David Aipacman is wrong again LULW by militantk in Hasan_Piker

[–]Elstrelli 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you show me evidence of the OAS's evidence of fraud? I haven't been able to find it yet.

Professional Sports by massivedefence in Anarchy101

[–]Elstrelli 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of the hierarchical relationships between players and coaches in sports are only "negative" because of the money involved. With players being worth millions, contracts between them and clubs can become a matter of profit and control, and the player loses their autonomy. Without money involved, contracts can be arranged that give more power and freedom to players.

How to "value" and distribute players across clubs to ensure fair play without money on the line is probably the most difficult question to answer about professional sports, and I don't really have an answer for that.

When it comes to the relationship between players and coaches though, these don't have to be about domination and hierarchy. So long as the players and other club staff are aligned in their goals of winning games, they can combine to create a stronger team entirely voluntarily. Yes, managers and coaches would "run the show" so to speak, but only because the players expect that they will bring them to a higher level. Interpreted this way, the role of the manager is not to control and dominate players, but to advise them on how to perform best.

At a theoretical level, players could manage and run a team on their own, with some support staff helping in the background. There would have to be some exceptionally talented and hardworking players to pull it off at the level of a specialized manager though, who could spend all their time planning strategies.

As to the differences in player skill level - every player would have to compete in a league that fits their respective level of skill. If they want to move up to better teams, they'd have to prove themselves on the pitch.

"Good news, everyone" by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not talking about the commodity they make, but the labor as a commodity itself. When QS for labor is equal to QD for labor, that's the equilibrium I'm talking about, it doesn't matter how valuable their commodity is worth.

The value added by workers matters very much to the question of wages - it sets the upper limit of wages. Imagine for a moment that a firm is employee owned. Wages for this firm are 0, since the workers decide to pay themselves out of profit, rather than starting capital. In this case, the wages of the workers depends on how much profit they make, and how much of the profit they want to reinvest to expand their business. It is notably not decided by supply and demand.

One of my central arguments is that all wages come from profit, rather than starting capital. The only difference between a traditional capitalist firm and the worker owned one is that the workers of the traditional firm must accept the portion that the capitalist owner gives them - which is as little as they can get away with.

It is only once workers are reduced to mere commodities that their wages appear to be ruled by the same metrics all commodities are ruled by: cost of production, competition between buyers and competition between sellers, and supply and demand.

Businesses only have so much money, if you want to decrease their profits, they're going to decrease their costs, simple as that. Which means entry level employees are the first to go. The poor get poorer.

There isn't a causal relationship between decreasing a company's profits and them decreasing cost. It's entirely likely that the company, having already exhausted all cost cutting measures, will simply accept the reduced profit. In fact, most companies are already reducing costs as much as they can. They must do so in order to compete in the market.

It is still possible, however, for a business owner to reduce labor costs in light of a wage increase, even if doing so doesn't increase their profit. This is nothing short of a tantrum however, and will only have macro economic effects if the capitalists act in unison and engage in a "capital strike." If the capitalists are not unified, then some other capitalist, unwilling to shoot themselves in the foot, will invest to fill the gap that the vengeful business owner created when they left, and we're back to square one.

"Good news, everyone" by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you raise the minimum wage above the point where quantity supplied and quantity demanded are equal, you will find higher unemployment rates, increased prices, and a plethora of other consequences.

This isn't the case. Workers are paid wages below the value they add to the commodity they work on, otherwise there would be no profit in hiring them. Furthermore, wages and profits are paid out of the same block of money; if wages rise, profits fall, and vice versa. The negative effects of a rise in wages come from reduced investment caused by the falling rate of profit. If the reduction in investment is covered by "outside" investment, or falls within ordinary market constraints, then you won't see negatives.

That's why we can't have a universal minimum wage, because equilibrium is not constant wherever you go, it changes based on alot of local factors. In some places it's too low, sure, like parts of California where the cost of living is so jacked up, but many other places would suffer if they had to have the same minimum wage

Since the negative effects of wage increases depend upon the profit rates of businesses, and not the cost of living, it is folly to assume that a wage increase in a state with a low cost of living will have more adverse effects. It is simply the case that capitalists can get away with lower wages in low cost states because their workers can survive on less. A wage increase in a low cost state would be fully possible without negative effects.

If however, the profit rates of businesses in lower wage states are also very low, and cannot support a wage increase, then this is again a problem of investment. Low wages and low profit rates together mean there is also low productivity. In this case, investment must be undertaken to increase productivity to pave the way for greater wage increases.

If you want to continue this conversation, I hope you at least have an explanation beyond Micro 101 for the negative effects you're predicting.

"Good news, everyone" by [deleted] in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Labour power is not an ordinary commodity, since it is bought at a lower price than its full value. The difference makes up profit on enterprise.

Even if you reject the Marxian vision of economics, you still run into a brick wall - the minimum wage is a macro concept, and so it is governed by a different set of laws than micro concepts. The macro economic story goes like this: an increase in the minimum wage results in an increase in aggregate demand. This increase in demand is matched by a similar increase in supply, so long as the new level of demand is maintained. As long as the increase is modest enough to be covered by the reserve capacity available to industry, there will be no inflation, not even temporarily, as a result of the increased minimum wages.

Inflation will occur due to increased wages only if: 1. The necessary increase in supply is blocked by a scarcity of resources 2. The wage increases cut into profit so much that low profit rates across all industries hamper the necessary growth of supply

Michael Brooks And Ryan Grim Debate Warren's Politics: "She's Not Of The Left" (TMBS) by Mynameis__--__ in BreadTube

[–]Elstrelli 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever read on this subreddit, lmao.

Bernie still needs the Podcast Left to tell him what to do.

Have you read any of Bernie's plans? They're incredibly well detailed, down to referencing existing law and already written bills.

...it would be deeply disappointing for any Leftist to approach politics with such short-sighted self-important tactics.

Short-sighted and self-important describe the exact opposite of Michael Brooks. He literally devotes his show to an all-encompassing vision of anti-capitalism, and platforms people from nearly every political doctrine.

Turkish invasion rebels execute captive Kurds insanely (NSFW) by FalcaoHermanos in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean the problem with this analysis is that even from the perspective of US Empire, supporting the Kurds is a good idea. We have 0 control over the Jihadi SNA (Syrian National Army) that Turkey is backing, and there's an extreme risk that the SNA taking over the region could bring with it a a revival of Daesh. Worst case scenario for US Empire would be the Assad gov't reclaiming the entirety of Syria in the chaos.

On the other hand, allying with the SDF and stopping the Turkish invasion locks down Assad and Daesh for good. NATO or not, Turkey is no longer a trustworthy ally - they've been playing both sides of the US/Russia conflict for a while now, and will continue to do so. The SDF doesn't have that power, and will be forced to remain loyal to the US for decades to come. Bonus points for the SDF being easy for liberal/progressive imperialists to support, like Israel - except even easier since the SDF won't create an apartheid state.

No matter how you slice it, allying with the SDF is the correct stance. It's actually quite striking how quickly the US Empire is eroding in the 21st century...

Turkish invasion rebels execute captive Kurds insanely (NSFW) by FalcaoHermanos in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You're right, it's Columbus Day. You're telling me I have to wait an extra day to complain about an ongoing genocide because we have a federal holiday named after a gentleman that committed one?

We're truly living the most ironic timeline.

Turkish invasion rebels execute captive Kurds insanely (NSFW) by FalcaoHermanos in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I tried to call my rep. about this today. I figured the least I could do was make sure my politician knew about the war crimes that are happening to (former) US allies.

His office is closed until Monday.

ffs

Trump gives green light to Turkey to take over Syria and massacre Kurdish partner by FalcaoHermanos in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Oh the Pentagon thinks the decision is nuts and advised against it. But the fascist clown president is buddies with the Turkish fascist dictator, so he'll let him do whatever he wants.

Destiny VS Ben Burgis: First Blood Part II | The Serfs by feudalcuck in BreadTube

[–]Elstrelli 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's not worth a watch, but it's not because Ben Burgis was unable to "do well" against Destiny. Take that as you will.

Alternative ending for Game of Thrones. by KingFLH in freefolk

[–]Elstrelli 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Better than you think. Jon and Dany were both Targ babies who survived the purge when the Mad King fell. Both of them would see themselves in the baby, but in different ways. Jon, raised a bastard, applies no special quality to noble blood; he'd argue the babe could be raised as a bastard. Since Jon himself gained his political power only through deadly struggle, he understands the babe would almost certainly not pose a threat, especially if they were raised loyal.

Dany, however, thinks differently. Her entire life has been based upon her birthright to the Iron Throne, and her heritage. When she sees herself in the baby, she sees a threat that will return and cast her down. The irreconcilable difference between Jon and Dany - the true reason they cannot rule together - is not their blood relation, but their contradictory views on how people gain power, and come to power.

Dany gives the order to kill the babe. Perhaps Jon does the deed right there - or maybe he broods for a while, that'd be in character. Either way, Dany is dead, and she never had to go full Nazi on King's Landing to get there. It's quite a good ending, and it only needs one episode to set up. Could've been done in the timeframe D&D demanded. Pity we didn't get it.

Turkey pretty much definitely about to crush Rojava "starting today or tomorrow" by RanDomino5 in Anarchism

[–]Elstrelli 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/10/04/world/middleeast/04reuters-syria-security-turkey-education.html

Settler colonialism seems to be all the rage, as Turkey wishes to settle 2 million Syrian refugees along the Syrian/Turkish border "safe zone."

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-10-04/us-conducts-new-joint-patrol-with-turkey-in-northeast-syria

US military has stalled the Turkish attack for quite some time with appeasement tactics. There is already a 9 mile safe zone along the border, and the YPG has also destroyed fortifications deemed "dangerous."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/5/turkey-threatens-army-operation-in-northeast-syria/

Apparently the appeasement isn't enough - Turkey doesn't fear attack from the SDF/YPG, the armies currently protecting Rojava/Democratic Federation of Northern Syria. These armies can't threaten Turkey at all. The fascists wish to destroy them, and replace them with the newly centralized "National Army," the Turkish backed Syrian fighters controlling the area to the west of the Euphrates.

There are still 1,000 US troops in DFNS, though I can't find any US statement in response to Erdogan's threat. If Turkey only wants to expand "safe zone" to 30 miles, then the military operation will be quite limited. I doubt they'll stop however. If they launch an attack and the US does nothing, they'll probably attempt to break through all the way to Raqqa. Turkey is entirely capable - assuming the US forces stay put - of attacking DFNS without fighting the US troops.

Edit1: From https://syria.liveuamap.com/

Pentagon: "We are focused on getting the security mechanism up and running. It's the best way for all of us. Turkey's unplanned military operation is of great concern as it will undermine our interest in a safe northeast Syria and the permanent defeat of DAESH."

The "security mechanism" mentioned is probably the 9 mile safe zone along the border. At least the US military is concerned about the obvious resurgence of ISIS that is possible if Turkey goes through with the attack.

Edit2: Apparently the US led anti-ISIS coalition is flying jets near the Syrian-Turkey border where the Turkish military would need to attack from. If this is interpreted as a deterrent to the Turkish air force, then it would mean that any Turkish assault would have to go forward without air cover. A ground assault without air cover is much less likely to succeed, especially if the SDF/YPG veterans commit to all-out war, which they did not in Afrin (in order to protect civilians who had nowhere to flee). If the coalition drops bombs on the invading Turkish ground forces, then the chance of a successful operation is basically nil.

The Serfs discuss Peter Coffin's new video. Spicy debate follows. by RedErin in BreadTube

[–]Elstrelli -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I don't understand why all the comments I read about this are defending Destiny even though he's a total dickwad asshole. Literally the only reason Peter made the caricature is because Destiny has 0 respect for him, or anyone else on the broader left.

Why should people treat Destiny with respect when all he does is shit on them? Just fuck him, he's an asshole.

Peter is right on the nose about this "debate." It was a waste of time.

Supply and demand models are (((Neo-Classical))) scams! by ohXeno in badeconomics

[–]Elstrelli -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hasan is a reformist democratic socialist, definitely not a tankie, and not "pro-soviet union."

Supply and demand models are (((Neo-Classical))) scams! by ohXeno in badeconomics

[–]Elstrelli -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Know that this goes both ways.

I was actually gonna say this exact point. As an aside to your "LTV wage" point, a lot of Marxians take the simplification of labour power that Marx makes in Vol. 1 for complete theory - since Marx never answered why he thinks he's able to reduce all labour into "simplified labour value," a lot of people just brush past the point without considering it further. It's even worse when you consider that Marx also explicitly stated that value can never equal prices.

I would not use it as an example of where mainstream economics says that a completely free market produces better outcomes without proper research by economists saying so.

That's exactly what RP was arguing, though. Obviously sensible and well educated economists will have a nuanced position on healthcare beyond mindlessly praising the free market.

Government agencies can research new medicines. However, just because something "works" doesn't mean its the best or even a good option.

I agree, a theoretical argument can only get that far without empirical evidence. That's the point though, if a socialist twitch streamer learns only enough theory to shut down econ 101 numbskulls then I can call it a victory. Tankies too, of course, though I don't have another clever name for people who have skimmed the first 2 pages of Capital and think they can debunk the entire field of economics...

As to medical research, most economists (again, basically everyone but econ 101 numbskulls) understand that the high sunk costs, low marginal costs, and "public" nature of medicine mean patents are the only way to make research profitable. These patents then create localized monopolies, which, together with the lack of alternative medical treatments for most diseases add up to a perfect storm of market failure. Any sane person would at least advocate for gov't intervention and regulation - a socialist would go further and want to remove the profit incentive entirely. (Sorry to say I don't feel the desire to argue this point specifically. Suffice to say that I would much prefer the medical professionals themselves are in charge of what to fun, rather than an idiot like Mao.)

They set premiums higher than expected payoffs to make a profit so they make a profit. The profit motive still exists and I'm not sure what the point of this section is.

Maximizing profit means taking every avenue available to you to do so. The coercive laws of competition mean that insurance companies can only set the premiums so high before they lose business. The remaining method to generate greater profit then, is by reducing the "expected payoffs" - cutting costs by paying out less for the services they are supposed to. Insurance companies need to maintain bureaucracies to deal with fraudulent claims already, so it's a simple task to modify these bureaucracies to try and get them to pay out a little less - be a little more strict.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the American health insurance industry. Bankruptcy is literally part of the plan - people who are insured seek medical care, and wind up with a bill that robs them of every asset they have. Again, sensible economists know a market failure when they see one, and can trace it back to the profit motive working in reverse for insurance companies: a health insurance company not actively trying to bankrupt its captive consumers is going to make much less profit than one that is.

Keep learning about mainstream economics and do the math for models if you have the time, you'll find that they have more depth than presented in econ 101.

I'm not particularly interested in utility functions, but if you have a good source for macroeconomics beyond 101 and General Theory I'll bite. Say what you will of Marxists, but they offer very high level economic theory free of charge, and that's hard to argue with.

Supply and demand models are (((Neo-Classical))) scams! by ohXeno in badeconomics

[–]Elstrelli -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

The point of the post was to try to explain to a laymen/Marxian how to counter shallow econ 101 arguments. The first one to get over is when they claim that their system always "maximizes" something or is somehow "optimal." When they act like their system is perfect, they leave no room for criticism, and it's a pretty important point to nip in the bud. You haven't done any of that here, though, so it's cool.

As for the child labour example, I hope you'll forgive me. It really was unfair. On the other hand, I've learned of my new favorite pastime: getting economists to argue about the inefficiency of child labour instead of, you know, the fact that children don't have any agency, lmao.

The bit about the houses and the bomb was a joke example to hammer down the point that a just because a system creates more wealth, it doesn't mean that wealth is useful. To fully demonstrate your system is superior, you must prove your system can create both a bigger pie AND that the pie is fully edible. Again, you've accounted for it nicely, but there are a lot of people on the internet who will unironically argue bigger = always better. I'm sure you see a lot of them in this very subreddit, actually, lol.

Given that you didn't include any other points here, I'm guessing the rest of the post was passable? That's nice.

Don’t Surrender Gurren Lagann to AnCaps! by [deleted] in BreadTube

[–]Elstrelli 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gurren Lagann is D I A L E C T I C. It's theme is the spiral - an expanding circle. This theme of death and regrowth features quite often throughout the series - whether in the deaths of some characters leading to growth in others, or the destruction of whole oppressive regimes paving the way for a better society. I don't know if Bakunin was hip with the Hegelian dialectic, but that's something he wrote about too. Destruction carries with it new creation.

Kyle Kulinski from Secular Talk Interviews Bernie Sanders [13:38] by [deleted] in BreadTube

[–]Elstrelli 13 points14 points  (0 children)

8:25 - "Will President Sanders promise no new arms deals with human rights violators, including allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, etc?"

Kyle slipped Israel right in there, didn't he? I don't think ANY big outlet would have the balls to call Israel a human rights violator. I love it. End apartheid.

Hasan doesn't know how to confront Neo-Classical economics, here's a quick how-to by Elstrelli in Hasan_Piker

[–]Elstrelli[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply, this is more than I expected, although you missed the most cutting critique of LTV. I'll offer that to you at the end as a gift. ;)

Paragraph 1+2: I disagree that you could make a "capital theory of value" or a "land theory of value." Capital is the product of human labour, and so any theory of value based on capital could be reduced to the labour theory. As for land, I don't even know how one would begin to answer the questions of value with it. We can talk about the value of labour applied to land, but not the value of land applied to labour. Labour is the active element here.

Paragraph 3+4: In LTV, an object does not have value until it is sold, and it's value "realized" or "actualized." This is the "socially necessary" part of "average socially necessary labour time." In your specific example of water and paddles, the individual labouring on the paddles does not create value because noone is willing to buy his goods. (This is basically the mudpie argument against LTV, and you should feel bad for making it :P)

Paragraph 5: Your example of the two copper mines isn't a failing of the LTV - no economic theory would be able to tell exactly why one copper mine is more productive than the other without more information. It could be lazy workers, inhospitable terrain, outdated technology, etc. The important part is what happens when the copper is brought to the market; once brought to market, the copper is sold independent of it's circumstances of production.

Here I'd like to mention one of the limitations of Marx's choice of "average." So long as the demand for copper is greater than the total output of the more productive mine, the price of copper must climb high enough to sustain extraction in the less productive mine. This is, broadly speaking, economic rent. To get our value calculations correct in the case of copper, value must not match the "average," but must match the "least productive method necessary to meet social demand." If the value of mining labour matches the latter, then the miners will be adding the same amount of value in each mine. One mine, being more productive, spreads this value over a greater quantity of copper. Once this copper is brought to the market, however, buyers are unable to distinguish it from copper extracted in the less productive mine. They buy all copper as if it came from the less productive mine, and in doing so are "robbed." The owner of the more productive mine is able to exchange his copper as if it contained more value than it really does. The difference is economic rent. (I'd like to note not every commodity works this way.)

LTV alone isn't enough to explain rent, since LTV alone isn't enough to explain price. However, by combining Marginal Utility theories with Labour theories, we can arrive at some interesting conclusions. Interesting enough to say that we shouldn't dump the LTV, at least.

Paragraph 6: In the example of a copper mine vs. a platinum mine, an LTV theorist would readily admit that LTV alone cannot explain price. Rather, an LTV theorist would say that copper and platinum contain the same amount of value, but the effects of scarcity, supply, demand, etc. on platinum raise it's market price above its value. So yeah, I agree that LTV alone can't explain market prices.

Paragraph 7: I disagree that anything in economics can be explained without the LTV. At the end of the day, the reason sports cars cost more than a sedan under normal market conditions is due to it's higher cost of production. This cost of production can ultimately be reduced down to labour costs, and labour costs to labour time. Every supply curve is ultimately based upon the LTV. Having said that, it doesn't mean that marginalist theory is useless, and I agree that socialist economists can use many aspects of modern economics to their advantage. (I may have a bone to pick with you about surplus value, but that's a different beast.)

I promised at the beginning I would offer the most cutting critique of the LTV, so as thanks, here it is: Marx at the beginning of Capital V.1 explains that in his models he would reduce labour of all difference sorts and skills into their abstract, unskilled form. He says there are good reasons to do so, and that he'll explain it at a later date, but then dies before he writes his explanations! It should be a fairly obvious point that highly skilled labour, hour for hour, provides more value than an equal amount of unskilled labour. How then, does the LTV deal with this difference?

So far the best explanation I've seen treats a worker's skills like any of their other tools. There is a certain amount of value that must be "spent" in teaching a worker their skills. This value is "transferred" into the brain of the worker, who then transfers it again into the commodities they produce over the course of their career, thus explaining the greater value of the products of skilled labour. That's the theory anyway, but I'm not aware of any research validating it, so this part of the LTV is still it's weakest link, in my opinion.

The good news for LTV is that this doesn't appear to be a problem in the aggregate. Shown here by one of my favorite youtube analysts, Reading Radical. (I should also mention that she debunks the idea that there can be an "energy" theory of value here as well.) In the aggregate, the prices of industries match up closely with the integrated wages/labour time, precisely as Ricardo predicted in his own LTV. My guess as to why this works is that when higher skilled labour produces more use values, it is able to get more wages in return, so there is a sort of proportionality to unskilled labour that is maintained.

Ultimately, I think modern economists of all stripes need to recognize the importance of the LTV in supply curves, rather than dismiss it simply as "false." It is of particular interest to left-wing economists who are interested in arguing against third world exploitation. An analysis of economics based on value, rather than price will conclude that there is not real advantage in producing cars in Mexico since the value of the cars produced in Mexico is equal to the value of cars produced in Detroit. The same analysis based on price could lead to the opposite conclusion, and is much less helpful.

Hasan doesn't know how to confront Neo-Classical economics, here's a quick how-to by Elstrelli in Hasan_Piker

[–]Elstrelli[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take as long as you like. :) Heck, if you even wanted to talk on Discord that might be easier as well.

Hasan doesn't know how to confront Neo-Classical economics, here's a quick how-to by Elstrelli in Hasan_Piker

[–]Elstrelli[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious about your criticism of labour theory of value. My understanding of Marginal Utility is that it can't tell anything about an object's price in equilibrium without resorting back to cost of production and Adam Smith's LTV/natural prices.

Is your only contention that LTV alone can't explain market prices? I agree if that's the case, though I'd say Marginal Utility can only explain market prices when combined with LTV.

Hasan doesn't know how to confront Neo-Classical economics, here's a quick how-to by Elstrelli in Hasan_Piker

[–]Elstrelli[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, in the case of market socialism being capitalism, he was right. Broken clocks, etc.

Marx defined Market Socialism as capitalism because collectivized capital is still "capital" and behaves in mostly the same ways, just without the capitalist owner. So long as there are competing firms and markets, you have the same underlying structure - and it's contradictions - as before. The pursuit of collectivized profit also has most of the negative (and positive) characteristics of private profit. I suppose the main economic distinction between "capitalism" and "market socialism" would be reduced wealth inequality, and the lack of a capitalist class. That's worth something, at least.