Marxist economics and the crisis of capitalism
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2018
- In this third talk from our 'Marx in a Day' event, celebrating Karl Marx's 200th birthday and discussing his key ideas, Rob Sewell (editor of Socialist Appeal) explains the fundamental concepts of Marxist economics.
Rob touches upon the developments made by Marx from the ideas of his classical predecessors, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
In particular, Rob elaborates upon the labour theory of value and the origins of surplus value: the unpaid labour of the working class.
By taking these theories to their logical conclusion, Rob outlines how Marx was able to explain the cause of capitalist crisis.
One decade on from the 2008 crash, Marx's economic analysis remains more relevant than ever. Capitalism has been proven to be an intrinsically crisis-ridden system. It must be overthrown.
With so much confusion around socialism it's refreshing listening to someone with answers, thanks!
This is a great overview of Marxism. All tendencies can agree. Thank you
its just the economics! theres much more(:
If a machine only transfers value without creating value then if AI is sufficiently advanced to be undistinguishable from a human then humans are just transferring value too? ... or the machines are adding Value too.
Marx did not have an AI in his time and he never even considered the possibility of human-like AI.
I'll educate Marx , from a business accounting point of view humans are just bio-robots i.e. a type of machine to extract profit from.
@@reasonerenlightened2456
And just as workers destroy machines that take away the need fpr their employment (condeming them to 'choose' between displacement, or starvation homeless on the streets, freezing) we must get rid of 'bio machines' that endanger our survival
another good talk delivered by rob
Thank you!
very good presentation.
is there an episode somewhere that can explain the concept of " super-profit" ??
Yes, it used to be called Mercantilism.
@@GB1Kenobi1 okay but no episode on youtube. i was hoping for that . vids for lunch
yes!
omg. i can't believe people still think labor creates value. don't realize you value just a product of bourgeious magic?
Even Marc's realized this on his death bed, when he wrote a program for Gotham City: "Labor is not the source of all wealth. [magic] is just as much the source of use values" Critique of the Gotha Programme www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
Commodity=Magic!
Only Labor creates Added Value. (A perfect apple on a tree has less Value than a perfect apple in your hand. The Apple's Value is increased (Added value) by the labor of picking up the apple.)
The Value is in the eye of the beholder but it takes labor to add value in the eye of the beholder.
Of course labor can decrease value if applied destructively instead of creatively in relation to the Perceived Value.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 Nonsense. If a ripe fruit fell from a tree, you idiots would tell me when I picked it up it became a “product of my labour”. You idiots need to know your opposition a bit better; they totally refuted you 100 to 130 years ago.
@@theriversexitsense It was realized quite early on by Yves Guyot, Carl Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Frederic Bastiat, and probably others.
this is finally happening
41:55 is where he finally destroys that cheeky bastard
Good words minus the lip smacking noises.
CZcams unsubscribed me
33:54 biggest contradiction
So when their is not enough working class, who can afford the product... We have what you call poverty... Homelessness, or a purge
That is why it is so important to have a government that ensures constant increase of the minimum purchasing power of the citizens.... and uses the ABC-Tool to do it.
(Formula: 'Your minimum Purchasing Power' = 'minimum wage' + 'Benefits payments' - 'Cost of dignified living from cradle to grave')
Increasing the purchasing power of the human-citizens makes them better consumers (i.e. a consumer is a human with disposable money to spend).
Better consumers create the need for more jobs. More jobs allow more businesses to facilitate those jobs while pursuing 'Profit'.
The ABC-tool: Any government must ensure that A, B, and C (all three requirements) are implemented simultaneously if they ever want to make everyone's lives better.
A) Increase minimum wage
B) Tax the Wealthy more
C) Spend the extra tax revenue on valuable or necessary social programs.
( like, free education from cradle to grave, free basic haircuts, free public transport, free fiber-optic Internet, free healthcare, free basic food, free basic sex, free basic clothing, free basic accommodation, free basic phone calls, free basic clean water, etc.)
Those three requirements must be enacted as one package ALWAYS .. .. or else, the people lose their minimum purchasing power.
''So when their is not enough working class, who can afford the product.".....tha business owner goes bankrupt. And the labor, capital, resources that went into making that product is freed up to be used elsewhere. It is entrepeneurs who discover those mixes of labor, capital, resources that may - or may not - be of value to consumers.
You guys didn't read the book, I can tell lol. Overproduction lead to both world wars. When self driving cars become a reality America will be a war zone. China won't even blink.
I thought this was a great video. Thanks. I have watched quite a few on this channel, and this was the one for me. Yeh, sorry, I don't agree with everything in other videos (including this one). I am not an expert or anything. I think dismissive remarks about 'identity/sexuality' ect and post-modernism are going to turn a lot of peopl off watching these videos. To me, the way I justify the importance of economics is through a bit of understanding of network theory - i.e. what is it that networks people in society most? There's this concept of the "80/20 rule" - this gives you 50% of wealth in the hands of the top 1% (Jordan Peterson talks about it all the time). I can't say what the principle is behind it as this comment will get censored automatically (based on previosu experience) so I'll just call it ""The Potato Principle" as it rhymes with the prinicple I am referring to (but can't).
However, there is also a formulation by Paul Erdos that looks at "degrees of separation" - for example "six degrees of Kevin Bacon". This is where the idea came from that on average everyone on the planet is separated by six friendship connections - it is thought that social media has now reduced this to three or four degrees of separation. This can be used to look at social networks - for example concentrations in social networks where a few people may have many more connections to others than anyone else (for example in leadership roles).
"The Potato Principle" and Paul Erdos's formulations, in their most basic form, are exactley the same - they are both just fractions made up of one natural log devided by another, and so they are analogous to each other. It is not straight forward, but pretty much you can compare the "80/20 rule" with "The six degrees of separation". And what I found was that for the "80/20 rule" the degrees of separation was as low as 1.161. And for "six degrees of separation" there was a "99/1 rule".
This is very basic back of the envolope stuff but basically I concluded that we are far more connected through economics than through social activities. And in fact (considering television and media - which is owned by a small few powerful people) those in power do seem to have far more social power than they do economic power - having 99% of the social power compared with 80% of the wealth (if you don't consider the "virtual economy" I guess - which is ridiculously big).
Maybe social media has reduced social power to 90% from 99%. But it is not yet 80%. However, to get a socail degrees of separation of 1.161 (like the 80/20 rule) would require everyone to have 300 million friends each. Six degrees of separation is based on just 30 friends each. On the other hand though, if everyone jus lived in small isolated communities of just 50 people with 30 friends each then the degrees of separation would be 1.161 - but still the top 1% would have 50% of the wealth. Only if everyone was equally friends with everyone else - i.e. 30 friends in communities of 30 people would there be a chance of a 100/100 rule wealth relationship.
So yeh. Waste of time typing that I guess.
The 80/20 rule applied to Wealth concentration is a fallacy of reasoning. The real Wealth Concentration matches a "potato" curve which is much closer to the Dirac's delta function than to the 80/20 "potato" curve. (The "potato" curve becomes Dirac's delta function when the "potato" index approaches Infinity. The "Potato" Index is 1.161 for the 80/20 curve.)
Peterson conveniently struggles to understand the idea that 80/20 distribution of Wealth (or any other distribution) can be easily achieved by a bit of legislation and Laws which subtract (or add, depending on how it drawn) a 're-distribution of Wealth curve' from ( to ) the actual curve of Wealth distribution.
All that aside , here is something else about the Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration.
{ ANY free market, no matter how 'regulated' or 'non-regulated' it is, ALWAYS results in Extreme Levels of Wealth Concentration.
I, discovered that most transactions, between any two participants, exchange unequal 'Value' between the two participants i.e. one side benefits a bit more from a transaction than the other side. Such asymmetry inevitably results in extreme levels of Wealth concentration , even if the participant who benefits a bit more is selected completely randomly in each transaction. As long as the transactions keep happening the inevitable result over time is always Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration.
(The velocity of the transactions and the size of a transaction affect the rate of Concentration of Wealth.)
.... and that is an inherent problem of the free market caused by the tiny asymmetry of the exchanged 'Value' in each transaction.}
Therefore We must have legislation and laws which results in the appropriate curve of Wealth re-distribution necessary to ensure the dignified existence of each citizen before any wealth is allowed to be accumulated by any other citizen. It is the humane thing to do.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 There doesn't seem to be any censorship of using 'Pareto' anymore. I've continued to look further into what I was saying - applying it now to physics and perhaps even quantum computing. I wrote something recently (btw - I am not an expert) that maybe you could find interesting and relate it to the comment you posted in reply to my previous comment: -
All that seems to matter is the 'data'. With no concern as to what could be connecting any of the information contained in the data together. More and more data is amassed it seems as any connection to reality seems to fade away.
There is a celebrity media political commentator called Ben Shapiro in the USA, who was at one time connected closely with an alternative media organisation in support of Donald Trump. Ben Shapiro is known for his quick dismissals of objections to his positions in debates. A perhaps famous one is when he dismisses the experienced reality of someone born assigned male who then wishes to transition to a female because they are transgender. Despite saying he is sympathetic to transgender people, Ben Shapiro none-the-less asserts that someone identifying as the opposite sex and going through gender transition therapy is invalid. He compares the desire to transition one's sex to identifying as a different age to what one is to the time since their birth. Saying "Why aren't you 50 years old?" to a young student trying to argue against his position on transgender people - their sense of their gender identity and their fight for the rights of transgender people as a basic human right. Across the political spectrum - from left to centre to right - this basic argument against transgender people from Ben Shapiro has found a large following of support.
Perhaps the only way to argue against Ben's argument of "Why aren't you 50 years old?" - that could be argued against perhaps an exponential number of positions against him - is to present time as not just some linear process from beginning to end. But to instead to present time as a network of past, present and future events - but already this would seem like a basis for an argument that would be dismissed as an abstract academic fantasy: How can time be a network? - wouldn't that just be silly? 'Time' is just 'Time' surely?
I think the start of the process to thinking of time differently to what would appear to be the common sense linear flow of time from 'start to finish' would be to think of time in terms of 'events' and 'gaps between events': -
time = events x gaps between events, e.g. 100 seconds = 5 events x 20 seconds time gaps
You can then do something interesting with this using 'network theory' - something that is being researched into in both economics and physics (for example in the field of 'quantum computing' utilising 'quantum entanglement' as a type of network - this represents the future of computing technology, where informationn can be processed as simultaneous 1's and 0's rather than just 1's or 0's sequentially). If 'nodes' in networks represent 'data', then 'links' in networks represent how that data is connected together.
But there is a problem though. Which could potentially be that the more data is amassed in a location (even for a quantum computer of the future), the more that connections between data perhaps get's destroyed until ultimately the data itself becomes a meaningless mass of information that is also encrypted beyond any means to decypher it (this is related to the 'information paradox' concerning Black Holes, or the 'Firewall Problem') - this is what emerging science on the issue could be saying (related to the consequences of combining Einstein's Theory of Gravity with Quantum Physics, which are currently incompatable with each other). I'll give a simple example, using physics but can also be applied to socio-economic networks as well (I've inserted examples): -
time = events*gap between events, or ln(time) = ln(events) + ln(gap between events)
or 1 = ln(events)/ln(time) + ln(gap between events)/ln(time)
or in terms of a number sequence, e.g. primes: 1 = ln(x/ln(x))/ln(x) + ln(ln(x)/ln(x)
where x is a given number, x/ln(x) roughly the primes up to given number, and ln(x) is roughly the average gap between primes up to a given number.
if 1 = ln(P/(1 - P)/ln(P) + ln(1 - P)/ln(P), and (P/(1 - P) = x/ln(x), and (1 - P) = ln(x), then x = ~7Billion, and P = ~0.2, meaning if P = 0.2 then gaps between 'events' in time is equivelant to a sequence of prime numbers if the total 'time' is 7 Billion seconds for example. In this case the average gap between prime numbers would be 23.174. There is currently no formula for predicting prime numbers (hence their use in encryption) and so predicting the sequence of events would be equally as difficult to predict if P = 0.2, beyond just predicting a rough average of the distribution of primes (this is a subject of the as yet unsolved Reimann Hypothesis - there is a $1million dollar prize for solving it). The problem of predicting prime numbers is similar to the Black Hole Information Paradox/Firewall problem - that even seems beyond a Quantum Computer's ability to solve.
where also, ln(population size)/ln(friends per person) = Erdos number = average degrees of separation
Erdos number = ln(7 Billion)/ln(23.174) = 7.213 = ln(P)/ln(1 - P) if P = 0.2
and where 1 - 1/Pareto Index = ln(1 - P)/ln(P),
where Pareto Index of wealth distribution = 1.161, and 80% of wealth goes to 20% of people given by P = 0.2, And 1 = 1/1.161 + 1/7.213
And where also t' = t*sqrt(1 - 2GM/rc^2), where t' is dilated time in presence of gravity, and t is time in empty space
and 1 = ln(t'/(1 - t')/ln(t') + ln(1 - t')/ln(t'),
If G = gravitational constant 6.673*10^-11, M = mass of Earth 5.972*10^24 Kg, and speed of light = 299792548 ms^-1
if t' = 0.2, then radius r of Earth = 0.009238 metres, which would mean Earth is compressed down to a 'Quark Star'
the Schwarzchild radius of Earth mass Black Hole = 0.008868 metres ....If such a thing exists?
The surface of a Black hole is predicted to store a holographic image of all the information that falls into it. But unfortunately this information is randomly encrypted. But it is thought to be connected together by 'quantum entanglement' - but practically it seems impossible to decypher the information by utilizing the connections between bits of information being stored and any connection to the space outside of the Black Hole with anything that could access it.
For example in empty space we could've had 100 nodes containing bits of data with 100 connections from each of them: 100 x 100 connections (i.e. 'maximally entangled'). But when it comes to the surface of a Quark Star - and not even a Black Hole - the number of connections between the 100 bits of data could be reduced to just 2 connections each that we could have access to, and so making it all the more difficult for us to connect the information together. Where from above ln(100)/ln(2) = Erdos number of 6.6 degrees of separation.... Similar to the 6 or 7 degrees of separation we have between all the 7 billion people on the planet with an average of 23 friends each and where 80% of the wealth is in the hands of 20% of the people (or 50% of the wealth is in the hands of just 1% of people). The problem here being caused by the concentration of information itself having the effect of breaking the entanglements connecting that information together.
If feels like something is terribly wrong with our world and people either can't or won't see it?
The tragic reality is there is probrably nothing anyone can do about it? We can't just take ourselves back into a past where there were less people dependant on a global economic system in tighter knit communities. But the future, and the increasing alienation that goes with it, just seems to be one in-which things are only going to get worse - for example Climate Change (that I am not optimistic can be fixed in time - as it is already statistically less than a 50% chance now that we can stop the severe effects of Climate Change it seems).
@@thisaccountisdead9060
Defining 'time' by using 'time' for the definition is kind of 'circular reasoning' ( time = events x time-gaps between events)? As the 'gaps between events' approaches zero time cease to exist?
Ben Shapiro talks fast, talks nonsense i.e. there are huge gaps in his reasoning in relation to Wealth and Power distribution. He is difficult to debate in any practical way on the issues of Wealth and Power distribution, because of the huge volume of disjoined false assertions he makes, supposedly amounting to certain conclusions.
The world is fine, it is we, the humans, that fail to organise the society in a fair and just way.
Here is Marxism in a more digestible form:
The Employee makes the product then sells the product to himself and then pays a fee called Profit to a 'owner' for the permission to own the same product he himself made and sold to himself. The Owner is a Parasite or a predator if you like.
Many people struggle to separate the element of doing 'Labor for a business' from the element of 'Owning a business'.
There is added labor value associated with starting and growing a business but no added value in Owning a business.
Ownership of business is different than Labor for a business.
Many people struggle to understand that businesses are just property and should be treated as such by the laws.
The only way to resolve the Exploitation of the Employee is for the Employee to be the owner ( i.e. a self employed individual without any employees, or partnerships without any Employees, etc.).
A business is a property. Purchasing all or some of the shares of a business is purchasing property thus becoming an owner who is not the Employee. By some "magical" assumption, out of thin air , it is assumed that ownership of a business automatically gives right to own the added value which the Employee adds during the labor to create a product from raw materials ... as if the business (a property) creates the product, instead of the human-Employee.
The 'Owner' proclaims himself an owner of 'resources and Business (property)' while expecting the Employee to honor/respect such claim without any compensation for the inconvenience it causes to the Employee.
(Therefore anyone who claims ownership must pay a Wealth tax which is used to compensate everybody else evenly for the inconvenience such claim causes to them.)
The act of buying Ownership is a legitimate act, however Exploiting the Employee is not, unless the Employee is the Owner.
Since the Employee makes the product, and then sells the same product to himself in addition to paying a fee called 'Profit' to the Owner, it becomes unrealistic to reason in favor of any kind of "time preference".
The illusion of 'time preference' results from the accumulation of Wealth in the hands of the Owner while the Employee is driven closer to depletion of his "life force" as a result of the parasitic set up between the Employee and the Owner.
Ownership does not create Wealth, the demand to respect that Ownership imposes duty on everybody else therefore they deserve to be compensated for the inconvenience caused by those who claim ownership of Wealth. ... hence, we must have perpetual redistribution of sufficient Wealth to ensure the dignified existence of every citizen.
@@thisaccountisdead9060
'Time' can be represented as 'Space' i.e. in a spatial way.
(I sense you are trying to do that.)
@@reasonerenlightened2456 Thanks for taking a look and the reply. Explicitly in terms of Marxism, it'll probably make sense what I was saying if I paste in something below where I just talk about economics, and interpreting it through network theory. I can talk about 'time' in another reply if you like - basically I applied exactly the same approach to economics below as I did to the physics. The main aim for doing it was to differentiate humans from machines: -
Speculation; 1 = 1/Pareto Index + 1/Erdos Number
Having a go at economics based on Jordan Peterson's touted 80:20 Rule of economics... that 80% of the wealth goes to 20% of the people (or 80% of the wealth comes from 20% of the people... 'justifying' wealth inequality).
where, 1 - 1/Pareto = ln(1 - P^n) / ln(1 - (1 - P)^n),
And 1 = ln(1 - P)/ln(P) + ln(P/(1 -P))/ln(P)
So 1 = ln(1 - P^n)/ln(P^n) + ln(P^n/(1 - P^n))/ln(P^n)
where Pareto is the distribution index = any figure equal to 1 or greater.
ln = the natural logarithm.
P = percentage of wealtheist in population (figure less than 0.5 for 50% or less)
1 - P = percentage of total wealth of population held by the wealtheist (figure more than 0.5 for 50% or more)
n = any number, used to focus on a particular percentage. For example if P = 0.2 and (1 - P) = 0.8 for an '80/20 rule'. If n = 3, P^n changes to look at 1% of the population and (1 - P)^n changes to look at 50% of the wealth. I.e. with an '80/20 rule' 50% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the population while 1% of the wealth is owned by 50% of the population. And this is apparently what we see in the real world.
so for example if Pareto = 1.161, then P = 0.2 (for the '80/20 rule')
And where,
Erdos Number = ln(size of population) / ln(average number of friends per person)
= average degrees of separation between people.
This is where something called 'six degrees of separation' came from - the idea that any person on the planet is separated by any other person on the planet by an average of six degrees of separation (you know someone, who knows someone else, who knows someone else and so on - six friendships later and you could be connected to anyone in the world). It was based on each of us having an average of 30 friends each. But erdos's networks were random - there were no central hubs where anyone person had more power over another.
So erdos = ln(6 billion) / ln(30 friends per person) = 6.6 degrees of separation
so if pareto = 1.161, then erdos = 7.211, which is not a million miles away from the 6.6 figure for erdos above.
Or another way to represent the formula is: -
Pareto = ln(size of population) / [ln(size of population) - ln(average number friends per person)]
Which for 7 Billion people: -
Pareto = 1.161 = ln(7 Billion) / [ln(7 Billion) - ln(23.18 average friends per person)]
Hopefully you can see that the closer the number of friends per person is to the size of the population, the bigger the value of the Pareto index will be. The larger the Pareto number then the larger the value of P will be - such that with quite a large Pareto number, P = 0.5 (i.e. 50% of the wealth goes to 50% of the people - an equal society). If you are astute then you'll also see that wealth in the society is measured in the number of people rather than dollars - so in an unequal society some people effectively own other people.
Now, speculation in Terms of Marx's economics: -
Rate of Surplus = Surplus Value/Variable Capital
Rate of Profit = Surplus Value/(Variable Capital + Constant Capital)
assumption is that: -
Variable Capital = average number of friends per person
Constant Capital = Total Population - average number of friends per person
Here 'average number of friends per person' becomes 'number of people hired in a factory' for example - i.e. 'Variable Capital'. The total population could be 100 people. If you had 100 people all in one factory the assumption is that they would all be friends. If however you split those 100 people up into five factories containing 20 people each - in this case you would now have just 20 people in each factory being freinds with each other, and the assumption is you would have 80 people in that factory replaced by machines (Constant Capital), and machines are then assumed to have no friends and their function is to direct more attention of the workers to their boss via the means of production.
Surplus Value = Assumed for example 50% of wealth of top 1% coming from Surplus Value
So this means the Surplus is the same value as the Variable Capital. If 50% of wealth goes top 1%, then 50% of wealth goes to bottom 99%. Meaning Surplus Value = Variable Capital
Surplus Value= Average number of friends per person for bottom 99%
Assumption about Variable Capital being that variablity (of people) requires friends - i.e. a variable range of behaviour at any one time due to attention being spread among friendships in unpredictable ways (i.e. 'variable') that has an assumed knock on effect of generating creativity for example and added new labour and new value.
And assumption about Constant Capital being that constantancy (of machines) is opposite in character to variablity (of people) - i.e. constant range of behaviour due to only being able to direct itself in one course of action/behaviour at any one time and in predictable ways (i.e. 'constant') that has the assumed knock on effect of not generating creativity for example and no added new labour and no new value... Because it can't change and so it's value was fixed at a moment in time where its value was created for that time.
So the less friends people have the more Constant Capital there is, which drives up the rate of surplus value but puts a downward pressure on the rate of profit: -
Rate of Surplus (for top 1%) = Surplus Value/Variable Capital
= (average number of friends per person for bottom 99%)/(average number of friends per person for bottom 99%)
= 1 or 100%
Rate of Profit (for top 1%) = Surplus Value/(Variable Capital + Constant Capital)
= (average number of friends per person for bottom 99%))/[(average number of friends per person for bottom 99%) + (Constant Capital)]
For 7 billion people, with top 1% having 50% of the wealth (based on 80:20 Rule) created by variable capital: -
Friends per person = (7*10^9)*(x^-1), (using network theory e.g. Metcalfe's Laws) where 'person 1' has 7 billion friends and 'person 7 Billion' has just 1 friend, with the average friends per person for everyone given by: -
(integral (y = 7*10^9*x^-1))/7*10^9 = (7*10^9*ln(7*10^9))/7*10^9 = 22.669 average number of friends per person
Average Friends per person for bottom 99%
= (integral (y = 7*10^9*x^-1, x = 7*10^7 to x = 7*10^9))/(7*10^9 - 7*10^7)
= (100*ln(100))/99
= 4.6517
(can assume only 100 people in society as gives same numbers)
Therefore can assume Constant Capital is 100 - 4.6517 = 95.3483
Top 1% is assumed to get 50% of total wealth from Surplus Value from worker Variable Capital, and so Surplus Value = Variable Capital: meaning bottom 99% works 100% longer than they need in order to support their own needs (paid as 'wages' = 50% of total wealth)
Therefore: -
Vairable Capital = Average number or friends for bottom 99% = 4.6517
Surplus Value = Average number or friends for bottom 99% = 4.6517
Constant Capital
= 100 - Average number of friends for bottom 99% = 100 - 4.6517 = 95.3483
Rate of Surplus = 4.6517/4.6517 = 1 or 100%
And so Rate of Profit = Surplus Labour/(constant capital + variable capital)
= 4.6517/(95.3483 + 4.6517) = 0.046517 or 4.6517%
So top 1% in society lives off 4.6517% of the real value created by variable capital... of about 7 Billion people (the bottom 99% of the population)...
And so the bottom 99% of the population works twice as long (or 100% more) than they need to in order to support themselves (paid in 'wages') so as to provide profit for their bosses (the top 1%) - ie. workers (the bottom 99%) work 4 hours for themselves and 4 hours for their bosses (the top 1%) in a typical 8 hour working day.
The Transformation Problem of 'Prices' vs 'Values'?: -
Constant Capital + Variable Capital + Surplus = Total Value
= 95.3483 + 4.6517 + 4.6517 = 104.6517
Constant Capital + Variable Capital + Profit = Total Price
= 95.3483 + 4.6517 + 4.6517 = 104.6517
So it seems Total Value = Total Price
czcams.com/video/j_MXSE3wUT4/video.html
This is exactly what would happen if you skip economics classes back in school.
Fr. Im here because my professor is a marxist.
@@JymLightman_AbrodolfLincIer_ED communism is basically reheated ricardian economics or the theory of wage rate. which is self evidently false. someone'svalue is not define by how long or hard he works. the market is much complex than that.
@@JymLightman_AbrodolfLincIer_ED Emotion over rationality. There's no flat earther professors in the physics department
The labor theory of value is dimply wrong. First, Marx himself acknowledges that value is created by labor plus nature. Nature creates value, too, not just human labor. More importantly, machinery creates surplus value, and hence, profits, and Marx is simply wrong when he denies this. Any source of energy can create value. Not just human labor. I think that this is a critical error in Marx’s theory. This guy is obviously wrong. The human worker is just a machine made out of flesh and blood to the capitalist. He can replaced by machinery entirely and it wouldn’t diminish the profit return. And that’s what we witness over the last 150 years.
why is Marxist viewed as a god?
I have a good idea of that.
@Blake Babushka :3 Nothing is wrong with being a Marxist. But it would be wrong to use force in order to further any goal, including Marxism. It would also be intellectually dishonest to continue being a Marxist in light of the voluminous theoretical and empirical evidence since Marx's/Engle's deaththat has debunked Marxism.
I've only watched 2 minutes and already he's making an argument which is based on factually incorrect information. The peasantry were not "wiped out" and driven off the land. Cottagers were driven off the land by enclosure but the number of people working in agriculture increased by 1 million - its just that the number working in industry increased by millions more. This indicates that industry was preferable and continued to pay higher real wages rather than that workers were systematically forced into lower living conditions in the cities. The real wages of the working class doubled during the mid-19th century, increasing at a faster rate than in many developed or developing countries today - despite weak union presence and non-existent minimum wage laws. Moronic Marxism at play once more. One need read the ideas of Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk to understand the errors of their theory of exploitation and see through their untruly rigid class distinctions and immobilities which are uncharacteristic of capitalism.
Here is a little bit of Marxism for you delivered the right way.
1) A Competitive market is Unsustainable. Competition is unsustainable. Don't be stupid to think otherwise; perpetual "fight" in the presence of scarcity is Utopia.
2) ANY free market, no matter how 'regulated' or 'non-regulated' it is, ALWAYS results in Extreme Levels of Wealth Concentration.
I, discovered that most transactions, between any two participants, exchange unequal 'Value' between the two participants i.e. one side benefits a bit more from a transaction than the other side. Such asymmetry inevitably results in extreme levels of Wealth concentration , even if the participant who benefits a bit more is selected completely randomly in each transaction. As long as the transactions keep happening the inevitable result over time is always Extreme levels of Wealth Concentration.
(The velocity of the transactions and the size of a transaction affect the rate of Concentration of Wealth.)
.... and that is an inherent problem of the free market caused by the tiny asymmetry of the exchanged 'Value' in each transaction.
Now you can revise your comprehension of the nature of the free market!
3) As Arthur Laffer says, "Good economics is scalable. It works at all different sizes in exactly the same way". With that in mind, imagine economics the size of one Employee and one Business. Then it should become obvious to you , as it became to me, that a human as an 'Employee' makes the products and later the same human must go to a market place as a 'Customer' and must purchase the same products he/she made including paying for all the materials, his own wage and a fee known as 'Profit' to transfer the ownership of the product from the 'Business' employing the human to the human.
If the 'Employee' is also the 'Owner' of the 'Business' then all is good.
However, add another human to our tiny-economics who does absolutely nothing except to claim ownership of the 'Business' and you get 'Exploitation'.
Therefore, a 'Business' not owned by the 'Employee' is inherently 'Exploiting the Employee' to make 'Profit'.
(In regards to 'Exploitation' , I am just presenting Marx in a more useful way which allows for better solutions than what Marx and all modern Marxists/Socialist have come up with so far.)
4) The Employees are not things therefore can not be equated to 'capital' . Businesses are things and should be treated by the law as Property.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 That was a desperately stupid way of explaining Marxism, let alone a way to make me think. None of your refuted points were new to me nor very higher-order. I reiterate my original comment; but you have not yet comprehended it and think I am some close-minded conservative in need of an unwanted “Marxism 101” lesson.
@@fatpotatoe6039
So, you read words without comprehending meaning.
Apparently, somebody must break it down for you in smaller chunks.
What is a Business?
What is Exploitation?
The Extreme Concentration of Wealth as a feature of the free market ?
etc.
@@fatpotatoe6039
According to the NONSENSE of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk if the Employee requests to be paid after a product is sold then the employee will receive the profit the product generates?
Give me a fr---ing break. Get real. It requires special kind of stupidity (interest) to believe such thing. "It is just the timing" LOL, LOL, LOL. ... Then pay me more when I sell the potatoes I collected today and I planted and I looked after, while you were just "OWNING".
Mentioning Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk makes you a stooge for the Wealthy. The entire Austrian school of economics is created to serve the interest of the Wealthy.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 Your sad caricature of Bohm-Bawerk demonstrates your ignorance. I have no idea how you can be so stupid as to think that was his point and then so audacious as to think you can refute him as laughable in a few words even though no Marxist has succeeded in doing so. You are genuinely laughable, and I sincerely thank you for the entertainment. Reading this reminds me of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Oh please. I listen to these people and it feels like listening to a religious fanatic.
that's such a great refutation, im gonna be a liberal now thanks
@@klovis6796 Refute? a Fanatic? hahahaha of course.
Another great argument from a wise intellectual
They are correct when it comes to analysis. They suck at solutions.
...just like listening to any state employee or mass media news shows.