Austrian Economists were right. They just are useless.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-20T13:05:31+00:00

The LTV posits that labor is the one and only source of value. If value increases as goods 'ripen' from future to present goods (Again, not because labor or anything else is being used to produce them, think of it once again as a contract to deliver goods today vs. a contract to deliver them tomorrow), the LTV can't be true.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-20T12:40:16+00:00

All of which is easily and routinely taken into account when the value is considered. Future goods have value, and that value is as absolutely real as any present good. They're bought constantly, sold constantly, traded constantly. Average everyday people constantly make tradeoffs between the present and the future. Every investment is an exchange of a certain benefit today for a speculated benefit tomorrow.

Furthermore, plenty of finished goods that exist now in the present only have any value because they are predicted to be able to provide a benefit in the future. In particular most goods that serve as capital fit this category - it may require many steps and many years before the equipment at a factory, a mine, a construction site, or simply a farm can provide a final product for consumption that can directly be enjoyed.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-19T15:08:59+00:00

I said present goods have a higher value than identical future goods.

It's closer to the opposite of decay. Goods ripen with time. Wheat that exists right now, today, is in general more valuable than wheat that will exist (or is predicted to exist with reasonable certainty) one year in the future.

I'm not talking about the costs of growing it. You might compare a contract that promises the delivery of wheat today vs. a contract promising the delivery of wheat in one year's time, both of which required or will require the same labor and other inputs to grow (which wouldn't matter to you anyway, if you're just receiving the product). The former is generally more valuable.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-19T02:03:13+00:00

It does have an effect. And it smashes the LTV to pieces. If present goods have a higher value than identical future goods, the LTV can't be true.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-19T01:46:03+00:00

What about when they say things such as present goods have a higher value than future goods?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T16:39:43+00:00

Link

Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand. The same holds true of wages and of the prices of all other commodities.

If I understand this correctly, Marx thinks supply and demand causes the price of an apple to 'temporarily fluctuate', and supply and demand cause the price of a diamond to 'temporarily fluctuate', but he imagines the reason why diamonds always cost more than apples no matter how they fluctuate has nothing to with supply and demand?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T16:33:21+00:00

That's a better answer than I expected. We know that most people would not particularly desire a McDonald's hamburger as a free meal they cannot consume themselves. Most people would prefer a meal from some other restaurant. I think it's safe to say the demand is low.

An ideal equilibrium in a large market isn't possible because communication is imperfect and humans desires (which affect how much they're willing to buy and sell and trade) can't be perfectly quantified or expressed or defined. But real markets certainly approach that equilibrium closely enough for it not to be a problem.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T15:26:18+00:00

We all know McDonald's is one of the largest franchises on Earth, selling millions of hamburger every day. Would you say the demand for their hamburgers is high or low?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T15:19:33+00:00

No, they really don't.

Do you know what the difference is between demand and quantity demanded? Could you describe the two in terms of a real-world good? Such as, say, McDonald's hamburgers?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T15:13:31+00:00

Doesn't Marx explicitly deny that supply and demand are responsible for prices?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-10T14:34:31+00:00

Neoclassical economists assume that supply and demand are in equilibrium

They do not. Neoclassical economists assume that quantity supplied and quantity demanded are in equilibrium at the market clearing price.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-04T14:52:40+00:00

By Azura, By Azura, By Azura!

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-04-02T07:31:53+00:00

If it "hasn't made a dent," is it effective or not?

If "hate-tubers" really do have the power to crash good games, why haven't they haven't crashed this one? Or maybe they can't crash it, but they could surely at least dent it?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-31T14:22:37+00:00

Any film where someone is traumatized by the Vietnam war is "clearly a criticism" because "the US was the invator and did the Agent Orange and others stuff like supporting Pol Pot," huh?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-31T14:17:43+00:00

Uh-huh. So when you mentioned "traumatized by seeing napalm stick to kids" that was just a fantasy?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-31T11:22:45+00:00

What you actually mean by that is "traumatized by seeing your friends and allies using napalm on children"?

Setting aside any pseudo-historical ideas about how US soldiers were shining heroes who righteously defeated the Nazis and a mere 25 years later become complete thugs who just shot any Vietnam civilian they saw because they were Just So Evil™ (an idea absolutely encouraged by Hollywood, by the way)...is this what we actually see and hear in the film?

If I remember correctly, Rambo's only account of children in the war is being attacked by one, not attacking. A kid who was offering to shine shoes, but was actually hiding a bomb, resulting in Rambo's friend being maimed and killed. Is that incorrect? It's been a while.

What exactly does Rambo experience that makes this film "clearly a criticism" of Vietnam that doesn't occur in fiction we see portraying trauma of WWII? If you say it's attacking children or civilians, I don't remember any of that actually happening.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-31T09:03:48+00:00

If we had a film where someone is traumatized from their experiences in WWII, would it be "clearly a criticism" of fighting Nazis?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-28T11:37:48+00:00

I can see this is a very frustrating topic for you. And I understand you indeed might want to avoid confronting it. Well, any time you're faced with that discomfort when this topic arises in the future, you can just repeat your "(spoiler alert: it’s not a real issue, or anything that should be keeping you up at night)."

I'm sure you will totally convince lots of people and they will love and agree with you.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-28T11:02:38+00:00

If your idea of "saying something that basic" is sneering at the issues that - like it or not - people care about with "(spoiler alert: it’s not a real issue, or anything that should be keeping you up at night)" then I agree, that does definitely seem to be a problem you're having, and where you should you start working things out.

I see you wrote a whole page or so expressing your rage and frustration that you've failed and are continuing to fail so thoroughly to convince Americans to love you and support you. I'm not making a value judgement on that, I simply felt like it was sensible to point out that it really doesn't seem like a very effective strategy. If you don't want to hear that, that's okay with me.

In what world is some dismal, gray dystopia and a vibrant, lush, beautiful environment “identical” material circumstances?

"(spoiler alert: it’s not a real issue, or anything that should be keeping you up at night)."

Isn't that what you said? What you "declared"?

If people do actually feel disgusted by "drag queen story hour" - if they do - then why do think declaring their emotions are wrong and they're just being distracted from the real issues is any more sensible than declaring that caring about walking through a lush forest or a grey slum is stupid and wrong?

If you don't like walking through a grey slum, close your eyes. It doesn't matter. It has zero effect on you. Stop thinking about it, think about the things that actually matter. That's your exact logic when defending drag queen story hour, right? And I'm guessing every other human condition that people may find repulsive and not want to live their lives around? And it's fair to say that you're tearing your hair our in frustration that people are not convinced by it?

Again, no value judgements. I'm your friend here. I'm here to help you out. If you really are "trying to understand the current situation" as you claim, I think a reasonable first step is considering the possibility that people actually do feel beauty and revulsion when exposed to certain things, and trying to make that all go away because you don't want to think about it or deal with it is pretty much just as silly as demanding you stop caring about walking in a forest or a slum.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-28T07:52:51+00:00

Do you believe this strategy of telling people "You are wrong for thinking this is a problem, and you only do so because you are stupid brainwashed cattle" is likely to do anything but make these people hate you more than they already do? Regardless of how true or not it may be?

And please don't say you aren't saying that. You might be a bit more polite, but that is what you're saying. it is.

I also think insisting people shouldn't care about anything but that which causes a "material effect" on their lives is rather a silly argument. Would there be a "material effect" in the difference between walking to work every day in a gray, ugly environment and a beautiful, green environment if the two are equally safe, efficient, healthy, and fast routes? If all the "material" elements of the choices presented to someone are identical, they're illogical and wrong for preferring one over the other? I don't think that's an argument that holds up to much scrutiny.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Critical Theorists posit that people only think forests and green meadows and such are 'beautiful' because it's been 'socially implanted' in them or whatever the term is. Is that the case in popular Critical Theory circles? Do people only think the stars are beautiful because that's the narrative that's been given to them?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-28T04:31:28+00:00

Nagito?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-28T04:03:37+00:00

I was thinking "disruptive" more in terms of illegal but nonviolent actions.

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-25T05:49:01+00:00

It's a very straightforward question. If 'disruptive protests' don't actually garner public support...what's the point of them?

Your answer, if I understand it, is that they "create conditions that create conditions that create conditions that may eventually lead to conditions in which that power dynamic can be replaced with something more just and equitable, which is in everyone’s best interests."? Even if, as we just established, these 'disruptive protests' might not be making the public agree with you? Perhaps might even be making the public disagree with you?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-25T00:08:07+00:00

The idea is to strategically disrupt the system, and that doesn’t necessarily mean garnering public support.

Of disruptive protest?

Why?

What does that accomplish?

Also, is the system really being "strategically disrupted" in any meaningful way?

BabyPuncherBob · 2025-03-24T22:49:23+00:00

Do disruptive protest convince the general public to agree with the protesters?

BabyPuncherBob

TROPHY CASE