This thread is dedicated to the literal Marxist Singaporean poster yesterday who posted a thread discussing the Labour Theory of Value at around this time. Not sure if he was baiting or playing Devil's advocate, but he put forth the LVT and defended it, even though the Haitian mud pie rebuttal (Haitian mud pies require long hours to create, but are worth little to nothing) was presented.
So, are there "any valid objections to the LVT?"
Other urls found in this thread:
courses.nus.edu.sg
twitter.com
Bumping once.
I think he died. He hasn't responded to my pm's.
There's something to be said about the relationship between bait-like nature of posts and the replies you get.
He did say he had to go, maybe some Chinese business meeting gone awry?
idk, i have him on kikebook. He hasn't replied since yesterday though.
>Singaporean
>Marxist
But the only reason their place isn't an Indonesia-tier hellhole is becaused they Keynsed harder than anyone since Hitler... I don't get it.
I really doubt Marx himself believed he had perfected economic theory.
So what are your thoughts? Is the amount of labour the defining factor behind the worth of a good/service, or was that something Marx just came up with on the toilet?
Also how are monopolies and other worst case scenarios avoided in a totally free market, or are regulations required to maintain some level of order? Does this always result in a net negative?
My objection to the LVT is that most commodities are not demanded until they are invented. Nobody demanded a phone until it was invented. So the idea of the phone is probably worth a lot, but how do you quantify with LVT?
Here's what I posted yesterday and he has yet to respond.
My issue with communism is that I don't buy into to the the labor value theory. If you think about it, what really is behind the supply and demand? Most companies actually create the demand first and then supply it. Nobody demanded a phone before it was invented. This is why I emphasized the value of an idea. All commodities come from ideas, which is seemingly not quantifiable in terms of labor.
Real Interested to hear what he have to say on the subject
What's this? As a former Singaporefag myself I would very much like to have witnessed this spectacle.
Here is the link to the full thread.
>Also how are monopolies and other worst case scenarios avoided in a totally free market
in a free market, i think monopolies cannot occur or sustain themselves through immoral means.
>only make when theres huge demand
>no progress allowed
i think i see the problem here
Oh boy, thank you, this will be a fun read tomorrow.
when did i imply this senpai?
you said nobody demanded a phone before it was created
in a marxist state, the progress of creating phones will be halted because the populace simply have no use for it
this causes stagnation of civilization i;e north korea.
I know you, you're the same guy who I was talking to yesterday. I know what you have to say already.
Let's say some wealthy business-owner with a brand so alluring and competitive in the market that there are no substitutes decides to engage in malpractice of the highest order. What is stopping him?
so your on board with me on the anti gommie train?
Capitalism won't last its unsustainable and will be replaced by socialism. Not because of a Marxist revolution or anything but because of robots. Robots will put 99% out of work and we'll reach a point where robotic factories are collectively owned and everything is made for so cheap its given away for free.
>malpractice of the highest order
that's unsustainable, the workers wouldn't work
won't people still be making robots and improving on them?
Also, how would robots take over the entertainment industry? Sex robots or something?
I guess what the logical response would be that an idea has more value the longer it sits in the head of the inventor. So Bill Gates waiting to release Windows at 90 is a smarter choice than if he releases it at 35. However, a competitor could always release a substitute earlier, sparking a race to release new ideas earlier (i.e. time factor introduced, earlier the better instead of sitting on it for another Joe to think of it), which flies face-first into what the LVT stands for.
Also that is fucking retarded to even entertain, if the market is ready for the idea, then why wait?
So in a free market, jobs are readily available? How would it be different than our current predicament, what with the difficulty in finding employment? Wouldn't there be a laziness factor to consider, that most people would rather tough it out at some shit job than dump it and risk not finding one? I bet you that's the case for every worker at Walmart right now.
The result of the coming robotics/AI transformation isn't necessarily socialism, but rather a broad socialization of various civilizational industrial and commercial processes. Capitalism will still drive the cultural if not scientific advancement of our species. At that time the marketplace of ideas and creativity will become truly preeminent, as we cast of the shackles of material scarcity.
That's a bold statement, if there's money to be made, why give it away? If it costs next to nothing to make plastic armymen, why do I still have to buy them? If things are given away for free, would there even be a need for currency?
I agree that robots would replace a lot of us (not sure about the percentage), but how would it become a series of collectives?
I agree with the point regarding perception, I can spend months making a pile of shit, if people don't want it, it won't sell.
> idea has more value the longer it sits in the head
an ideas value doesn't seem to be measured by its labor or it's time under labor. One can seemingly have a genius idea pop up and have it worth much more than a bad idea that has been labored for a long time.
>So in a free market, jobs are readily available?
not necessarily, though it can be a created a lot easier than a regulated one.
>Wouldn't there be a laziness factor to consider, that most people would rather tough it out at some shit job than dump it and risk not finding one?
Yeah, there's really no escaping that. The idea is that someone would figure out that starting a business similar to the one doing the malpractice would steal a good part of the workforce because they are dissatisfied with the working conditions.
Huh... would you look at that.
I would argue that all facets of the Economy are
governed by perception. Price is fundamentally
dependent on consumer demand (How majority
of Consumers valuate the goods/service) and
general consensus.
Hence, Labour Theory of Value is disproven
because Demand can be easily distorted by
Credit and real-world economic factors.
Wage is also governed by perception, in the
sense that the labourer is willing and able to
work at a certain wage point. There is a ongoing
perception/entitlement on how workers should
be paid etc etc.
We also have to factor in the Job risks. Obviously, a guy working in a 3Ds job would
face greater risks/environmental hazards than
say, a guy working on a farm.
In that sense, Food, water and necessities are least influenced by perception (Though distorted by credit). Because at the end of the day, people have to eat,drink, piss and shit.
After all, ya can't eat Gold, dawg
I'm playing devil's advocate, I don't honestly believe the whole idea-labour link; I agree with you.
>a lot easier
How so? I mean, maybe more so for white men who can get into the positions they deserve, but what about niggers who rely on Affirmative Action or other handouts? Are they a lost cause, doomed to fall behind in the race of talent and skill?
>The idea is that someone would figure out that starting a business similar to the one doing the malpractice would steal a good part of the workforce because they are dissatisfied with the working conditions.
Fair point, I can see that happening, making somebody really rich, or the cycle could just continue. I'm just trying to imagine a company with such a stranglehold on the society that ripoffs could never even get a chance (maybe some market manipulation/corruption, insider secrets that the average Joe could never learn, connections, etc.).
Why'd you post the same thing twice? See
For my response.
They are absolutes, yes. Can't convince your cells that they don't need H2O today.
Well the thing is once we reach a point where the majority of the population is unemployable and basically unnecessary there won't be any money to be made. Corporations rely on constant growth and profit. As their rate of profit declines little by little well...goodbye capitalism basically.
If we reach a point where everything is made by self repairing robots and a product costs literally nothing from raw materials to its delivery to the store shelf, why shouldnt the entire process be collectivized? Especially when people have no means of earning money.
I'll post my objections from old bread;
> Capitalists must maximise profits to put more capital into companies
False. Value is not confined to soley profits.
---
Public goods by their very nature are not actually in demand as no one is prepared to willingly pay for it uncoersed.
Societal demand, public goods etc has been refuted for literally decades. Where have you been, in a coma for 30 years?
----
I can take a shit on a canvas and sell it for millionsto some Jewish art gallery while your 10 years of painting fails to sell.
You could spend hours banging your wife and not satisfy her as well as Chad pulling up her skirt and quickie creampie banging her in 3 mins in the back of the club on a "girls night out"
There you go LTV BTFO forever.
----
As for OP i think you really have done some doublethink mental gymnastics here intentionally or not, you're mistaken lad.
Also who is this "society" if not a group of indivdiuals? Goodnight sweet prince.
Had to correct that shit, the format was a fucking mess.
So yeah, Credit trumps the Real Economy for
now. Without credit flows, farms, water
suppliers and electricity providers all go
bankrupt and shut down. That is the state of the
modern economy.
>How so?
I would imagine it would be a lot easier to start a business with no regulations and all.
>Are they a lost cause, doomed to fall behind in the race of talent and skill?
Yes, but this isn't a bad thing. Why would you want a dumber person to work a job? It's like softcore eugenics.
>maybe some market manipulation/corruption
That's one issue I have with this too. Because this model assumes that the workers would know that they are getting exploited etc.
a guy working in a farm cant progress civilization much because its already a mastered labour.
>start a business with no regulations and all
Sounds like 90s/early 00s China, current Africa,
Industrial revolution Nippon/Britain/United
States/Germany
Seems to be a lot better than the gommies huh
A civilization can't progress when its population can't feed itself
There was demand. Not for the phone per se, but rapid communication. What's actually wrong with the theory is that demand can be created. With the right advertising you might be able to create massive demand for mud pies.
:>>Legislation exists for a reason
civilization will stagnate if it prioritizes in the basic human needs and ignores and shuns attempts to create needs.
>won't there still be jobs about improving robots?
Skilled jobs are theoretically the last to go. It's useless to speculate what AI can do, you won't actually know until it's invented. But unskilled labour will definitely go.
Improved animation software greatly reducing cost of animating.
By collectivized, do you mean redistribution, Stalin-tier collectives or just systems of operation that are not central? Not sure what you're referring to.
Also, why does the company have to lose money? Is it because all the workers are now unemployed and have no money to spend on anything? Wouldn't they all just die and leave a bunch of robots with their wealthy overlords?
It must take a really long time to sculpt a slab of marble into that, really is a work of art.
Two of's in the quote. Really good, though. By chance, do you know where Hoppe lies on the political spectrum?
I remember you, you made some really good points.
The regulations I am imagining are to avoid big businesses from getting "too big" if that makes sense. They don't really refer to small businesses, just avoid copyrighting other brands and other overt violations.
How do government regulations damage small businesses? The idea of regulation I had, I just described to you. Are there other regulatory forces that are net negatives?
>Why would you want a dumber person to work a job?
I agree, they lack the fitness to compete and thrive, so they, naturally, fall short.
>Because this model assumes that the workers would know that they are getting exploited etc.
The workers could engage in weekly, corporate-sanctioned soma fuckparties to keep them from knowing anything about anything, just mindless drones. But that's a far stretch.
A civilization can only strive in abundance.
I cannot take this seriously, a rape literally just happened in India while I was writing this.
long ass time ago people are fine living in wooden houses, in these times people have no need for concrete.
when concrete was introduced, the rich buys them because its the latest thing. demand soon grows, concrete got cheaper and everyone needs concrete.
a marxist state would ignore the need for concrete and stagnate civilization, causing everyone to live in wooden houses and never bothered to progress beyond that.
Do you really think the majority of the people will just lay down and starve, especially just so a bunch of corporations can remain profitable? Either they willingly surrender ownership their shiny robo factories that run on nothing but electricity or they brace themselves for a chimpout the likes of which recorded history has never seen.
>Not for the phone per se, but rapid communication
This isn't always the case though. One can imagine certain inventions that could not even be conceived to the general public. Usually, the most success commodities come from revolutionary ideas.
would a quack dentist that doesn't solve the patient's problem sell better than a dentist who would?
The regulations you mentioned aren't really market regulations. I think what you have proposed is more in the vein of theft or defense of property rights. It seems much more like a judiciary law.
Im sure lots of people thought that a phone like device would be pretty neat before it was actually invented
When they run out of money and have no energy to expend in an effort to rape or loot, yeah. It will come to that for the majority of people, drift slowly into the night.
I guess save up for canned beans, then.
Ah, good to know. Also nice trips, Satan.
The Devil's advocate
No, labour does have innate value. If it didnt, no one would hire anyone to do anything that they couldnt do themselves.
y-yes, free market capitalism is bad goys
Why do socialists still try to reinvent the wheel?
Never said that, just postulated how the kike you use in the picture can abuse it.
which is a fair point, wish the marxist singaporean would return. He had quite a lot to say
...
I'm pretty sure he was baiting, one of the last posts was kind, he kind of outed himself.
I'm pretty sure Singapore owes its success to companies that profited under capitalism and not some Marxist's wet dream.
Hoppe is an cap, the society he envisions is covenants (actual social contracts) of property owners. People assume bitty enclaves etc but there is no reason to suggest a sufficiently organised covenant could not be as large as any state.
Socially id say he is right/conservative. Incidentally using philosophical foundations as his you can justify ultra ethnonationalism and im of the opinion that unbeknown to him he is the literal saviour of the white race.
people dont need video game either. and it wasnt revolutionary when it was first introduced. but its entertainment and now everybody has played at least once a month.
marxism pander to conservative ideas and shuns on liberalism, take a look at muslim countries thats still stuck in their primitive culture of conservatism, they havent progressed much. theres a reason why some people call them Islamic communism, because the two ideologies are very similar
We owned our success to being a hub for trade (Refined Oil esp.) & FDI.
Singapore is arguably more Social Democratic than Democratic Socialist.
That sounds pleasant. I'm just worried about the anarco section and what I said about kikes and their usury.
Side note: Is Fascism wrong? I am against a large government impeaching on the rights of the people (free speech, right to arm, etc.), but I can see why Fascist movements would arise (i.e. Marxists not worthy of the rights because they will destroy you from within under the guise of "rights").
Interesting, I didn't know that.
Current day: Refined oil is 400% of our GDP/
Which is why we got hit hard when oil prices started declining
Singapore government is imo fairly close to national socialist in ideology and relatively close in practice
That is more Minarchy/Minimal statism than Marxism
>t wasnt revolutionary when it was first introduced
It was revolutionary. Just because it didn't catch on at first, doesn't mean the idea wasn't revolutionary.
That's a recipe for disaster, you should not be dependent on something as singular and bound to fluctuate as oil.
I read something about why crashes in stocks: people panic when something takes a dip and pull their money out to save it, even though (ironically) that, apparently, accelerates the crash. Might be the same way with oil, dips are temporary, have faith.
Not an econ major, so.
That sounds pretty cool. I don't know a lot about NatSoc, how are people who hate government intervention NatSoc if, allegedly, NatSoc in practice during 1940's involved big, obtrusive government? Or did they back off the market?
Minarchy sounds like it isn't really applicable on a level like the US.
We are not that dependent though.
We have our Manufacturing, construction, Banking and Services sectors (Diversification)
When the Chem/oil people gets fired, the rest of
the economy does not blinks.
courses.nus.edu.sg
I think it something like the New
Frontier AKA the Wild West with all the small scattered counties/ranches/townships/conservations.
I think that the economy is one of the places singapore couldnt be strictly nationalist, due to its tiny size and lack of resources. Its strategic position is a port of trade like hong kong, and therefore must subject itself willingly to global forces.
However in terms of social policies it sort of places itself on the benevolent side of national socialist
Haitian mud pies are consumed to help offset the bloat and deterioration of starvation, so it's a supplement to a poor diet which will also provide minor nutrients and give a sensation of having ate.
LVT makes sense in situations of scarce skills and the willingness of people to do a particular task with the caveat that it provides an actual desired service, outside of that realm, it's just silly.
It's an area of determining value, but to try to make a comprehensive theory solely off of it is pants on head retarded.
Back to the Haitian mud cookies, they do have a value and perhaps that value may not translate into great monetary gain, but it could translate into community value gain. Jean-Jacque Lenegre down the street may be so grateful for getting some mud cookies here and there for the meager money he's willing to pay that he might be more willing to help her with some other task or simply not rape her violently when he's having a sexual emergency. When currency isn't always available, a community barter system often develops.
No, in the sense you are thinking of it isn't the labour which has value, it's the unwillingness or inability of others to do that task deemed necessary which gives that labour value (most likely*). You pay someone else to clean because you prefer your house to be clean and do not wish to do it yourself and you find a provider of that service whose willingness to do that job matches your willingness to pay to not to have to do it yourself (if you can do it yourself that is). Standard economic equilibrium.
*most likely - you could be a cunt and reference hierarchy or caste based systems here, but I'd tell you to fuck off unless you genuinely want to discuss the ideas behind them.
Labor theory of value is pure shit for several reasons
1. What about the losses? not all enterprises bring profit, some take loss at times. Let's say your factory produces clothes, but other factories produce clotehs that are better quality and more fashinable. You either sell nothing, or sell at price that does not cover the cost of electricity in your factory. What is the value of labor that went into making the clothes? is it negative value?
2. the same labor can be valuable and vallueless depending on circumstances. Lets say you are a water puryfying specialist, and woth your apparatus you can purify 100 L of water in 8 hours. If you worked in area with no water, like a desert, your water labor would be valuable. But if you were teleported to Finland with it's highest clean water reserves in the world, your labor would be worthless, because there are more clean water there than they need.
3. A man equipped with a shovel, in 8 hours can dig a trench. Same man equipped with excavator, can dig in 8 hours a fuckgin swimming pool, while putting way less effort, using less calories etc.
Clearly the second man put less labor, yet effect of his work has higher value. So should he be given less or more monies?
4. how do you calculate the value of labor of workers not directly eployed in production? does a cleaning staff at factory contribute the labor of the same value as line workers? if the factory has own cafeteria place, do cooks contribute the same as workers? what is their share?
If Europe is forced to choose between marxism and fascism i would support fascism as the former = extiction
Economic equilibrium doesnt create any value, it just tells you how much it trades for. However how much you pay is only a partial representation of its value, since you are better off not doing it yourself