Hey cucks, just stopping by your NWO shill board to drop some HOT RED PILLS…

Typical response from r selected sheep. Can't handle the fact that evolutionary science has debunked leftism once and for all and that true conservative alpha wolves simply need to mobilize themselves.

not an argument

I mean isn't it common knowledge that people in worse conditions tend to have more children than people in better conditions? Also the same population will adopt r selection in times of poverty and k selection in times of prosperity. Also

"Libertarians" aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're fascists any more are they?

Oh it's an argument allright, no need to resort to ad hominem attacks and straw man phallacies to prove your "point"

Read this, get educated, learn to site sources. Otherwise your opinion is not worth reading.
Libertarianism is not fascism, it is very much a part of the ideals of liberty that this great nation was founded upon.

Of COURSE it has to be genetics. It can't be, you know, class conflict or, FPTP voting systems cementing 2 parties in power.

Wew

thats pretty much not an argument

Wait, he needed 56 minutes to tell us that people switch selections based on their environment and available resources? 56 FUCKING MINUTES to say what I just did in 5 seconds? Why the fuck is Stef always so long-winded? Motherfucker would make a 15-hour video explaining how to draw stick figures.

Like it or not, some people are born lazy, opportunistic, and wish to grow fat on the toil of the job creators. Anarcho-capitalism follows simply the enlightened laws of nature, and does not seek to change them to ensure "equality"

Stefan is an alpha male, he has amassed a spectacular following of intellectuals and philosophers. Regardless of what you "think" (is it really thinking from the "minds" of leftists) he is an intellectual alpha. A bastion of reasoned thinking and a socratic leader for the new right.

...

citation needed

citation needed

You got your perscriptions mixed up again, you're supposed to take the Brown Pill.

Look all around you. The welfare state has made sure that every leech and single mother who will give up their soul to big government will be able to survive.

Libertarianism is a meme ideology that thinks that if you just say everybody has freedom and political equality then they have it. It does absolutely nothing to address relationships of subjugation and domination beyond making everybody equal on paper, and it actually promotes policies that rob people of individual agency in numerous ways. It's also based on "natural rights" which is some of the spookiest shit ever conceived.

I call libertarians crypto-fascists because more often than not their ideology is borne out of some superiority complex that allows them to believe that their success is just a result of their natural superiority rather than daddy's trust fund, and that all the unwashed masses are just lazy and unmotivated despite being the source of literally all wealth.

And just how many businesses have you owned?
Also, I'd suggest reading up on some logical falacies. You have no idea how retarded you look right now.

sage reapplied

thats not an argument my friend, simply not an argument

you have to proof people are "born lazy, opportunistic, and wish to grow fat on the toil of the job creators" and that the "laws of nature" (which you have not explained what actually are) are somewhat relevant to this

you also need to prove this post wrong

but of course you won't because you are a little white cuckball too busy fapping to traps

And how much labour have you preformed? Your own John Locke recognized that labour is the source of all wealth. Business owners are by definition leeches that contribute nothing. The business owner does not produce the means of production, nor the product itself. What do they contribute?

Just look at nature moron. It's pretty obvious that parasitic species will feed off of the pumas and panthers in the wild (k selected). Human evolution has been divided between r selected parasites and k selected alphas.

Actually my father is a small business owner, and he's sick of being taxed just as I am at my manegerial position at his company.

0/10 not even an argument

I'll check this thread in a couple of minutes to see if your cuck ass can come up with one

v. nice ideology
I wish to persue a limited-print minting of this cyber-literature

Nice fucking ad hominem retard.
Here, check this guide I found from a popular philosopher on youtube. I think it provides the best basis for making logical arguments.
rockingphilosophy.com/2012/09/debating-honestly-logically_21.html

These are the words of someone who has never braved the cold world alone.

You didn't answer the question. What does the owner contribute? They have capital that is necessary for production yes, but where does that capital come from? Its produced by labour, either their own or another's. If it's produced by another then the capitalist is a parasite that produces nothing. If the capitalist invests the product of their own labour then they indeed have produced something, but once the value of their capital is returned to them by the profits created by the workers then they have been reimbursed for their contribution. Despite the value of their labour being returned to them, they still continue to receive the lion's share of the profits, despite them no longer contributing anything to the production process. At this point they are a parasite again.

TLDR: All capitalists are either parasites or will quickly become parasites.

did I hurt your feelings, cuck?

The owner contributes the risk and value of providing a much needed service of job creation. If the "working class" wasn't genetically predisposed to being giant exploitative dipshits then they would be creating jobs.

When I debate, I come from an area of logic, reason, and understanding of myself and more importantly others. The only thing you hurt is yourself.

feel free to reply with logic, reason and understanding to this

The laws of nature are that the weak and clever will steal from the alpha k selected individuals. You can see this in the greed of labor unions and the B████ ██████ campaign. Much like the devious tick feeds off the wolf.

That has fucking nothing to do with r/K

You dindn't read the articles. Jeez you're a dumbass.

also, top fucking lel.

"Everyone should be a job creator! Then everyone would be rich! That's all it takes!"

The business owner doesn't need to provide the job. If he's gone, the job will still be there since the worker can just produce for himself. Likewise with the risk - without production for profit there would be no risk, and as a bonus you wouldn't get falling rates of profit either.

Goddamn are ancaps stupid.

labourers are the ones that create value, jobs and services, they are the alpha k selected individuals, the devious tick feeding of the labourer's work in the form of surplus value is the capitalists

you just proved yourself wrong, dumb cuck

No, I just had stuff on r/K in cellular biology while getting a science degree. You're full of fucking shit.

Ticks and wolves aren't even the same species. The analogy might make some sense if there were r wolves who just sat around on their asses while the k wolves worked.

Funny, there's actually a certain class of humans that just sit on their asses and get fat while everyone works. Hmmmmmmm.

It's true, and without useless state regulations the human race woul be colonizing space right now. Many hands make light work (much like capitalism brought the lightbulb into existence kinda like prometheus enlightening the greeks, ever heard of it?

No dice. Actually regulations from socialist obama are slowly killing capitalism.

Laborers are also generally unruly and genetically prone to violence. Sorry.

Hahaha why not smoke some weed you hippy faggot.

thats human nature, the strong must fear the weak

of course you would be scared of a strong man, as you aren't one, cuck

Are you saying that people shouldn't be going to college?
The most hilarious thing is that you think everyone can be a "job creator" while conveniently ignoring that that means that there is nobody who will fill the position of employee, and thus nothing ever gets off the ground.

The weak seldom know what's good for them. For instance, women are generally weaker than men and flock to thugs instead of those who will protect them. This is mostly because of marxist indoctrination.

It's a waste of time forcing the genetically inferior into getting gender studies degrees.

Consider what will naturally happen when every firm tries to make a profit and your central bank is trying to prevent inflation by not printing money willy nilly (which is what the owners want, since most of their wealth is tied up in money and inflation would lower its value.) Now consider what happens when you factor in automation and cuts in labour costs. How will firms continue to make a profit and sustain the capitalist economy?

Capitalism is destined to slowly kill itself. It has been for more than a century now.

Haha, you look so fucking dumb right now. If only you could see through my eyes.
Anyway, it's primarily because of the new deal and socialist reforms that the world is in decline.

You're illiterate and/or someone masquerading as a (believable) ancap

THE OWNER DOES NOT CREAT FUCK ALL

He contributes capital, capital that was created by labour. Jesus fuck, read Locke's Second Treatise of government…

Lolberts literally aren't even familiar with the core thinkers of their own ideology.

Labour creates capital. The capitalist either preformed labour and is given back the value of his labour, at which point he becomes a parasite, or he already had capital as a result of the labour of others in which case he was a parasite from the beginning.

because women like being treated like trash, a cuck like you wouldn't understand

basically, bitches are attracted to marxists, they aren't attracted to litte cucks like you

youtube.com/watch?v=A-ISiPD6w9c

...

Cellular biologists are generally just government funded hacks. Do something that the market wants.

*create
Also, the owner creates jobs.

I'm not a cuck, I'm voluntarily celibate.

cuck megaconfirmed

I'm not a cuck. I'm constantly rejecting slutty women.

top kek

10/10 ancap interpretation

Orthobro from /liberty/ here.

Stefan Molybdenum is Holla Forums, not /liberty/. Please don't assume that we'd support anything that mouthbreathing retard has to say about real liberty.

kek
you did pretty good for a while

As if. Noble and virtuous volcels who transcend base desires are the sole purview of the left, and make up the ranks of anarchists, libertarian socialists and communists.

"""An"""caps, Marxist-Leninists and fashies are the ideologies peopled by bitter degenerate incels who crave vulgar carnal pleasure but are too weak and stupid to seize the objects of their desire for themselves.

It's like the pedo/non-pedo dialectic. One side is obviously good, and the other is obviously evil.

Ohai Hate Death And Feudalism!

Sorry, I don't believe in deitys user, let alone give mystical properties so something people made.

nice try.

Nice concern trolling. Time to go back to reddit.

You're a fucking retard you know that.

I'm not LLA. I am a very big fan of his (admittedly good) content though.

Socialism is not whatever the government does. It is a mode of production in which the means of production are controlled democratically by workers. Keynes himself said that his policies were meant to save capitalism, not create socialism.

If you want more of that here's Wolff's intro to Marxism:
youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4&ab_channel=RichardDWolff

No. I refuse to be indoctrinated by globalists.

kek

How is /liberty/ ever since half the lolberts went over to Holla Forums tier insanity?

/liberty/ is just Holla Forums-lite

Ancap user's Volcel Adventure:

MEANWHILE IN user'S BRAIN:

Figured as much.

No wonder all you can do is straw-man and misinterpret the fuck out of the class left's stances. Also, those globalists sure as shit won't benefit having their shit taken from them by the workers, let alone a stateless, classless, currencyless society that renders them irrelevant. Opinion discarded.

That kinda ignores all the ethical reasons people are libertarians instead of supporting the "not a state" state, bro.

As a guy who works with his hands out in the field, I dislike those sort of caricatures portrayed by faggots since they don't know anything about the daily struggle.

Why can't people decide if they want a leader or if they want to take the risk on their own? Why do you want to kill people who want to work under someone else?

Correct, but the worker doesn't need to provide the networking, management skills, etc. either. Let the worker decide for themselves, damn it!

Stay snug, smug.

Oh fuck off, like you're any better being a little bitch who sucks Stefan's statist dick.

It's usually either quiet or full of shitposts from other boards thinking they can claim ownership of free man's land, but every once in a while we'll have some voices of reason fuck shit up between the shitposting sessions and provide interesting previously unthought of insights.

It's great so long as you don't take it too seriously.

Prove it.

>inb4 that one pinochet-loving AnCap no one likes gets screenshotted

Top kek.

you will be the first to hang

The rich are the only reason you have real-world recognition.

and why would I care about "world recognition"

if you mean that the rich is the reason leftist thought has been comoodified and absorbed by liberalism, then there is nothing to thank about that

kill yourself

The problem is that any economy built upon accumulation in the form of profit and the value form has a natural tendency towards self-destruction as the labour time needed to produce commodities becomes lower and lower.

When you're talking about assuming risk, consider for a moment: what are you actually risking? You're risking the possibility that your investment in workers' upkeep in the form of food and shelter, machines to build things, raw resources and so on and so on (sniff) will not yield a profit in sufficient exchange value to cover the initial investment and the upkeep and then some.

What this means is that in any society where this is the only means to establish productive enterprise (in the hopes of profit), eventually it will become impossible to establish productive enterprise as it will become impossible to turn a profit. This is the essential contradiction of capitalism.

You have to understand that opposition to capitalism is not a moral issue. It's a matter of efficiency. Capitalism is a shoddy way to organize the production and distribution of things that people need and we are desperately in need of an alternative.

The workers' choice of whether they want to work for a private individual or for themselves is irrelevant, and not a real choice besides. The real choice is whether production should be for profit or for use.

this nigga knows

Your right, but not for the reasons you think, fashcap.

No shit Sherlock. It's the only reason it hasn't collapsed in on itself yet. Part of me just wants to let these guys have there way, only to witness instantaneous implosion of the economy, along with subsequent revolutions. But alas, accelerationism is but a dream meme.

I know this is in reply to osmeone else but
Typically, this IS the job for workers. They are also people who get paid wages, filling specific positions within companies in which they are required to perform certain labor.The only place where the business owner themselves tend to end up taking the place of this overhead role are very small companies.

If you really, honestly think that a bourg must be there in a company doing some kind of labor, ask if they can hire someone else to do that work for them. And, frankly, there is no work in a company that requires someone to own the company to do. The only thing that you need to own the company for is to take profit from and do with as you wish.

Snug nup,dmug

Yup, management, though they tend to side with the board, and sometimes even get stock options (though these often aren't voting shares), are still just employees. Even executives are technically just salaried workers.

Porky apologists might say "oh capitalists take on risk and create jobs", but who really does that? Who makes those decisions and holds that risk? Day traders, investors, bankers, and depositors. Porky literally does nothing except oink up truffles.

what the fuck

You and your coworkers create value, you pool your funds for short/medium-term savings and long-term retirement, this is called a bank ideally a cooperative one. You select people to manage these funds, they are called bankers. As part of a complete portfolio, you also invest some in high-return high-risk ventures, and select people to manage this for you, they are called traders. If you're about to object "muh markets", "muh surplus value", "muh private property", remember that the line between a "private" coop and a public central economic planning entity is fuzzy to nonexistant under a syndicalist/communist system.

It's true that most people involved in the financial industry are either porkies or hardcore classcucks, but that's largely because most of the economy's wealth is held by porkies at the moment.

If you're not a troll, you've trolled yourself by doing this.

Areyouforreal.jpg

Profit comes when you fulfill demand. So, primary the risk is that you do not fulfill demand. It's that simple. This risk can only be mitigated by making profit (material gain, however you want to call it) independent of fulfilling demand, and that leads to no one fulfilling fucking demand.

Why would it ever become impossible to turn a profit? That would only be the case if human demand was fulfilled completely, but then, you wouldn't have a problem. Of course that will never be the case, so that's the second reason why this is shit.

...

Porky is the entrepreneur, he carries the risk of not making a profit at all and losing a large part of his labor and whatever he himself invested in his endeavor. In bad cases, he might end up indebted for life, so his workers don't have to be in case his business fails.

His job is to make sure it doesn't fail. The investors and bankers give him the funds he needs to set up his business, but from there on, it's his call. If you removed all entrepreneurs, businesses simply would stop functioning.
Then they become fucking entrepreneurs. The role of entrepreneur cannot remain unfulfilled, for purely logical reasons. Someone has to make the call on what course of action is most profitable, and whoever does is the entrepreneur, in a purely economic sense.

Nah, he's just a falseflagging faggot. Libertarians don't tend to survive on Holla Forums, not anymore.

Are you implying that it's right to require people toil pointlessly even after they've produced enough to cover their own living expenses?

Read Marx. In short:

Porky rarely makes these decisions, and as such isn't really an entrepreneur. Usually it's managers, executives, bankers, and traders who work for porky. All of these positions could be replaced with elected office-holders.

"Living expenses" meant having a home and clothes so you don't freeze to death in winter and enough food not to starve, and nothing else, for most of human history. If you're fine with just that, then you can work enough to pay the rent in a shitty apartment and your food. That should set you back a few hundred dollars and maybe ten hours of works, even under the current shitty economic and legal conditions, but nobody wants that. Instead, everyone wants to have a television set, a new playstation, a phone and a spare phone and annual travelling. For that, yes, you need to do extra work, and that work isn't pointless.

Then what does Porky do? You act like that was a clearly defined term and not just a shitmeme.

Note that I didn't actually state exactly how large "living expenses" are, since it's irrelevant to my point. If you've produced enough (before porky's cut) to pay for your living expenses in a highly efficient job, why work more?

Claim ownership and collect gibs

Then define it in the abstract or something, if that term is so central to your theory.

This is not how wages work. You get paid independently of the success or failure of the company, how much profit it makes, and before any profit has even been made. No one cuts anything from your wages, except the state you love so much.

He claims ownership because he is the fucking owner. He is the owner because he paid money for the capital so the poor, oppressed workers don't have to, and it's his responsibility to make sure the business runs profitably.

Take a shot every time an ancap unironically uses logical fallacies to feel intellectually superior.

Living expenses are whatever is necessary to pay for a lifestyle you be sustained by, can tolerate, or are satisfied by. It varies from one place, person (what kind of family do you want?), or even occupation (personal cars, computers, or local housing might be practically required).

Why do you believe that labor expenses, supplier expenses, executive compensation, shareholder dividends, etc., are completely independent from each other; yet contrariwise believe that various segments of government budget and revenue are just one homogeneous blob? The two are broadly identical in function, except that one operates under the system of democracy, the other under authoritarianism.

It's simply a fact that some businesses allocate more of their profits to high labor compensation, others to high executive compensation (more of the latter than the former, in recent decades), and this is an entirely conscious decision.

>He is the owner because he paid money for the capital so the poor, oppressed workers don't have to,from the financial system's partial reserve leverage.
>it's histhe hired management's responsibility to make sure the business runs profitably.

Oh, and just for comparison.

Lmao what's with rightards and biology?

More:
What's up with engineers thinking you can simply drop in and understand other fields' concepts?

In other words, it's whatever the hell you want it to be. This is not how you can build any kind of theory.

You could've written this without dropping twenty different economic concepts, you know? I don't see how this relates in any way to my argument. None of these things is your cut of a larger "product of your labor" that porky extracts profit from. Wages and profit have two completely independent sources.

I don't. The difference is usually not important, however, because all the revenue in any level of government is expropriated from someone else.

Are you kidding me? Voluntary contracts are authoritarian, but the government isn't because it's "democratic"? You know that democracies can be just as authoritarian as any other form of government, right?

I'm pretty sure labor costs will be far higher than the costs of executive compensation. Not that this matters. You have no right to a specific share of the company's profit. You have a right to a specific amount of money, as per the contract, whether the company makes any profit or not.

Where do you imagine businesses get revenue, if not from using labor to increase the value of raw inputs?

Stuck between the rock of status quo among competitors (or "competitors" in high-collusion markets or monopolies) and the hard place of barriers to entry? That's significantly less voluntary than paying taxes or benefiting from expenditures, given you can at least vote on them.

...

edgy keyboard warriors are the real enemy

seriously this isn't a comeback, this is the equivalent to that kid on Myspace who threatened to gank you because you didn't like his shitty playlist

opinion discarded

Ok kiddo.

C U C K
U
C
K

you are traitors to the left

From their customers. Labor might make raw resources more useful, but without the customers, they still wouldn't make a profit no matter how much labor goes into their resources. You can create nothing but shit and according to every incarnation of your theory that I know of, you'd still deserve compensation. Which incidentally would kill the shit out of your economy as everyone could produce shit no one needs with impunity.

The main problem with all objective value theories is that, taken to their conclusion, they support wasting natural resources for the benefit of no one. Not that there aren't enough problems with these theories, really.

>Nixon removes the gold standard in 1971, finally ruining the currency as it goes full fiat

Forgot to address another paragraph.

It is voluntary because you're not entitled to free gibs. You are not entitled to anyone carrying you for free. If you don't care enough about yourself to try and find a way to create a better life for yourself - which is entirely possible, in most cases - then why should someone else?

The fuck's voluntary about being fucked in the ass just because nine out of ten people in the room voted for you to get raped?

No, and I'd like you to describe what "theory" you mean. The LTV is a theory of supply and demand, about how market prices are decided. How over long periods of time, and with millions of conflicting subjective "interest", prices can become not only uniform across an economy but remain stable for extended periods of time(including times of crisis). The first part of your post is irrelevant, yes demand is a part of the LTV(if no one wants to buy your product it isn't socially useful and therefore lacks exchange value). You'd know this if you bothered to read up on it.

What do you mean?

Wages haven't decreased and all leftist who think that neoliberalism is the reason for the economy going to shit should watch Andrew Klimans lectures. That being said, there's a reason every country in the world abandoned the gold standard and that's because when there's a deficit the economy goes to shit(for example: The Bank of England during the Great Depression)

Which is why communism will have participatory democracy. I see no reason why someone who didn't have a car in communism would have to pay for the roads. Your other two pictures are referring to representative democracy which communist reject and isn't relevant to leftism.

I meant this quote
The main problem with all objective value theories is that, taken to their conclusion, they support wasting natural resources for the benefit of no one. Not that there aren't enough problems with these theories, really.

Profit comes when you sell things to people. It doesn't matter if demand exists when people don't have money with which to satisfy that demand. When this happens, profit becomes impossible.

In order to undercut the competition, firms will A) automate and B) cut labour costs. Both of these things result in ordinary workers having less and less to spend on consumer goods. So far we've dealt with this problem through redistribution via welfare and large public works, but we're approaching the limits of that approach as can be seen by the collapse of the postwar welfare state. Eventually, this will also make the 'work hard and save up for your own business' meme impossible to achieve in real life (instead of just exceptionally difficult) as A) wages will drop towards subsistence levels and B) even if you do save up enough to manufacture things, nobody else will have money to buy them.

It's not so the workers don't have to, the workers can't because they're being robbed of the profit they create every time they go to work. Porky isn't surrendering his portion of the same equal share everyone else is getting, he is putting in a piece of the money he robbed from everyone else (or the money that the banks robbed from everyone else that they lent to him with the intent of profiting off his ass.) Capital earned off the back of coercion and usury is capital earned unjustly.

Likewise, as I've already established, a system that is based around profit is self-destructive because once profit accumulates at the top it becomes impossible for large amounts of the population to contribute to society or satisfy their basic needs. A more efficacious system would be based around providing for people's wants and needs without needing to accumulate several extra useless commodities that don't really serve any purpose for every one that you provide to a consumer.

The gold standard is a horrible idea because it leads to deficit nations having no means to stimulate their economies via money creation, meaning that it would result in EVEN HARDER neoliberalism since the only way to put money into the economy is by austerity and fucking labour. All it would cause is unrest in peripheral nations, disrupting markets there and exacerbating problems at home as we rely to a good degree on labour and commodity markets in deficit nations.

...

Well, I tried to find out what "socially necessary" means, and to this day, I haven't found a coherent and workable definition. The important question is what value is derived from, and from what I know, your response is "labor" when it suits you and "utility" when it suits you, too.

Objective value theories are divorced from what people actually need, as what they need can only be determined subjectively. If your objective theory determines that value is derived from labor, then you can work all day, create nothing anyone has a use for and still it could be said that you created something of value and deserve compensation.

How the fuck should money ever run out? All that can happen is either a deflation or that one currency is replaced by another. Exchange will always happen so long as some people have something that other people want more than them and vice versa. All money does is make that exchange simpler by being a substitute for bartering. It's a medium of exchange, not some magic commodity that a market ever runs out of. Like I said, even if that somehow were to happen, and if a currency completely stopped circulating, some over currency would take its place.

Thus driving down production costs, so they can (and will, due to competition) demand lower prices for their products. Even in a state of full automation, labor could still be sold unless all demand was met, as only then the conditions of exchange wouldn't be present. Such a scenario is both unlikely and logically couldn't lead to mass-poverty.

Except that they have to compete for workers, and if one firm charges far less than the competition, it will lose workers to them. The only exception would be if that labor-market was completely oversatuated, but even then, you'd have a lot of workers trying to make a living in other industries where they make more money, and so the market would correct itself, as it always does.

Socially necessary means the average time it takes the average worker with a backround in any given field to complete a job.

No, for something to have an exchange value it has to have a use value or else no one will want to buy it. But use-values are subjective. so we then try to decide how commodities that are produced for sale(they have no use value to the producer but have a use value for someone else) establish their market price. They are not mutually exclusive. The basis for an exchange value is a prior use value for someone, somewhere.

No they aren't. Objective values speak of how market prices are established, not how use values are established. What items can have an exchange value depends on what people want. The LTV is trying to explain how market prices are established.

Like this: there's a depression, and a deficit of gold. There is not enough money in the economy to simulate those jobs. This is why England abandoned the gold standard - banks were running out of gold to give to people and it wasn't being exchanged.

No, in a state of full automation there is no labour performed. Do you know what full automation means? Even if all demand wasn't met, a capitalist would just invest in more machines(which in a state of full automation would also be made by machines), not labour.

Wages haven't fallen since neoliberalism, the mass inequality we're experiencing is due to the falling rate of profit. So my only contention for this point is that this has never, ever happened.

psssh…..nothing personnel….kid…
Come back when you have actual theory to back up any of your political views or view on life other than Molyneux and the nappy. Oh and "muh taks-a-shun is theft". Classcuck.

...

t. person who either never had a job or teaches economics

I see. Finally it all makes sense.

Money doesn't run out, it accumulates. People who accumulate it don't spend it unless they think it will bring them a profit. Because the people who own everything run the economy in such a way as to gain more and more money, eventually they will have all of it, unless we print new money (which is something that owners don't really like since their wealth is tied up in money and inflation would make them less rich.)

What would labour be doing if everything is fully automated? If human work is not actually needed to produce commodities, then the only way people could still be consuming commodities is because we have invented the concept of the welfare firm, as opposed to the welfare state.

Workers compete for jobs, not the other way around. And anyway, you're full of shit. As automation progresses, the number of jobs will drop. An individual firm will benefit from being able to reduce the number of positions while maintaining productivity, but this actually hurts the entire capitalist economy as a whole because demand drops as positions are eliminated and wages are cut as low as they can go to preserve profitability in the wake of falling demand.

It is in fact market forces that cause this counter-productive behaviour. The market is not self-correcting, it is self-destructive.

Aside from the fact that this is impossible to calculate as there's no non-arbitrary way to categorize the work he's supposed to do, this would be tedious to calculate even if the categorization-issue didn't exist. Some approximations might be possible and even workable (although an economy based on that would still be inefficient for other reasons), but it's still a mystery how you arrive at the relevancy of what labor time is socially necessary. Why should the fact that other workers in my industry are more or less leisurely affect how much what I produce is worth?

Where does labor come in, then? What's wrong with paying your workers less than the value of their labor?

So it's descriptive? How does this account of other sources of scarcity, like natural disaster, that can drive up prices?

How would you ever arrive at a deficit of gold if banks kept full reserve? I could imagine that if gold is also the everyday-currency, but then, that stuff leaving the country will just create a deflation, increase the value of savings and benefit everyone. The number of exchanges will remain the same, as the conditions for exchange are independent of the value of a currency.

If you define it like that, then full automation and unmet demand are pretty much mutually exclusive, and automation still isn't a jobkiller.

Then people would hire each other, and eventually form new businesses. I don't see the problem. The capitalist wouldn't exchange anything anymore with anyone, or if he did, then that would satisfy demand. So we're back at how you can't have full automation unless every demand in society was met.

Except it has. Wages were steadily rising during the Gilded Age, well before the unions made anything about them. Sure the standard of living was shit, but it was an improvement compared to earlier times.

Are they just handing out the automatically-made goods for free?

They don't have money. The capitalists own the market and banks lend with interest. How would they hire each other? Where would their commodities come from? How would they get their hands on magical autofactories?

That's not how anyone ever claimed competition works.

Would Gandhi have paid you for bringing him a sandwich when he was on a hunger strike? Even the value of food is subjective. Not in an epistemic sense, you fucking retard! The subjective value you attribute to something can be objectively known.

Are they just hoarding them? Say they create cars in fully automated factories, but then hoard them because no one has the money to buy them. What will happen is that someone else will open up an un-automated factory, have workers build cars and sell them. No matter what course of action the capitalists with the automated factories take, demand will give rise to economic exchange.

Then use monopoly-money or something. Setting up a new currency isn't hard, and even a shitty and unstable one usually beats a barter-economy.

By signing a contract, and giving each other cars in exchange for monopoly-money.

They'd produce them. If they lacked the capital goods to do so, they'd just create those first. However the hell you arrive in a situation where all the capital goods are owned by people that don't want to use them to produce anything.

Same answer as above.

Your correct in saying SNLT changes just as erratically as market prices do. It's calculable theoretically, and it isn't the empirical medium Marx gave to judge the accuracy of his theories. He's one of the only economist who recognized the limits of economics.

Because every single commodity has only one thing in common - that being that it's produced by labour which is measurable in hours.

In the case of a natural disaster, it now takes more time to previously produce was took less time and the value of say of the commodity increases.

Because if something like the buying on margin crisis happens( where a lot of money is not physically there, but in the form of interest or loans) the "money" that was previously employing someone no longer exist and it's impossible to simulate the economy without printing more money. Furthermore, introducing the gold standard would cause inflation to rise 10 fold:

It is if everything is automated, or if most jobs are.

Unions have been around since the 18th century and collective bargaining was becoming a force to be reckoned with just following the beginning of the industrial revolution. Police were introduced in the United States and Britain to curb worker organization. libcom.org/history/origins-police-david-whitehouse

So your theory is that once automation hits a certain peak, capitalism will start all over again? What?

A) the capitalists with autofactories would just undercut the manual factory men because they don't have to pay anyone and they would accumulate all of the monopoly money. B) In this situation, how would the monopoly money users acquire raw resources if they have presumably been monopolized by the pre-collapse capitalist class?

Secondly, why should we use less efficient methods to satisfy demand if we could theoretically have more than enough shit for everyone without anybody having to do work? In this case, the institution of private property works against the public interest. Instead of bootstrapping an entire economy starting at 1800s tech and then working up, why not just seize the existing autofactories and build enough shit for everyone, building more autofactories as needed using your autofactories until we have enough goods to sustain everybody?

That way, instead of forcing everyone to work in inefficient sweatshops to eat when we could have fully automated production, just so you can cling to your inefficient, ass-backwards system, then they could instead spend their time inventing things, making art, doing science and philosophy and generally fucking around.

Just to illustrate the absolute retardation of your proposals, if we followed your school of economic thought, the solution to the Great Depression (rather than welfare and public works) would have been to insist that workers invent their own currency and start their own advanced capitalist economy despite having no land or property of their own and maybe hand tools at best. This isn't fucking minecraft, you retard.

The Keynes quote refers to a situation of mass unemployment and his reasoning there is correct. If that sounds retarded to you (and it is, despite being correct), that should tell you something about capitalism.

...

It doesn't just change erratically, it has to be calculated anew every time. If you did that every week with all or most commodities, that would mean giving out surveys to thousands of businesses and analyzing the labor time of each, taking into account a bunch of variables that change and then adjusting the prizes accordingly. You could make this more time- and resource-efficient by having the workers input their labor time, but that's still unreliable.

And again, why should how hard others in the industry work affect how much my work should be worth? If everyone in my industry is some kind of amphetamin-pumped maniac but me, why not pay me as a normal worker and them like the workhouses they are?

Except capital also plays a role. Without capital, labor is useless. And you can also classify commodities by how useful they are. So why the focus on labor? It isn't even like all these hours invested have the same value to the one investing them, or that where you invest them doesn't affect how much time you have left to do things you like. You can do ten hours of unhealthy work that cut a hundred hours from your life, and that would count for as much as just working ten hours of jogging in the wilderness and protecting the animals of the forest or some shit. Or you can work ten hours of soul-crushing labor that feels like a hundred hours, or that otherwise reduces your overall well-being, and it'd be paid the same as reviewing vidya for a living. You can account for this in other ways, but not without leaving the grounds of your theory.

Only when the capital goods are ruined, not the consumer goods. Yet in both cases, their price rises. In fact, even if neither of the two is hit, the price in the affected regions rises because supplying them becomes much more harder. So, in only one of three scenarios does labor time increase with the price.

Damn Molyneux is dumb. Other than girls hitting puberty "younger and younger" is there really anything else that shows we are becoming more r selected?

He's gone full pol/ack and he doesn't even realise. In the comments he clarifies that does think its due to environmental factors but that pretty much contradicts everything he implies

every time

Communists DESERVE to be killed violently.

No. Just no.

By the title alone I know this will be shit
lmao

That would lead to a contained crisis, unlike the measures that are supposed to stimulate an economy. It still hurts a lot of people, yes, but it's a temporary state of affairs that corrects itself. What causes the really devastating crises' is when you encourage the behavior that caused this boom, extend it artificially, and cause more and more misallocations of resources. Yet that is what "stimulating" the economy does, it extends economic booms by misallocating resources and leading to the market correcting itself in more radical and harmful ways.

In other words, the huge inflation they already caused by leaving the gold standard and printing tons of money means they don't have enough gold to back the shitty currency they created. In the long-term, that would still decrease inflation as money couldn't be printed out of thin air.

But then, by your definition of full automation as I understood it, the demand will be fully met and we won't have a problem. Even if there's a fully automated factory that can supply cars to anyone in the country for a dollar each, within an hour, then people will still build and sell new cars if this factory isn't actually put to use.

As far as I know, these unions that did exist weren't pushing for minimum wage-regulations, they just put the workers into a better bargaining-position. There's nothing wrong with that (unlike with minimum wages and the other shenanigans unions like to pull), but it doesn't increase purchasing power, it decreases it by increasing the costs of production. Sure this increase is offset by the increase in nominal wages that caused it to begin with (at least for those affected by the latter), but the standard of living doesn't rise until production-costs decrease and hence the purchasing power of their money increases.

Showing that it was the state who interfered with the rise of wages, instead of promoting it.

Only when people are retarded enough to have the capacity to create everything (almost) for free and don't use it because muh profits.

Not all of it, only as much as they can get from the exchanges. When the demand is supplied, they won't get any more money no matter how efficient their production is. And prices will be very low to begin with, so, no risk of them buying up all the money. Especially because, once the supply of monopoly-money was really low, its purchasing power would increase from deflation. By the point they had bought it all up (by creating more and more different products), they'd also have spent it all because they, too, need stuff. Unless they could produce everything in enough quantity for themselves, but then we'd again be in the situation where no exchange happens and the economy behaves as if the capitalists didn't exist. And they'd have fulfilled a shitton of demand and increased the standard of living. So, win-win.

Classes can't hold monopolies, because the actors comprising them are competing on the market, not cooperating, and competition kills monopolies.

That's what the market would do, once technology was sufficiently advanced. We've seen how former capital goods have become proliferated, like printers or computers. Have your robots or nanomachines or whatever on the market and within a few years, everyone will have them, as everyone will want them and prices will become so low that eventually, everyone does have them.

This isn't just a historical coincidence, it's a consequence of the fact that unfulfilled demand gives rise to exchange, as long as there's an imbalance of exchangable goods or services, which is pretty much always the case.

Nope, my solution would've been to leave the thing alone so you don't turn a burning stove into a wildfire. Which it has become by now, with us being stuck with millions of people who have become entitled and parasitic due to the welfare state and who vote entirely for the free gibs.

Molyneux shouldn't be taken serious. Some of his stuff is very solid, but overall, he's mid-to-low-tier. Shit-tier when you take UPB into consideration.

Not fooling anybody, you falseflagging bastard.

I actually mean it. So to speak.

This has already happened with Bit/litecoins not to mention other non-fiat currencies that have been in ezistence for hundreds of years.

what is human capital? Capitalists do not own property either (they essentially rent it from the state).

It was retarded. The war extended the depression despite massive public employment. Economies did not recover until they removed trade barriers and reinvested in infrastructure.

bump

Nobody on this board makes arguments, they just tell you to read a book and declare themselves the winner

what is half of the thread then ? or TLDR for you ? :^}

To be fair I only read the first post

Are you naturally this retarded, or did you have to work at it?

Let's delineate the one situation under which someone who owns the means of production (and all of the commodities it produces) will give you something:

You want something of his, and are able to give him something of sufficiently greater value than what he's giving you.

This is the case when you get paid for work (the value of your work must be greater than the cost of your labour if the capitalist is to make a profit) and when you buy something (the price you pay has got to be greater than the cost of production if the capitalist is to make a profit selling that commodity.)

This has the effect of ensuring that value flows upward as it is created, and people who survive by selling labour become progressively more dispossessed as the economy progresses. One consequence of this that I've already outlined is that demand drops as productivity rises.

The other is that your monopoly money would have no value beyond that of the paper itself. Most people want paper money because the state demands it in taxes and it can be reasonably expected to be exchangeable for commodities from within that polity. If a bunch of powerless unemployed people who have been cut out of the economy by automation make their own money, nobody will want it because they're unable to hold anyone at gunpoint and tell them that they want it. Its value is not derived from scarcity! I could make an irreplicable drawing of my asshole, but that wouldn't make people give me cars and gold and cereal for it.

Why wouldn't the capitalists in this case make their own monopoly money if they really wanted it? They have autofactories that can make anything. They could probably make way more of it too. What would they gain from giving people stuff when those people can't provide anything that their autofactories can do better?

And here's where your retardation shines perfectly through
REALLY RICH PEOPLE DO NOT NEED TO SPEND THEIR MONEY
This is an empirically observable fact. Poorer families spend most of their money on necessities. Rich people spend the same amount plus a little more, but the vast majority of their wealth is hoarded and only mobilized in order to produce a profit - ie, invested in firms, stock, etc. It does not go back into the economy unless a profit can be guaranteed. In this case, the capitalists have everything, the peasants have nothing. Anything the peasants make the capitalists can make more cheaply with their machines. How the fuck would wealth flow from the rich to the poor here?

The bourgeoisie holds a monopoly on the MoP by definition, because everyone who lives off ownership and not selling labour is a member of the bourgeoisie.

There's a difference between a printer and a motherfucking automobile factory or forest. In any case, it would be more efficient to have a single plant that provides for everyone's needs than a whole bunch of little individually-operated ones. The only reason you're arguing for the latter is because you're fucking spooked and unwilling to admit that private property is a harmful institution because of your woman-like emotions.

Wow, the Great Depression would've just sorted itself out if we just did nothing. You heard it here first, folks.

It's a shame that the governments weren't as dumb as your ass - if they actually followed your retard advice we'd be living under socialism by now.

There's only one class of people that are entitled and parasitic, and they're called capitalists.

Bitcoins don't derive their value from scarcity, they derive their value for being a good means to move dollars around undetected. You can think of them as a service that helps money laundering, rather than a commodity.

rude as fuck.

Count on a leftists to be reduced to a gibbering mess after the third post describing why he's wrong.

This has the effect of ensuring that value flows upward as it is created, and people who survive by selling labour become progressively more dispossessed as the economy progresses. One consequence of this that I've already outlined is that demand drops as productivity rises.

Value is subjective. Whoops, there goes your central premise!

Tell me, when you're in a desert and want water, would you give someone a diamond for a bottle of water? If so, then your theory is disproved. Better example, if you had a famous and extremely valuable painting in your room, but you hated it for some reason, would you not exchange it for an obscure, but almost valueless painting of a no-name artist that really appealed to you? A lot of people would, and your theories cannot explain that. Mind you, you don't run at risk of dying of thirst here, so you can't drop coercion or exploitation here.

They. Can. Employ. Each other. Is that so hard to grasp? "Give me some food and I repair your roof." - "Give me some more food and I'll build a makeshift windmill." Don't tell me they don't have resources. Some fucking african kid built a windmill for his poor village and he didn't even have a hammer. He drove nails in with his bare fists. He couldn't even fucking read and he managed to build a functioning fucking windmill, and here you are, telling me millions of people would just starve to death because not one of them has anything of value to offer to his fellow men?!

So, they build an autofactory that can build cars out of thin air. Then they proceed to never use it. And you're telling me that billions of people would just walk twenty kilometers to work every day, begging the heavens for a car, and no one would step in and just produce his own damn cars to sell?

Like, living in a wooden hut, but with a lava lamp? You're full of shit, m8.

You know that they can only make a profit by selling people something they need, right? The money they invest in le ebin memes of production effectively goes into producing shit you need and want, and that's how you benefit from capital accumulation. One problem with you leftists is that you seem to regard technological progress as a function of time, completely unrelated to the laws of economics.

"The bourgeoisie" is not an economic actor, you idiot.

Actually, no. That would make it more failure-prone and increase the costs of logistic and infrastructure. Once a scale is achieved where capital goods are operated at maximum efficiency, you get no more increased efficiency from increasing the scale further.

Alright, that got me kek'd.

Just like a common cold sorts itself out, unless you swallow cyanide.

What about niggers?

mein gott..not sure which is more insufferable. Red flag poster who knows jackshit what's he talking about or you

Doesn't know*

bump

No. Just no.

Value here refers to exchange value, ie money, or just commodities in general. This observation holds regardless of what theory of value you subscribe to.

Yes. Look at the rust belt. Factories are closing all over the US because it's no longer profitable to make things, and yet people all over the country still need or want cars.

Again, look at the real world. Rich people spend only spend a very tiny fraction of their wealth compared to working people. The majority of demand is created by working people, the very rich do not create enough to sustain an entire economy.

They can only produce a profit by taking more than they give. When others have nothing to be taken (because it's already all been taken) they can give you nothing, no matter how badly you need it.

The bourgeoisie are a class of economic actors.

Anyway, I've realized by now that you're retarded and words might be a little much for you, so maybe this nice picture might help.

If you'd like to make an argument, I'm right here.

bumpity