Discord ID: 793519133177675802
I don't think the value of a good is dependent on the labor necessary to produce the good
Well we have to understand what Marx means by value
Obviously when we make mathematical models it's there's a big correlation but I don't think that means that they're actually is some sort of objective factor that is actually predicting what the price is going to be it seems like it's based on subjective preferences
Value to Marx is basically price
It's exchange value right?
It's just firms theory of buying pretty much now
No value judges prices
Subjective and objective
Neither really change prices nor set prices in the 1st place
So I can't pretend to know exactly what modern Marxist argue for like maybe certain of his theories were vindicated by neoclassical economics or something but when I generally conceptualize the labor theory of it seems that marx was developing a system of economic prediction based off of these other thinkers of his time and they held the opinion the price of a commodity is the same as the labor that is expended to create it and that's how we came up with this theory of exploitation now if you're arguing for something different I don't totally know because Im basically rejecting his theory of exploitation because he's starting from false premises
Yeah, they can be exploited but they aren't exploited in the way Marx says they are
Marx's Theory of Alienation was right on
I could see that being true
@slavecaste prices remained rigid in the face of a huge collapse in aggregate demand due to government intervention lol
There was barley any government intervention in COVID
It was private central banker intervention and massive austerity
Keynes was based
most recessions prior to 1945 saw deflation in CPI
Yeah, S&D was very flexible back then
Marginalism was right at one point
open market operations are a form of gov intervention
No they aren't
and are supported by virtually all keynesians
OMO's are just private central bank intervention
Yeah, those are monetarists not Keynesians
they just say they aren't enough
I mean literally that's true though
because Keynes hated central bank action for recessions
Friedman loved it
I still laugh at lolberts who blame Keynes for the mess we have now
not really friedmanites believe in inflation targeting, not countercyclical monetary policy
Friedman was a retard for rejecting ABCT
Yes they do
ABCT is false now
It's a defense for usury
he did, where?
Feder's Theory of Interest <:chad:793675087064465449>
In his general theory and every other literature he had
He saw central bank action as barley demand responding for recessions
Keynes believed in spurring investment which open market operations precisely do
no you aren't
are you ?
No, he believed in socializing investment which is basically debt-free money to the government.
well I obviously dont think all interest is usury or whatever
Basically fiscal policy but no national debt
all interest is wrong and anti-bible
but I think what hammer and sickle is saying is that ABCT doesnt describe the nature of modern business cycles which I agree with but thats because of the government/central planners/private banks or whatever we want to call them
'hammer and sickle'
My emoji isn't hammer and sickle but call me cash plz
hammer and hammer
i assumed it was meant to represent a hammer and sickle
Austrians got lucky and only described 1 RECESSION throughout history
and that was the early 20's one
ive also seen empirical evidence to suggest it accurately described the great depression
Usury and Worldwide Austerity caused TGDP
well that may have worsened it under FDRs years but lets not forget it originally started with hoover
It started it
FDR got us out of TGDP
and then did Austerity and got us back in
idk if he got us out do you have any articles on that?
not saying "umm provide a source" im just interested cause ive never head that
Great article debunking Merchant Economics (Austrian) and Marxist economics
Did you not know that?
also Lord Keynes, the guy who runs the blog you linked, literally calls Austrians like Rothbard anticapitalists for being against fractional reserve banking (what I presume you would consider usury)
''…will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary…''
rothbard vindicated once again
FRB isn't usury in itself. FRB (Full Reserve Banking) actually causes deflationary monetary policy which leads into usury.
I believe in FRB (Fractional Reserve) with no interest
all that argues is that usury should be done by the state and not private business
:yes: but not by income tax
LVT is based indeed
LVT is the best feudalism
we love our feudalism
every citizen a feudal lord
Personally I have come to believe that interest – or, rather, too high a rate of interest – is the ‘villain of the piece’ in a more far-reaching sense than appears from the above. But to justify this belief would lead me into a longer story than would be appropriate in this place.
Keynes, ‘Saving and Usury’, 1932
well having too high an interest rate is obviously bad but I don't think you can have an economy without interest due to the time value of money
you mean time preference?
you can have time preference without interest
most people care about the expected return on capital (basically the profit businesses make)
not return on savings
well its an implication of time preference, but specifically the time value of money