[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627152048125.jpg ( 106.88 KB , 573x491 , supply demand curves.jpg )

 No.398745

Where the actual fuck is any kind of mathematical theory describing marginalist theory?

The supply/demand chart supposedly allows us to derive prices from two combining sources: the supply of a product and the demand for that product.

Let us take this notion seriously.

Supply is going to necessarily going to be in some kind of quantity of a commodity. Ounces of gold, pounds of wheat, individual toys, tools, furniture. Whatever.

Price is going to be expressed in some monetary unit. Dollars, yuan, etc. Therefore, in order to get the proper units to convert, demand must be a unit of "dollars per commodity" so that the units cancel properly.

How does one determine what the current value of the "dollars per commodity" variable is? You can not determine this from the sale price because then you are circularly defining the price from the demand and the demand from the price. What is measured to resolve this?

Since supply and demand are expressed as curves, these curves have to have their own functions. How are they derived? Since supply and demand both have curves that cross both the "quantity" axis and the "price" axis, they're both inherently reliant on the price itself in the definition of their functions.

How the actual fuck is this even supposed to work out from a unit cancellation rigor standpoint?
>>

 No.398752

>>398745
You're right. That shit doesn't explain or predict anything. It is a non-theory.
>>

 No.398760

>>398745
>Since supply and demand are expressed as curves, these curves have to have their own functions. How are they derived?
A bourgeois economist whose last name is Samuelson made them up, they aren't derived, he just sourced it from his ass.
>>

 No.398766

>A demand, a supply, and a price walk into a bar.
>>

 No.399233

>>398745

They derived from a lpt of axioms. I think it was Arrow or Debreu who laid them out.

You immediately get aggregation problems however, except under very specific circumstances.
>>

 No.399248

the rigor is in ur mom
More seriously you have stumbled on the inherent subjectivism of marginalism. Cockshott has videos on this
>>

 No.399268

Nice circlejerk thread you got here
>>

 No.399312

You would be right if these two values were to be multiplied, otherwise there is no need to have units cancel. These functions you speak of are, in practice, statistical tables of collected data. In the theory, one is just supposed to accept that a function that maps price, quantity, and other factors can exist.

Fuck capitalism nonetheless
>>

 No.399400

Praxeology is correct and undisputed
>>

 No.399607

>>

 No.399726

>>398745
It’s magic bro! It’s essentially used to justify stuff after the fact, because it basically can’t predict anything.
>>

 No.399767

File: 1627182105658.pdf ( 450.05 KB , 67x118 , 1802.10528.pdf )

This pdf uses dimensional analysis and btfos neoclassical growth theory and demonstrates the capitalist economy cannot reach a stable equilibrium. The neoclassical equation only makes mathematical (dimensional) sense with the addition of a population growth rate variable which changes the equation to be a chaotic system. The authors don't state that out right but if you read between the lines the conclusion is obvious.
>>

 No.400048

>>399312
Then there's no reason to take this seriously as a scientific development and can be discarded as literal pure conjecture by anyone attempting any kind of scientific analysis of the economy.
>>

 No.400082

File: 1627190426362.pdf ( 3.03 MB , 195x300 , keen2011.pdf )

>>398745
if you get the time, read steve keen for an amusing dismantling of the supply/demand curve and other baffling nonsense.
>>

 No.400115

the cross diagram is only applicable to a small range of scenarios but liberals project it across everything that exists
>>

 No.400344

>>398752
>increase supply, price go down
>decrease supply, price go up
Is this not prediction?
>>

 No.400361

>>400344
It is not because you can only measure prices, but not supply or demand. So you can't actually say "demand is increased/decreased" and back this up with some empirical data, instead they work it backwards "prices are dropped so supply must increased or demand must decreased". It's a complete bullshit not a scientific theory.

Basically, on those graphs only the point of intersection is real and measurable, the lines are arbitrary and not based on any data. But through any point on a surface an infinite amount of lines can be drawn, so an infinite amount of explanation exists for any price change. Which means there is exactly zero explanatory and predictive power to those graphs.

This is about as far away from science as it can get.
>>

 No.400372

>>400361
>all production of computer chips is done by 3 factories
>measure production of chips from said factories
Supply measured, ez.
>two of said factories go down for a bit
>massive delays in products ranging from cars to phones to graphics cards
Harder to measure exactly, but it's pretty easy ti see that demand is now far higher than available supply, no?

Also didn't Marx himself talk about supply and demand in Capital?
>>

 No.400383

>>400372
>Supply measured, ez.
You have a point on a graph, not a whole line. At each moment of time you have certain amount of goods produced and certain price they are sold at, but you do not have the ability to actually measure the relation of how much the producer will be willing to produce at each price point. Which is the whole point of drawing the supply as a line. You can draw infinite number of lines through that point.
>>

 No.400402

>>400372
Supply and demand influence prices. No one is denying this.
>>

 No.400477

>>398745
>How does one determine what the current value of the "dollars per commodity" variable is? You can not determine this from the sale price because then you are circularly defining the price from the demand and the demand from the price. What is measured to resolve this?
The "dollars per commodity" IS the price, by definition. WTF are you talking about.
1. demand is measured in units of quantity of the item, full stop.
2. the "current price" is defined by "current demand"
3. the "demand curve" is defined in terms of every possible hypothetical price, not the current price.
4. the "demand curve" is not the same thing as the "demand axis"
5. the "current price" is not the same thing as the "price axis"
This is purely a bunch of equivocation and not understanding how a graph works.
>>

 No.400483

>>400477
>demand is measured in units of quantity of the item, full stop.
Do you mean supply?
>>

 No.400489

>>400483
I demand 3 hamburgers. How many hamburgers do I demand?
>>

 No.400505

>>400477
That doesn't work from a unit analysis, multiplying quantity of supply of item by the quantity of demanded item doesn't ever get you a price.
>>400489
Literally does not get you a price you pay per burger.

I demand three burgers. The price is therefore ten cents per burger.
I demand three burgers. The price is therefore two dollars fifty cents per burger.

How would you differentiate these two claims?
>>

 No.400507

>>400383
>At each moment of time you have certain amount of goods produced and certain price they are sold at, but you do not have the ability to actually measure the relation of how much the producer will be willing to produce at each price point.
the good will be produced to the maximum possible degree at each price point, assuming it returns profit. (or at least at a rate higher than the opportunity cost of doing something else.) the profit is the difference between current price and the cost of production. thus measuring supply is theoretically determined by measuring the cost of production

(also assuming homo economicus, but that's getting into the weeds)
>>

 No.400509

>>400505
you believe price is merely the multiplicative product of supply and demand?
>>

 No.400514

>>400507
>the good will be produced to the maximum possible degree at each price point, assuming it returns profit. (or at least at a rate higher than the opportunity cost of doing something else.
Consideiring that rate of profits does not equalize between different industries, it doesn't really work like that.
>>

 No.400541

>>400509
Where is the transformative aspect of this?
>>

 No.400545

>>400477
>the "current price" is defined by "current demand"
Don't you mean, the "current demand" is defined at the currently offered price? The way you phrased it above sounds like the price is set in a way that it's both true that 1. everything offered at the current price gets sold and 2. that everything offered at the current price could not be sold if the price were any higher than where it currently is. That is if you seriously mean it as you phrased it you are silently assuming here an elegance in the market system that isn't a given in the real world.
>>400507
>the good will be produced to the maximum possible degree at each price point, assuming it returns profit.
Following that rule neither maximizes the profit rate nor the profit total.
>(or at least at a rate higher than the opportunity cost of doing something else.)
What >>400514 said.
>>

 No.400552

The marginalist "theory" depends on circular logic and ultimately explains that value = value
>>

 No.400562

File: 1627218901364.jpg ( 63.82 KB , 334x450 , joan.jpg )

>Forever BTFO neoclassical econ by pointing out that it can't even come up with a working definition for "capital", forcing her opponents to eternally seethe and cope and pretend like nothing changed by covering it up
>Praised Mao's Cultural Revolution
>Praised North Korea and wanted the south to reunify under socialism
>Died lamenting the fact that neoliberal retards took over academia and econ departments meaning public policy would only get more and more retarded as time progressed
Has there ever been an acolyte of Keynes as based as Joan Robinson? Maybe Lerner for taking part in the socialist calculation debate and finding a solution for stagflation quickly.
>>

 No.400593

>>400514
the rate of profit, in the marxian sense, depends on the labor-intensivity of the industry.
>>

 No.400599

>>400562
A lot of the original post Keynesians were crypto socialists they just used keynesian economics to justify socialism rather than Marxian economics. Actually Joan Robinson read Marx.

I have a feeling they only didn't turn legit Marxist because they didn't want to be hounded out of academia for being gommies.

Plus JR bought into the transformation problem meme i think
>>

 No.400610

>>400545
>The way you phrased it above sounds like the price is set in a way that it's both true that 1. everything offered at the current price gets sold and 2. that everything offered at the current price could not be sold if the price were any higher than where it currently is.
I don't understand how what I said implies that.

>>400545
>Following that rule neither maximizes the profit rate
possibly true
>nor the profit total.
false
>>

 No.402031

>>400599
>I have a feeling they only didn't turn legit Marxist because they didn't want to be hounded out of academia for being gommies.
They had legitimate critiques of Marxism, like they disagreed with Marx about the LTV.

> to Joan it was always gobbledegook. She said, “It’s great metaphysics for stirring the workers up, but it’s not a theory. You don’t need it." She said, “I don’t need the labor theory of value to explain why the chaps who’ve got the finance can push around the chaps who haven’t."

http://econintersect.com/pages/analysis/analysis.php?post=201811220120
>>

 No.402206

>>400593
>in the marxian sense
What does that have to do with the point made about lack of realism in neoclassical economics?
>>400610
>I don't understand how what I said implies that.
Because you said:
>the "current price" is defined by "current demand"
when akshully the current demand is in reaction to the price set by the seller. If the seller had mind-reading abilities, the demand would determine the price. But as it is in the real world, it's possible that there's a gap and the seller sells at a price below that.
>false
Whoops, I read over part with selling at different price points and assumed one price. If one supposes the producer sells each unit at the same price, then it's easy to make a counter-example: The producer has a production cost of 1000 dollars per unit, which doesn't change with the variation in output under consideration. He can sell ten units at 2000 dollars. To sell eleven, he has to sell at 1500. He still makes a profit if he sells at that lower price, but both the profit rate and the profit sum is lower compared to selling at the higher price. You did suppose price discrimination between customers, but it isn't a given that this can be always done. Suppose you can't do that and you produced a very high amount, you can still sell all of it and make a profit, but you might make a higher profit if you destroy some of your output. Aah, what a wonderful system! (But capitalism apologists don't need to worry, since you can avoid the scenario by assuming mind-reading abilities.)
>>

 No.402210

>>402031
This article as well as the quote is hilarious. They realize exactly the obvious political conclusions of the LTV and refuse the LTV simply because said conclusions would stand against their class interests, exposing capitalists for the leaches they are.

They have no real arguments against it, and once again engage in circular logic: Where do these chaps she mentions get their "finance" from? What makes a dollat valuable? What drives the economy?

What would be considered an economy: An empty world filled with 1 billion USD bills and no humans, or a world with 1 billion humans and no USD bills?

Why do some people have more "finance" than others? Where did this "finance" come from historically? Why did this "finance" thing come into appearance in human history? Or did the first humans collect dollar bills from the trees?

Such obvious questions that marginalists refuse to answer simply because of their cognitive dissonance.
>>

 No.402215

>>402210
The pandemic also showed us that essential workers don't have a lick to do with managing capital, but with creating actual material value, such as food or transportation.

Why does Biden push a infrastructure program? Because all the financial extraction in the world doesn't build a bridge on its own, or repair a street. You need human beings interacting with nature using tools, or servicing the needs of other human beings. Without this, all the money in the world won't amount to anything. Even this simple line of argumentation, obvious to anyone with a mind, shows the LTV cannot be wrong: Labor is the source of value.
>>

 No.402221

Holy fuck, an actual quality thread on this hell site.
>>

 No.402259

>>402031

I am in awe. 6 paragraphs and an addendum to say nothing of substance, a truly enlightening read.
>>

 No.402284

>>402259
The retard author wrote a Wiki on himself and the only citations are his own blog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pilkington

But of course, the retard Wiki admins will protect such midwits.
>>

 No.402449

>>402210
>They realize exactly the obvious political conclusions of the LTV
It's obvious to everyone, including Robinson. No one denies it.
>and refuse the LTV simply because said conclusions would stand against their class interests,
No, she refuses to believe in the LTV because it's nonsense that relies on circular arguments.
>They have no real arguments against it,
Value is not something you can measure (you can't put a ruler against it, can't weigh it, can't measure its temperature), so any theory of value is unfalsifiable.

We can measure prices, but prices aren't value and they don't always correlate with labour content.

>Where do these chaps she mentions get their "finance" from? What makes a dollat valuable? What drives the economy?

Post Keynesian thought in recent years developed into MMT, which Robinson would have agreed with. It explains your questions. Banks and governments create finance out of thin air. Dollars are valuable because the government demands payment of taxes in dollars.

>Such obvious questions that marginalists refuse to answer

Robinson was no marginalist.

>>402284
Let's talk about Robinson, since she is a much better known author.
>>

 No.402479

>>402449
>accuses me of circular logic
Listen, you dense motherfucker: Try to think one layer more abstract than you are doing right now: What is a dollar worth on its own? You, once again, explained "value = value". Where does value come from? Answer this simple question. They create finance out of thin air, so is it thin air we consume, is it thin air we build, is it thin air we drink and wear and use? Is the world built with thin air, or is the world built with labor?
>>

 No.402496

>>402449
Besides, socially necessaey labor time can be and has been measured before. You are really arguing against a theory you don't even have a slightest clue about.
>>

 No.403118

>>402449
On the most basic fucking level, LTV manages to get its units to cancel out mathematically. For as much as Marx's LTV is accused of the Transformation Problem, marginalism suffers from it even worse. I haven't seen anyone actually show me how prices are derived from the forces involved.

This shouldn't even be a difficult part of a theory. If you can't get your units to line up with entry-level stuff, it's not worth considering.
>>

 No.403126

>>402449
>>402449
>she refuses to believe in the LTV because it's nonsense that relies on circular arguments.
Please explain. LTV is immediately obvious, especially if you've ever had employees (I know you're a 15 year old, but bear with).

If you run a business, your prices will be determined by wages + cost of materials + profit.
Profit usually is a percentage of wages + cost, but whatever.

It follows that all things being equal, the materials you buy will also follow the same formula. Hence, at the very end of the chain there are only two costs,
Wages + profit.
Profit is charging for work that was done by others, ie profit extraction. Hence, exploitation.

The only thing missing here is rent, which is similar to profit, and taxes.

Love to hear where the circular argument is.
>>

 No.403188

>>402479
>What is a dollar worth on its own?
A way of paying taxes and avoiding prison.
>You, once again, explained "value = value".
No, I'm saying value is not measurable, so any theories based on how to calculate value are unfalsifiable.
>Is the world built with thin air, or is the world built with labor?
What about someone stuck on a deserted island? Where does the value of their shelter, food etc. come from? No labour went into the coconut trees on the island, but the coconuts have value.

>>402496
>Besides, socially necessaey labor time can be and has been measured before.
That doesn't determine the value of commodities. Let's say the socially necessary labour time for a surgical mask is one minute. In January 2020, the value of the mask might have been one minute of labour. What about in April when there was a shortage of masks? Did the mask not increase in value, but the socially necessary labour time stay the same?

>>403118
>LTV manages to get its units to cancel out mathematically.
Only at the aggregate level, not for individual commodities, unless you want to introduce concepts that you can't measure.
>I haven't seen anyone actually show me how prices are derived from the forces involved.
Me either, I haven't come across a satisfactory theory of value.

>>403126
>Love to hear where the circular argument is.
Labour determines value, value determines prices, but prices account for value and value accounts for labour.
>>

 No.403208

>>403188
A word can have more than one meaning. It is either dishonest or ignorant to use a different meaning for a phony "proof" that somebody else makes a logical mistake. Value is such a word with several meanings. You are just equivocating on value:
>No labour went into the coconut trees on the island, but the coconuts have value.
That's value in the sense of usefulness.
>What about in April when there was a shortage of masks? Did the mask not increase in value
That's value in the sense of market price.

The words of Marx and Engels fill over forty books, so to slap somebody with READ MARX is not something that I usually do, but this is literally addressed in the first chapter of Capital, and it's not much to ask for that your read that one chapter before you "criticize" the theory of Marx.

>>Love to hear where the circular argument is.

>Labour determines value, value determines prices, but prices account for value and value accounts for labour.
That's ignoring the micro-macro distinction. Labor supposedly accounts for prices in big aggregates, but prices of this or that random commodity are allowed to diverge. You may have your doubts, but it's not a circular claim.
>>

 No.403245

File: 1627311676502.png ( 116.72 KB , 640x360 , watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q.00:10:….png )

>>403188
> What is a dollar worth on its own?
< A way of paying taxes and avoiding prison.
> Is the world built with thin air, or is the world built with labor?
< What about someone stuck on a deserted island? Where does the value of their shelter, food etc. come from? No labour went into the coconut trees on the island, but the coconuts have value.
On your first reply there's implicit a whole society with division of labour (taxes) that creates surplus product (prison). In such a society money does much more than paying taxes and avoiding prison: money is reified power, it allows you to command the production and distribution of any and all commodities, assuming you have enough of it.

On your second reply you turn around and describe a non-economy of a single person consuming non-commodities. An actual economic argument would have hundreds of people in the island, and in that case the coconut on the tree is of no use to them. Coconuts on the table on the other hand are valuable, and a person who spends the whole day climbing the trees to bring enough coconuts for everyone else will feel cheated if they don't get a day's worth of effort from the rest of the lazy tribe. If there were no coconut trees then acquiring food would require more effort, and the economic output from person doing that task would be relatively more valuable.

< That doesn't determine the value of commodities. Let's say the socially necessary labour time for a surgical mask is one minute. In January 2020, the value of the mask might have been one minute of labour. What about in April when there was a shortage of masks? Did the mask not increase in value, but the socially necessary labour time stay the same?

The mask increased in price, as firms were able to extract super-profits from the economic imbalance. The seek for super-profits is essential for the revolutionary character of capitalism, but the same technical advancements that result from the seek of superprofits end up decreasing, not increasing, the value of each commodity in the medium term: today the price of an N95 mask in my local pharmacy is half a dollar, while before the pandemic they costed five to ten times as much. The imbalance is over and the new equilibrium price plummeted.

>LTV manages to get its units to cancel out mathematically.

<Only at the aggregate level, not for individual commodities, unless you want to introduce concepts that you can't measure.
Of course it's in the aggregate: the LTV is a macro theory. Temperature is not an unphysical concept just because you can't measure the entropy of individual particles in a gas.

>Love to hear where the circular argument is.

<Labour determines value, value determines prices, but prices account for value and value accounts for labour.
Under the LTV value and average labour time are synonyms, that is, you can measure value by summing up person-hours across the whole supply chain. Which is extremely difficult to do in the face of globalisation. Prices generally tend to values so you can use prices as a proxy, but there are other stochastic and fixed factors such as taxes, subsidies and generally the allocation of surplus product, demand, ground rent, unequal exchange, and so on. However as pic related shows these factors average out once the data is aggregated enough.
>>

 No.403281

>>403188
A building has three floors. The first floor supports the second floor, the second floor supports the third. But the third floor is supported by the second floor, and the second floor is supported by the first. The building is a circle.
>>

 No.403468

>>403208
>That's value in the sense of market price.
It's also use-value. A mask in a pandemic has more use-value than at other times, even though the socially-necessary labour time hasn't changed.

>>403245
>In such a society money does much more than paying taxes and avoiding prison: money is reified power, it allows you to command the production and distribution of any and all commodities, assuming you have enough of it.
Yes it does, the question was what is a dollar worth on it's own.
>Of course it's in the aggregate: the LTV is a macro theory. Temperature is not an unphysical concept just because you can't measure the entropy of individual particles in a gas.
Unless you're a physicist, there's never a need to know the entropy of individual particles in a gas. However, as someone that lives in an economy, you are interested in the value of individual commodities. The value of certain commodities changes your decision to buy them and for porky to make them.
>Under the LTV value and average labour time are synonyms
And why is this so? It's just an assertion, which is the flaw that Robinson points out with the LTV.
>Prices generally tend to values so you can use prices as a proxy
I'd be interested to know what industries are in the graph. It says 40 industries, so does it include things like the finance industry or software industry, where labour time and price can be highly divorced.

>>403281
Let's put it another way. Surplus value is determined by profit and profit is determined by surplus value. It's a circular argument as Robinson said.
>>

 No.403918

>>403468
Age is determined by years lived and years lived is determined by age. It's a circular argument.
>>

 No.403938

I think I am seeing a large red pill. Idk though I am retarded at maths
>>

 No.403965

What happens when there is 0 demand? Undefined?
>>

 No.404262

>>403188
>Only at the aggregate level, not for individual commodities, unless you want to introduce concepts that you can't measure.
As far as I am aware, Marx (at least, don't know about the earlier theoreticians) make the argument that "value" is a societal property that can only arise as an aggregate.

Entropy is also a definite property of matter that can only arise from an aggregate - there really isn't an equivalent for it in the quantum level. And yet it's one of the most important properties of physics for any scientist and a great many engineers to understand.
>>

 No.404277

>>403468
>A mask in a pandemic has more use-value than at other times, even though the socially-necessary labour time hasn't changed.
Fascinating. And what does this have to do with your argument? Do you just like to see your text appear in this thread? You are just stating here once more that Marxian value is distinct from market value and utility, which is also the position of the Marxists, and which has nothing to do with showing circularity or some other logical fallacy in Marx (which was your goal, in case you have forgotten that).
>The value of certain commodities changes your decision to buy them
We all agree that this word value has more than one meaning, you have admitted to that yourself. Why are you talking in this obfuscating manner? If you mean change in price here where you say value, then what does this have to with the argument?
>Surplus value is determined by profit and profit is determined by surplus value.
Surplus coerced labor can also exist in a society without money. Surplus labor time is prior to profit, so it isn't circular.
>>

 No.404553

>>403188
>What about someone stuck on a deserted island? Where does the value of their shelter, food etc. come from? No labour went into the coconut trees on the island, but the coconuts have value.

Robinson doesn't have a society, there is no abstract labor and there is no socially necessary labour time, there is no exchange value. So the deserted island guy is not an argument or a good example of talking about value.
>>

 No.404638

>No labour went into the coconut trees on the island, but the coconuts have value
no they don't. Free gifts of nature are wealth, not value. And as the other guy points out, Robinson Crusoe does not engage in social labour
>>

 No.405037

>>403468
>It's also use-value. A mask in a pandemic has more use-value than at other times, even though the socially-necessary labour time hasn't changed
What's the issue here?
>Unless you're a physicist, there's never a need to know the entropy of individual particles in a gas. However, as someone that lives in an economy, you are interested in the value of individual commodities. The value of certain commodities changes your decision to buy them and for porky to make them.
No, we aren't. When we are analyzing the economy, we are analyzing it in it totality, not in terms of atomized individuals buying singular commodities at a time. And stop conflating price with value.
>And why is this so? It's just an assertion, which is the flaw that Robinson points out with the LTV.
It's not some kind of blind assertion, Marx goes into the reasoning for why value is socially necessary labour time and why price fluctuates around it (though not being it).
>>

 No.406926

the one of the rare good threads and it's tumblin down

bamp bamp
>>

 No.406928

>>406926
the problem is modern mainstream economists don't use basic marginalist economics and instead rely on more sophisticated models like DSGE
>>

 No.406947

the "rigor"

the neoliberal marginalist model is most useful in the "micro"

for example if Burger king lowered the cost of its hamburgers compared to Mcdonalds, obviously it would get a strong increase in demand. so it does accurately describe a limited range of scenarios.

the flaw in neoliberal economics is that they then extrapolate this across the "macro",, the whole economy.

you should all be aware of the economic study which showed that a raise in the min wage did not increase unemployment, and in fact was a small increase in employment.

This logical flaw of the whole is the same as a small portion is one of many major flaws with neoliberal economics which means the theory never accurately describes any real life phenomena
>>

 No.406948

>>406928
DSGE is marginalism with extra steps. such as price stickiness etc.

(these extra steps do not change the end result which is advocacy for neoliberalism)
>>

 No.406952

https://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Here is the famous study about the min wage which neoliberal lolbert economists spent decades seething about and denying
>>

 No.407268

>>403965
>What happens when there is 0 demand? Undefined?
LTV also fails when there is zero demand. Let's take used toilet paper for example. There is labour that has gone into making it, but its use value is nothing.

>>404262
>As far as I am aware, Marx (at least, don't know about the earlier theoreticians) make the argument that "value" is a societal property that can only arise as an aggregate.
Which is an assertion.
>>

 No.407389

>>407268
>Which is an assertion.
Backed up with evidence.
>>

 No.407647

>>407268
>What is SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor time
>>

 No.407787

>>406928
All modern economics just comes out of marginalism. There is marginalism and the classical value theorists. The marginalists have disagreements amongst themselves as do the classical theorists, but they’re the two opposed schools. The marginalists believe that, to the extent they don’t try to outright ignore the question of price and value, price is just a reflection of differing utility functions given scarce resources. This is basically shrugging your shoulders at the fundamental price structure, and it has obviously been an attempt to ignore class when studying economics. The whole structure of prices actually changes given changes in the shares of income between capital and labor. This was the thing that fucked with both Marx and Ricardo’s transformations, that changes in the profit rate could arbitrarily change price structure without any change in value. But ironically this points to how important class is, because Marx himself said the profit and wage share varied with class struggle. The class struggle changes the shape of the entire price system.
>>

 No.409869

>>407647
What is socially necessary? What you think is socially necessary is not what I think is socially necessary. We can't agree and neither can society because of Arrow's Incompleteness Theorem.
>>

 No.409885

>>409869
>SOCIALLY Necessary
Read those words very slowly.
>>

 No.410782

>>409885
>SOCIALLY Necessary
<neither can society because of Arrow's Incompleteness Theorem
There is no way to determine what is socially necessary. Any voting system to determine what is necessary (and how much labour goes into it) will fail in some basic criteria because of Arrow's incompleteness theorem.
>>

 No.410816

>>410782
>. Any voting system to determine what is necessary
t. doesn't know what socially necessary labor is.

Read a book, uygha
>>

 No.410843

>>409869
>We can't agree and neither can society because of Arrow's Incompleteness Theorem.
Would you say surgeons can't do anything because not every surgery works out? Arrow's theorem shows the impossibility of guaranteeing the fulfillment of a certain combination of requirements, it doesn't say anything about the probability of this failure other than it is above zero. If an election uses a Condorcet system, any election where a Condorcet Winner exists is an example where the requirement combination works out. A counter-example in a Condorcet system requires at least three candidates to produce a majority cycle, but surely people can have disagreements in an election with just two candidates. So what you present is neither sufficient nor necessary for disagreement to exist.

Oh, and you "forgot" to actually make anything resembling an argument why this would amount to an argument in favor of capitalism over socialism. Your post is less cringe than the time when somebody said computers can't replace capitalism because computers are constrained by Gödel's incompleteness theorem whereas the God Of The Free Market apparently lives in a higher dimension of hyper-math, but it's still pretty damn cringe.
>>

 No.411744

>>410843
>it doesn't say anything about the probability of this failure other than it is above zero
In elections for congress, you only have a few candidates, so Condorcet cycles are not common, although they are possible. In an economy, you have thousands of commodities, so it's virtually guaranteed that Condorcet cycles exist if we're voting on what is socially necessary labour time.

There is no single measure of what is socially necessary labour time and any attempt to build a measure will fail Arrow's criteria. No "ifs" because of the complexity of economies.

>Oh, and you "forgot" to actually make anything resembling an argument why this would amount to an argument in favor of capitalism over socialism.

I'm a socialist. LTV and marginalism are both wrong. You don't need to believe in LTV for computers to replace capitalism.
>>

 No.411806

File: 1627687075616.pdf ( 708.08 KB , 212x300 , bna-496_cockshott_cottrell….pdf )

>>411744
>In elections for congress, you only have a few candidates, so Condorcet cycles are not common, although they are possible. In an economy, you have thousands of commodities, so it's virtually guaranteed that Condorcet cycles exist if we're voting on what is socially necessary labour time.
NTA, but why are you such a fucking pseud? You don't "vote" over what is socially necessary labour time, socially necessary labour time is just a reality of the economy itself. It's just the average necessary labour to produce a given commodity under average conditions within that economy, which arguably does not apply in the way Marx utilizes it when commodity production is abolished wholesale under communism, as we are Eno longer studying a capitalist economy and value within it.
>There is no single measure of what is socially necessary labour time and any attempt to build a measure will fail Arrow's criteria. No "ifs" because of the complexity of economies.
Yes, there is. Read the PDF attached.
>I'm a socialist. LTV and marginalism are both wrong. You don't need to believe in LTV for computers to replace capitalism.
LTV is emperically verifiable you fag. Read more.
>>

 No.411810

>>411806
>under average conditions within that economy
And before it gets brought up, because I know it will, the average skill, intensity, and tools for a productive worker in a given industry (so in aggregate).
>>

 No.411848

>>409869
>>410782
Socially necessary is about average labor time. You not knowing this simple term shows me you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>

 No.411851

>>411744
>I'm a socialist. LTV and marginalism are both wrong

You're a Vaushite succdem at best
>>

 No.411948

>>411806
>Yes, there is. Read the PDF attached.
I read it, Cockshott doesn't address how society decides what is necessary labour and not. He takes what is necessary as a given and then calculates the values. Calculating labour content of what is produced is a simple engineering problem.
>LTV is emperically verifiable you fag. Read more.
Cockshott finds labour is correlated with prices in a capitalist economy. Capitalists decide what is necessary labour (and to a lesser extent consumers), so of course prices are correlated with labour. I never disputed that labour is often correlated with prices, but prices are not value.
>>

 No.411958

>>411948
>I read it, Cockshott doesn't address how society decides what is necessary labour and not. He takes what is necessary as a given and then calculates the values. Calculating labour content of what is produced is a simple engineering problem.
Do you understand the difference between socially necessary, necessary, and surplus labour or not? Because these three are not the same things.
>Cockshott finds labour is correlated with prices in a capitalist economy. Capitalists decide what is necessary labour (and to a lesser extent consumers), so of course prices are correlated with labour. I never disputed that labour is often correlated with prices, but prices are not value.
No, capitalists do not decide necessary labour. Necessary labour is determined by the needs of society and the individual. Socially necessary labour is however determined by the market itself, as capitalists are pushed to adopt practices which permit them to match it or be out-competed. Socially necessary labour is itself the value that prices correlate around.
>>

 No.412030

>>411744
>In elections for congress, you only have a few candidates, so Condorcet cycles are not common, although they are possible.
Elections for congress don't use Condorcet voting.
>In an economy, you have thousands of commodities, so it's virtually guaranteed that Condorcet cycles exist if we're voting on what is socially necessary labour time.
Arrow is about ranked ballots. Read Towards a New Socialism. In that proposal (as in Critique of the Gotha Program) the bulk of products an individual consumes are assigned via the labor-voucher system, not voting. The general budget division in the broadest strokes is done by voting with ratings. I don't have the impression that you quite understand the meaning of Arrow. The existence of a cycle or even several in a voting pattern goes up with the options, but the cycles are usually local. That is, you still have an aggregate output ranking and not a big cycle, it's just that some options are in a dubious relation to the ranking, and there are resolving methods for that. And aside from exaggerating that issue, you are wrong to even equate collective decision-making with anonymous voting* with ranked ballots that output a ranking.

*I mean anonymous here not in the sense of privacy, but in the voting-theory sense. It means an input is processed the same way irrespective of whose input it is, so it excludes for example voting rules in bodies where different members hold different amounts of votes. Voting on assigning people to tasks and remuneration levels to people should not be anonymous in that sense.

>LTV and marginalism are both wrong.

LTV and marginalist analysis both have their place in socialist planning (long run and short run, respectively).
>>

 No.412580

>>411958
>Socially necessary labour is however determined by the market itself, as capitalists are pushed to adopt practices which permit them to match it or be out-competed.
The market produces a lot of things that are not socially necessary, so they have no socially necessary labour because they are not socially necessary. What we see in the market is what capitalists have decided is socially necessary to produce.

There's also the problem of deciding how much labour is really necessary. Different capitalists choose different techniques and if one capitalist chooses a more "efficient" technique, but it pollutes the environment, society needs to agree whether this "efficient" is the standard for socially necessary labour time for this product.

>Socially necessary labour is itself the value that prices correlate around.

Then how do you explain so-called "bullshit jobs"? They're not socially necessary labour and they have a price.

>>412030
Score voting has its problems, for example, it's not a Condorcet method. It leads to bullet voting when people really want one option to win.
>are wrong to even equate collective decision-making with anonymous voting* with ranked ballots that output a ranking.
It is the same thing. Cockshott's rating system is a voting system.
>>

 No.412585

>>412580
>What we see in the market is what capitalists have decided is socially necessary to produce.
I meant to take socially necessary out of that sentence.
>>

 No.412669

>>412580
>The market produces a lot of things that are not socially necessary, so they have no socially necessary labour because they are not socially necessary. What we see in the market is what capitalists have decided is socially necessary to produce.
Holy fucking shit, do you understand what socially necessary labour means or not? This is the last time I will ask you this. Socially necessary labour time is literally just that, the socially necessary labour time to produce the given commodity. The "Socially necessary" part refers to the necessary amount of time in a societal context that is needed to produce the commodity. That is all.
>There's also the problem of deciding how much labour is really necessary. Different capitalists choose different techniques and if one capitalist chooses a more "efficient" technique, but it pollutes the environment, society needs to agree whether this "efficient" is the standard for socially necessary labour time for this product.
What do you not get about capitalist competition driving the socially necessary labour time to produce a given commodity down? When we discuss the what is "necessary", we are not discussing it in terms of some moralistic determination of what should be "necessary", rather we are discussing what is "necessary" in relation to the capitalist system itself. Socially necessary labour time is calculated in aggregate, and so all of production in it's totality for a given commodity is taken into account, as all competing capitlaist enterprises producing the commodity play a role in determining what is the SNLT.
>Then how do you explain so-called "bullshit jobs"? They're not socially necessary labour and they have a price.
If the workers factors into and facilitates the production of the commodity in any way and are required to realize it's completion, their labour is part of the socially necessary labour required to create it. There is also productive and unproductive labour, with productive labour creating new value, while unproductive labour possibly being necessary towards the realization of profit, but ultimately creating no value itself.
>>

 No.412766

>>412580
>>412585
You have had multiple people try to explain what socially necessary labour time means and you somehow still don't get it.
>>

 No.412891

>>411948
The reason he "takes it as given" is because non socially necessary labor time is a vanishingly small part of the economy because any labor that isn't socially necessary isn't profitable, so almost no one does it.
>>

 No.412912

>>410782
>>411948
>>412580
"Socially neccessary labor time" is a question of the labor time needed, not about society in general.

"How much time will it take for a society with X level of development to produce some commodity Y?"

It has nothing to do with what the end product is. It's just a question on society's development on rates of production and labor force.
>>

 No.413007

>>412580
It's not clear to me at all what definition of "socially necessary" you follow.
>There's also the problem of deciding how much labour is really necessary. Different capitalists choose different techniques and if one capitalist chooses a more "efficient" technique, but it pollutes the environment, society needs to agree whether this "efficient" is the standard for socially necessary labour time for this product.
Things happen whether society agrees on them or not. It seems to me you have some insane standard of perfection what socialism should be like and use that to argue against socialism, even though capitalism is not better by that measure. You put in a little disclaimer that you are actually for socialism, but the bulk of your texts gives the opposite impression. Can you give an actual description of what you are for?

>Score voting has its problems, for example, it's not a Condorcet method.

Of course it isn't a Condorcet method. Why would you use a Condorcet method for changing proportions of public spending?
>>are wrong to even equate collective decision-making with anonymous voting* with ranked ballots that output a ranking.
>It is the same thing.
Can you tell me what the function of the first and second "with" in that sentence is?
>>

 No.413070

If you can not have a fixed quantifiable supply and demand function/ relation then it is subjective. A subjective supply and demand would lead to a subjective price and value everyone should agree that subjective theory of value is shit.

If the supply and demand curve cannot be applied across industries, because of paramters that are industry specific then it is useless. Especially in monopolistic or monopsonistic supply and demand relations. If a monopoly controls supply the demand won’t mean shit and if a monopsony controls demand supply wont mean shit. Price therefore cannot correlate to the two. The price and supply curve for a perfect monopoly would be infinite, the company could produce 100 or 1,000,000 of something and fix the price regardless of demand.
>>

 No.413099

>>413007
"socially necessary" is a question of how quick a society can produce a thing, regardless of its usefulness to that society.
It is the "labor time" that is "necessary" to produce a particular good, which is dependent on the conditions of the "society" it is being produced in.
>>

 No.413104

>>413099
But is useless jobs are included in necessary labor time, then the system is incorporating inefficiencies into it. If you aggregate useless labor along with productive labor the average will be dragged down. So how will socialism account for the difference between the two and optimize productive labor vs unproductive labor? Or is unproductive labor merely the outcome of capitalism and the need for unproductive labor ie PMC to monitor proles?
>>

 No.413108

>>413099
yes and no. Labor to be socially necessary requires it to produce use values. In capitalism this is ensured through competition. In socialism without competitive pressure this should be ensured through political process.
>>

 No.413110

>>413108
> In socialism without competitive pressure this should be ensured through political process.

How will the state determine what has use value and what doesn’t
>>

 No.413117

>>413110
voting by representative samples of potential consumers
replace voting with your vallet with just voting
>>

 No.413143

>>413104
Depends on "uselessness" of the jobs. Also, including the unnecessary jobs would increase the labor time average.

The SNLT measurement is not a bare-minimum hypothetical to get some product out and sold. Jobs that are tangentially related to production and distribution but not actually needed for the final product can be seen as a form of waste inherent to the system. There are plenty of other forms of waste that are obviously going to be included as a form of production losses, and so to can it be with someone's entire job.
>>

 No.413717

>>412669
>What do you not get about capitalist competition driving the socially necessary labour time to produce a given commodity down?
It doesn't always. Take for example when capitalists phase out environmentally harmful products. When they do that voluntarily, they are usually moving to techniques that require more labour.

>>413099
>>413007
>Things happen whether society agrees on them or not.
Marxists exclude inefficient techniques from SNLT, but they still happen.
Suppose you have factory A that requires 3 hours to make a product and factory B that requires 2 hours to make a product. The products are the same. You would say SNLT is 2 hours, even if factory A is making products with 3 hours of labour.

Suppose there is factory C that requires 1 hour to make a product, but it releases pollution. Both factories B and C are making products and some consumers buy from C, some buy from B because of the pollution. Marxists can't decide whether SNLT is now 1 hour or 2.
>>

 No.413791

>>413717
>It doesn't always. Take for example when capitalists phase out environmentally harmful products. When they do that voluntarily, they are usually moving to techniques that require more labour.
Which is to assist in the realization of profits, and they rarely do it by their own volition. A SNLTstill exists regardless.
>Marxists exclude inefficient techniques from SNLT, but they still happen.
Marxists don't exclude inefficiencies, they jus river time are phased out.
>Suppose you have factory A that requires 3 hours to make a product and factory B that requires 2 hours to make a product. The products are the same. You would say SNLT is 2 hours, even if factory A is making products with 3 hours of labour.
>Suppose there is factory C that requires 1 hour to make a product, but it releases pollution. Both factories B and C are making products and some consumers buy from C, some buy from B because of the pollution. Marxists can't decide whether SNLT is now 1 hour or 2.
SNLT is in aggregate you fag. It doesn't take the faster producing industry as the SNLT, it accounts for all production in within the industry. That's why if one industry adopt more efficient practices, it drops the SNLT overall. In the 2 and 3 hours example, the SNLT would be situated somewhere right between them.

Unique IPs: 47

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome