatea never serve to convince the opponent only the audience, assuming you win.

It's a shame, he had potential imo.

muke pls go

Most branches of orthodox 'economics' are very much ideology masquerading as science. It's disingenuous to represent it as a detached, apolitical science, when it is very selective on what it examines and how it represents capitalism. You can look all the way to James Steuart and Adam Smith and specifically at the difference between the two to see how this state of affairs came to be, as Adam Smith presented what is very much a Disney version of Capitalism where labourers do a song and dance routine inside the pin factory as everyone exchanges goods and services in order to become a clean-cut middle-class Protestant liberal, where he would've been intimately familiar with the goings on in actual manufactories of his day. Because he peddled this almost religious version where everyone wins out in the end, he was picked up and widely hyped because he could represent the interests of the liberal bourgeoisie of his day and push their liberal agenda. What you perceive as 'centrist' is hardly moderate or neutral so much as it is the dogged support of the status quo which is hardcore dogmatic liberalism.

The main difference between 'orthodox' """economics""" and Marxian economics is that in the former case they go "Production? Huh? What's that?" *inconspicuously pushes something under carpet with foot* Mainstream economics are cheerleaders for capital who pretend to do math.

And nobody takes ancaps seriously, literally everyone makes fun of them.

Modern economics isn't just Adam Smith. You're stuck in a 19th century perception of what your opponents believe. Marxists and anarchists are basically historical society re-enactment groups at this point, same as Holla Forumsyps. Try actually opening a modern University economics textbook for once.

He never implied it was.

what's it like being so gay?

Unless capitalism has done away with capital accumulation, private property, and the free market, then Marx still applies in most cases.

tbh I'm in econ at my university and it is absolute ideology and trash. I've gone through my problems with this economics course and why its arguments against socialism/communism have been absolute shit in the past. The teachers have a sargon-tier understanding of communism, which is of course unsurprising from a bunch of liberals, but what's most shocking is that the actual textbooks rarely even mention Marx and when they do they blatantly misrepresent him. My econ textbook actually said marx's LVT was wrong because demand affects price. I'm honestly shocked that people aren't more aware of how utterly shit economics is now.

oh and the other user's depiction was also pretty accurate. They bring up Smith's pin factory quite a lot. There's certainly some merit to economics courses and I think most anons here would benefit from at least familiarizing themselves a little bit with Smith, Keynes, and others who were not explicitly socialist, but ultimately the field as it stands today is essentially only a study of human behavior under capitalism, which is entirely understandable because econ tries very hard to behave like a science and there are essentially no societies which they can observe atm other than capitalist systems and the occasional authoritarian dictatorship. But what that means is that economics is very much limited to studying the way things are rather than the way things should be or even could be.

muh modern economics is just misdirection to hide the shady shit going on in the financial sector.

I'm pretty sure he prefers the "It's never been tried" route or worse the "It's the natural state of affairs" route.

it'll hoepfully be generation Z and Alpha kids.

youtube.com/watch?v=WFgqYz21wZk
Wrong. If you're wondering why the title is "le peter schiff schools dumb socialist XD" it's because it's Schiffs channel. Schiff being the libertarian sophist he is, constantly misrepresents Wolffs arguments and relies on no true capitalism rhetoric.

Schiffs proposals and thesis's are almost all empirically wrong as well: globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.ca/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

this is true.

I'm not a fan of live debates 4 views, not that I wouldn't agree to do it if it were worth it

Why don't you do it Rebel.

I'm tired of idiots doing it.

From here on out he shall be referred to as MadBouse. Comrades, do the people will it?

lol

don t be raycis

Nigga you racist.

Sauce on the video?

Well how do you do my fellow leftist?

Try harder.

I wonder how ignorant of history you have to be to be black AND an ancap

Yeah, sorry I misconstrued that as racism, silly me…….douche canoe.

Anwar Shaikh
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

Sorry guys I didn't read that far. I saw "das raciss" and then looked at his post. I stopped at the part that looked racist, pls no bully.

if he does better in the debate than that dumbass Muke did in his, it'd be funny. It would be something else to make fun of Muke for whenever he says "anarkiddie".

kys fascist Nobody wants you here

he's an anarchist but like a lot of anarchists likes Marx still

only complete and total idiots who have never read marx don't like marx.

marx's work is a scientific critique of capital, you can't disagree it makes perfect sense

This to be honest. I swear this board is stuck in the 1980s. Stay irrelevant I guess.

this is a good watch
youtube.com/watch?v=xCm7yn87XlY

you're trying to hard.

this nazbol right here gets it

He's a clear coon. Anyone remember when he white knighted for Milo and made an anecdotal as fuck video as to why black people couldn't get opportunity? He's Thomas sowell tier delusional.

...

Name one thing that has any value that doesn't require labor. Don't worry, we'll wait.

Kill yourself.

You too.

MadBouse indeed!!!

Is a diamond that was accidentally discovered by a farmer have less value than if it was discovered by a team of miners who were paid to look for it?

No……what's your point?

when can we remove these fuckers already? I'm tired of these assholes who read Dugin and pretend they've read Marx and I'm tired of the tankies who are so sympathetic to this utter bullshit

Inb4 someone jumps on my ass over that typo.

That labor does not create value. At least not tho the extent that demand and utility do.

My dick.

I bet you think the mud pie argument holds any ground

He means that he doesn't understand the concept of socially necessary labour time and all of his understanding of Marx comes from reading Mises, Bohm-Bahwerk and Hayek 's wikipedia pages.

Nigger how the fuck do the demand and utility turn nigh-worthless raw materials into hot in-demand market commodities? Do you think it's free market arcane magic that turns silicone into dildos inside the factory?

if the average diamond took "i walked outside and grabbed a diamond off the ground" to produce its value would reflect that. LTV talks about averages.

Nigger, this has nothing to do with the mudpie argument. Labor has little to do with the value of a product.

So tell me, what exactly do you think happens in the production of a product?

see for an illustration.

labor, but that has little effect on the final price.
Man hours have little effect on how useful or desirable the product is, unless you're talking about luxury items

If you take 10 hours of hard labour to produce a pile of shit and i can produce two piles in 3 minutes why should your shit be worth more than mine?

It's not. And that's not what the LtV suggests would happen, either, since again it's talking about what the necessary labor time for bulk commodity production across a market is. You producing more per labor hour does not make yours less valuable, it just means your profit is going to be higher. My slower production doesn't increase its value, it just means my profit margins are going to be lower per hour.

Man hours won't tell you how useful or desirable it is, but they will tell you what the minimum cost to sell something without a net loss is going to be.

It's almost like neither of you have any fucking clue what you're talking about.

It shouldn't, you colossal retard. See >>950407

So you agree then that labour creates all value?

That's the mud pie the tard above was yabbering about. Marx's LVT talks about useful labor, like farming, or factory work..

Value is created by the current socio-economic landscape. Labor is used to manipulate value.

also

labour has a lot to do with the value of a product, to determines if a commodity is useful in the market it must satisfy the needs of the society, not all labour is useful, but labour that created a useful commodity was

Neat, so cars and watches are all created by the current socio-economic landscape? Where would one go about acquiring a current socio-economic landscape?

How badly people want or need your product determine how much you could sell it for.
Their value is. Would cars have the same value in a city with public transit as they would in the countryside? What about the availability of raw materials needed to make a car? Do they have less effect on the value than the workers? People are a renewable resource, metals like palladium and platinum used in the auto industry aren't.
Not a good example since they're a luxury item.

Because the LTV only applies to commodity production, the fact that he found it and can therefore sell it above this diamonds particular value has no bearing on its exchange value in a market where people do put X amount of time into extracting diamonds for the purpose of sale.

Supply and demand are an aspect of the LTV. If we were to reach the mythic state of market equilibrium in a commodity producing economy, supply and demand would cancel each other out just like any two colliding, but equal forces. They would explain absolutely nothing about

That doesn't explain anything about how income distribution affects prices or how prices can, among millions of conflicting consumer "needs" can become not only fixed, but fixed for extended periods of time.

If the amount of metal you were able so extract in X amount of time went down, the value would go up. Marx addresses this in capital.

I'm gonna answer this by asking you if when you order a BMW from a dealer they lower or raise the price of the car based on your geographical location or if they sell the car at a fixed price no matter what.

Except they are. The LTV is attempting to explain all market prices you can't single out luxury items vs non-luxury.

You make me laugh comrade. I mean that in the good way not the cynical way

explain absolutely nothing about market prices*

Joe owns a factory. It takes inputs of leather and steel, together worth $8, and produces a watch worth $50. During this time, Joe spends $10 on payroll and maintenance. Where did the extra $32 come from?

yet that is completly irrelevant if it takes you a year to produce a small commodity with poor social value

you are under the impression that all labour is equal, its not, it has to be useful, if it takes a couple of hours to produce a commodity but it takes you 2 days your labour was not useful

Demand for his watches.

the demand for watches is the social utility the watches have, thats a complete different subject

No, retard, that's
WRONG

Try again.

Here's a hint: before, Joe had a quantity of chemical elements to his name, which would he could have exchanged for $8's worth of commodities. Now, he has the same quantity of chemical elements embodied in the watch, and yet it is capable of demanding $50's worth of commodities on the market. What is now embodied in this same quantity of chemical elements that allows it to buy so much more stuff?

That isn't how the LTV works. If he paid 10$ for labour and the other material was $8 the value of the watch is $18. That being said our friend has not replied to my post

technically thats how modern economy works, to quote Ricardo
"Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."

you can tell that capitalist know they can increase their profits, by lowering the wages and creating a false social utility for the commodity

Joe, like other watch manufacturers, is trying to make a profit. He's not going to sell watches at cost.

The watch is worth what I want to pay him. That's Capitalism.

SAUCE

Do you walk into stores and demand new iPhones for $3.50?

here:

only because you are getting classcucked by him

little berry cosplay

No it isn't. If a rich person walks into a bakery, he doesn't get to pay 50 cents for the bread because when the fixed price is $5.00 because it has less marginal value to him than the typical consumer.

Oh I didn't know you were explaining variable vs constant capital.

You guys all fell for my bait.

I was just shit-posting, I'm not even the guy you were arguing with. :^)

...

delet??

Niggers, how on the planet does this seem like a logical attempt at an answer to your arguments?

You fell for it hard, calm down. I didn't even bother to read your posts. :^)

You underestimate the stupidity of lolberts.

I was just thinking that, it seems like an answer they would give when backed up into a corner even though, it makes no fucking sense.

See even the lolbert fell for it here

Anyway thinks for the u's.

Remember without a wink, pretending to be retarded as a joke is indistinguishable from actually being retarded.
But then retards co-opted the sarcastic wink so even that's out the window now.

The fact that I have been for the last few minutes watching a horse go through these absurd mental gymnastics in order to find new ways to deny that there is or ever could be a body of water in front of it makes me believe that anything is possible.

You obviously have an IQ below 140. Demand has a great effect on value. It only costs a few bucks to make an Iphone, yet they retail for several hundred dollars. If there's not a great demand for Joe's watches then he can't get away with charging $50. I'm sorry you can't not be retarded; IQ is genetic after all.

...

But I have heard that unironically said by capitalist apologists IRL as a way to refute the idea that price is cost of production + profit.

Prove me wrong, fam.

So then you agree, Capitalism is terrible and people will sell their products as high as possible, rather than anywhere near what it's worth or what people demand.

that's seriously some great b8 though, I applaud you. Just subtle enough to work.

demand exist because of social value, social value exist because useful labour was used to ceate said commodity

you can change the social value, as you said, you cancharge 50 or 2,000 for a watch ONLY if society consider this watch useful

guess what is the social value of a 2,000 dollar watch?

K

Badmouse seems to be intelligent but not as well read as LSR. Still, he has a decent enough grasp on far-left ideology and let's not forget, he was an an-cap about a year ago. He lived the ideology he's going to debate. Usually I'm not into the whole "lmao rekt xDDDD" thing when it comes to debates but the sole thing we'll get out of this is propaganda, there aren't going to be any sudden revelations from an an-cap perspective that will completely change our view so let me say this, it's going to be a fucking massacre, a massacre where the only things left will be neatly chopped up black an-cap pieces.

You're too optimistic.

I don't know. Maybe you're right. I just think that due to the fact that BM was an an-cap he knows typical lines of an-cap reasoning which is going to give him that extra edge. What I'm not so sure about is how BM performs when it comes to social interaction. He doesn't strike me as the anxious type that will just completely black out in certain situation but then again, I've never seen him actually talk to other people.

Half-knowledgeable commie dude and retarded manlet mike tyson face off in the battle of the century that will change the minds of no one in either party's audience.

what's the middle dial for? keep track of how many fingers you have?

top fucking kek at that meme

Mainstream economists don't know shit
Source: mainstream economists who are honest

MadBouse