What are some of the best books to learn about economics and the market as a whole as a beginner?
>>25111914
>>25111914Don't know if they are the best, but I think they are good:Economics in One Lesson, HazlittA Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Hoppe
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell will teach you everything you would learn in a introductory micro/macro econ class in a non-technical way. you just have to ignore the political parts of it.
>>25111948>Thomas Sowellhttps://youtu.be/vZjSXS2NdS0?si=pPxGFJjoMNCRbrLc
>>25111914A basic econ textbook. They're all more or less the same, the differences between good and bad books only appear once you start being concerned with macro/micro and other subdisciplines separately.I've never seen this before but it appears to be free because it's some kind of non profithttps://openstax.org/details/books/principles-economics-3eI skimmed the TOC, looks good for an intro IMO.
>>25111939>>25111948This is like a guy saying he wants to learn the basics of climate related politics, and you're throwing Ted K and Zerzan at him. Let the newb understand the field before you give him obviously ideological takes, otherwise it's bad sport.
>>25111961What is not ideological? So something like Paul Samuelson and norhaus? I don't agree they are as much ideological as anything else.
>>25111914* The wealth of country is gained by its range of active profitable activities of services, of production of goods* An activity is profitable if your costs by market value are lower than your revenue by market value* Governments bad because in general they obfuscate this input-output calculation, and must appeal to some dumb "but the market couldn't do this better, only the public sector can offer proper housing, healthcare, education" rhetoric, they end up thereby sustaining activities where everything is confused whether or not they cost more than they offer (if they were judged by market value)* The point of lending money / investing, is to provide people with good ideas with capital so that they can reach a profitable activity faster, and profits are what makes wealth. If you don't invest your money, and the people with ideas cannot execute, the economy is just slower. The point of lending is to increase velocity basicallyThis is what I believe, and there is nothing more complex than that in economical thought really.Watch a free econ 101 and econ 102 class online, the basics of economics are utterly simple to grasp, be skeptical whenever they start speaking about government and policies.That's all basically all I know about economics, I've read and listened to Bryan Caplan, and Thomas Sowell, but I don't know if they're good way to learn for people who are unconvinced about the subject. I think it's hard to make a book that is not heavily biased because the subject is stupidly trivialIf you just learn the basic of offer and demand, try to apply it to every activity, try to think how the government is bad or good for helping a market by yourself, youre pretty much done. Beware, because most "conversations" about "economics" and policies are actually moral conversations: people claim helping the poor is the best, reducing suffering is the best, taking care of people who cannot help themselves and reduce their anxiety is the best, letting people choose their own life is the best; it's basically a playground for utilitarians and other strands to keep debating the the means to their end, so don't try engaging in those conversations centering on economics when what you really want to do is convert people to a more free mindset or a more interventionist mindset; economics cannot help find good truth between these two sides, it's only a tool
>>25111914Federic Bastiat
>>25111914Das Kapital
>>25111914capital chapter 1-3modern economics textbooks are just pure propaganda that peddle a bunch of lies about the 'free market'
>>25111914anyways you should definitely read Adam Smith, an actual scientist who aimed at giving an objective explanation of capitalist production and then compare it to the utter drivel that is modern economics just to see how much the field has degenerated since the days of Smith and Ricardo
>>25112013>Adam Smithoverrated his theory of value is deemed as most important idea in his book and it is wrong
All you needEverything else is bunk
Listen to some 101 lectures online https://youtube.com/watch?v=heBErnN3ZPk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP62EXoZ4B3_Ob7lRRwpGQxkb&index=1&pp=iAQB
>>25112016It's very important historicallyEveryone should read it at some point, but it's not ideal as a starting point
>>25111952Free "economics textbooks" tend to be Rothbardian propaganda piecesJust go to Anna's Archive op
>>25111914A macroeconomics textbook if you want to actually understand the field
>>25111914Does this actually hold up as an introduction or is it considered unreliable or one-sided by today's standards?
>>25112068Labour Theory of Value is totally debunked and is only taken seriously by stubborn Orthodox MarxistsLibertarians also seem to like Smith. I'm not sure why
>>25111972This
>>25111914This book destroyed entire civilizations
>>25111914I've been tempted to read some of Adam Smith, not for the economic knowledge, but he was from that English Enlightenment period when they were kino writers.
>>25112036If you pirate, my first textbook was Mankiw, Principles of Economics.
>>25112068>>25112209>>25111914Smith also wrote the oft ignored theory of moral sentiments which qualifies that expressed in his wealth of nations in ways most intentionally or not ignore.
is there actually a good book for thr layman that covers general economics and the various prevailing philosophies that isn't just communism good, free market bad or free market good, communism bad. I'm a blood and soil Christian nationalist, I don't want to read Tom Sowell for obvious reasons.
>>25111970>dumb "but the market couldn't do this better, only the public sector can offer proper housing, healthcare, education" rhetoricWhat is actually dumb about this and why? Like, I live in a country that has publicly funded healthcare that works great and have no reason to believe that making it private would improve anything. In fact private healthcare is basically mocked here and the public system is close to universally loved. If you have a problem, being able to see a doctor for free means that that people just go whenever, as they don't have to pay. This helps immensely because it means people get shit checked out early all the time so shit doesn't snowball into worse problems for them and less is spent on healthcare overall because people are healthier. What does your theory say about that?
>>25111982>>25112006Based
>>25112068It was considered perfect until Marx pushed it to its logical conclusion, then it had to be reevaluated
>>25111914That book will literally filter 80-90% of economics professors.I challenge you to challenge any you meet to have them explain Smith's theory of value.Do not read it unless you are seriously big brained.If you're a retard Ricardo or Marx are easier.If you're literally an invertebrate diffuse ring of neurons slime eating sea cucumber read basic economics.
>>25112263Basically this.You are just going to listen to it as an audiobook anyway OP, just go with Marx. Marx is the standard “I’m a lazy retard who can’t into numbers, but I want to feel as though I have a complete explanation for everything.” Marx is the CK III to Smiths VIC II
>>25112263is thr invisible hand God or just like.. consumers acting in their own interest.. ima sea cuke
>>25112292Buddy...Basic Economics or the Communist Manifesto. The choice is all yours.
>>25112236Vance seems to like this book. I dunno, man....
Economics is downstream from politics, and politics is downstream from religion. If you really want to understan economics, you would of course study religion. For instance, both capitalism and communism can be explained through two rival forms of Protestantism. Max Weber was already on point when he described capitalism as the Protestant work ethic, and basically just economized Calvinism, but few people know that Marxism and communism have the exact same religious roots. For instance, pic related is Melchior Hoffman, one of the main theologians of Anabaptism, but what few people know, is that he also laid most of the core foundations that Marx and Engels would further build upon
>>25112093LTV literally has never been debunked. Jewish academic economists still to this day seethe at the LTV and just have to completely ignore it if they went to remain relevant amongst their jewish cabal
People sleep on textbooks because that’s “boring school stuff” but most of the time they’re the best no nonsense way of learning anything. Principles of Economics by Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw is the gold standard and basically used in every Intro to Econ class from the US, to Germany to Japan.
>>25111914https://mises.org/library/book/economics-real-people
>>25111914This book proves how economically useless women are.https://www.scribd.com/document/827376624/A-World-Without-Men-an-Analysis-of-an-All-Female-Economy-1
>>25112240>He believes public healthcare is actually "free."Opinion discarded.
>>25112396When I first saw my paycheck go into taxes, my thoughts were basically "it's cool that this money is towards actually great public services" and I was glad to not have to deal with anything as stupid as employer based health insurance and shit that tries to nickle and dime you by denying coverage for profit, as opposed to having systems that exist to keep the citizens of your nation in good health and avoid issues that would make shit worse for everyone.
>>25112411>actually great public servicesWhere the fuck do you live, paradise?
>>25111914This and Richard Werner's Princes of the Yen.
>>25112310Does he? I thought it was very isolationist and worker forward, which seems the opposite of what Vance is about.
>>25112301Well it's a verse from the Bible, and Smith was a Scottish Presbyterian Calvinist, but I've never read him, so I'm wondering how much his theology affected his economics. It's okay if you don't know.
>>25112411There’s a debate to be had over public vs. private funding and/or administration of healthcare, however what is objectively wrong is to suggest that it can be free. The only free things you’ll ever get in your life is from your parents, everything else will have a hidden price tag elsewhere.
>>25112424I know it's hard to imagine a government that is less corrupt than the one you have been raised in, but they exist
>>25112445I live in a wealthy Western European country, our public services are mediocre at best.
Reminder that ancaps are just as delusionals as communists.
>>25112451How many GoFundMes to prevent bankruptcy due to personal medical debt are started in your country in a given day
>>25112464How many of those people were irresponsible and didn’t prioritize investing in health insurance?
The private healthcare system is rape because it deprives me of my consent.If I have an accident and someone takes my unconscious body to a public hospital, I will be treated for free.If I have an accident and someone takes my unconscious body to a private hospital, I will be left with a huge debt.
>>25112464I'm not claiming that private healthcare is better, I took issue with you being happy with the state taking your hard earned money. If you look at how much money goes to pensioners, immigrants, the unemployed, corporations, tax cuts for the rich, countless ngos and pressure groups, subsidies for media organisations producing slop. While the roads are shit, education is worsening, need to wait weeks for a doctors visit, public transport barely works, courts don't have the resources to prosecute criminals, criminals are let out on the street because there is no more space in prison, and many other issues. And still they manage to have a massive budget deficit despite stealing a third of my annual salary. Grandstanding against a third world country like the USA should not blind you to the problems of our own countries.
>>25112443yep, Smith’s ivisible hand was rooted in Covenantal theology and has been almost entirely secularized by modern economists. do not expect smug anime posting retards to understand.
>>25112383No you don't understand, I can't read the actual book that academics who go into the field read, I have to read a AI-generated opinion piece from CreateSpace instead, that's the real information
>>25111914As you can see by this thread, these books on basic economics don't exists because this is like asking what is the best way to govern a country. If we agreed on it we wouldn't have 8 different parties. I guess the best way is to read some wikipedia pages, then read a few well known books for any interesting ideologies. Like the Road to Serfdom, or The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
>>25112424YEVROPA
>>25112464>Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there.>Government regulation pushes up the price of services.>"Gee, why is healthcare so expensive?">"Must be capitalism."
>>25112530Healthcare in America is so expensive mostly due to the AMA, not the government. The AMA pushed so hard to create a shortage of medical providers than even the Economist said they're pretty shitty
Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed is obviously political with a specific goal in mind, but it begins with a simple primer on what money is and how it works that should be required reading for absolutely everyone.
>>25112542You'll never guess who enforces the AMA's monopoly on medical providers.
>>25111914This thread is a trainwreck.Smith's book is excellent.Mises' not nearly as much.Cantillon's book is the best.To learn how to invest read "Security Analysis", the 1940 edition, in full a couple of times, and watch Shkreli's course.For business you are gonna have go through Michael Porter's trilogy.There are also some very interesting books on business history such as "From the American system to mass production" and "Scale and Scope".
>>25111939When the first post is also the best one
>>25112547Rothbard is indeed excellent for a beginner, his book "The mystery of banking" especially, since it is aimed at newcomers.Also, his history of central banking is phenomal if you are into that sort of thing, but painful to read otherwise.
>>25112542Who funds residency programs, little guy?
Can you two dorks take your boomer political arguments to DMs
>be kid from Spain in the 2000s having finished high school and go to NYC on vacation for a few weeks before going to university>go ice skating, fall and break my elbow like a dumbass>last day of vacation, go to American private hospital, doctor says the fracture is complex and the best course of action is surgery to get it right, because it will heal wrong and eventually cause problems>tell my parents that I fucked up and I’m going to need to stay a while longer to get this fixed>my dad said not to listen to greedy neoliberal doctors that are lying and just want money from me, put my arm in a sling, go back to Spain and go to a public hospital>go do that>Public doctors laugh at greedy Amerifat doctors, “just put a cast on that shit, anon”>I should’ve never doubted you Felipe González for giving us free healthcare>years later, I have agonizing pain in my left arm that had broke in USA>go to several doctors that can’t tell me why, finally private clinic tells me that my fracture never healed right, I need surgery to break it, set it right again, and then follow up on it>do that>it gets better but I have random pains still>doctor says it was like 20 years in the wrong way, you’ll likely have some sort of pain for life>turns out it was actually the greedy government that lied to me about not needing the surgery to save public money>still angry about it>burger was right
Why do people treat economy like it's a real science? It's literally just astrology but for the modern man lol
>>25112723It follows the scientific method, you sound like you’re uncomfortable with it’s conclusions because it goes against your political beliefs.
>>25112723Because the alterative is not understanding fiat money, coinage, inflation, and cumulative market manipulation.
>>25112510Unironically that’s how people think, you can Google the reading lists of any subject that fancies you and form our own opinions and yet as a society we insist on our ideas be pre-chewed for us.
>>25111939Reagan-era deregulation allowed private interests to corner the market and manipulate it against the interest of the citizen and all in favor of the private interest class. Read Adam Smith:"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.""Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.""People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
>>25112710Fictional and homosexual. Americans are so pathetic.
>>25112383This is more of an introductory book than a "principles". It's ideal for someone who never intends to seriously study the subjects presented therein.Else, it'd be better to focus on each subject separately, such as accounting, business, and economy.
>>25112558Just cut all the fluff and say the economy is always directed by the government, thus you should invest in whatever companies the government has already demonstrated that they will prop up. I believe it is Cantillon's effect that describes the power of being closer to the money printer, I.E., the government.
>>25112283Marx goes on at length about numbers though, in Das Kapital he uses tons of actual examples to illustrate his point, complete with calculations. If you haven't read him, don't pretend you have.
>>25112068It is still the most insightful book on the underpinnings of economics.
>>25112850>Cantillon's effect that describes the power of being closer to the money printerIt's either the printer or wherever massive profits are being made, let's say the tech sector 20 years ago.But the book has merit as a whole. His understanding of how exactly the economy works is very valuable.
>>25111914CAPITALISM IS THE BEST
>>25111914COMMUNISM IS THE WORST
>>25112850>>25112869Most money is not printed by the government. When people talk about "printing money" they're talking about quantitative easing, not literal dollar bills coming out of a machine. Quantitative easing is just the word for fractional reserve banking when it's done by the government. Any industry that relies on loans is money printer adjacent, which means obviously finance and insurance first, and real estate second.
Adam Smith shat on labor faggots, essentially calling labor a worthless commodity. The exact opposite of Marx
>>25113381you are retarded and haven't read him
>>25113417I’ve read Wealth of Nations and The Communist Manifesto. You can’t even begin a sentence with a capital letter.
>>25113436no you haven't. the communist manifesto is a pamphlet and only explains marx's ideas in their simplest form. clearly this is a necessity for you, since you have allegedly read the wealth of nations and retained nothing useful from it. your post is just fanfiction of smith's idea of the ltv at best. i'd tell you to kill yourself but you won't read that either
>>25113445Anon, you need to remember that "read" is a fluid term on /lit/. He probably watched a couple of tiktockers do select readings from it.There's no point in wasting your Friday night arguing with mentalretard-kun. Anyone who falls for that sort of thing was never going to read Smith anyway. Even if he is a Marxist, a real Marxist will have read smith (the Marxist archive has hundreds of articles about him alone) and he would be talking about all the times Smith dabs on landlords.He's just an idiot. Let it be.
>>25112030trvke nuke.gonna start an mmt thread sunday
>>25112849OP said he was a beginner, it’s the best place to start since it isn’t political unlike many other recommendations on this thread.
I feel like Basic Economics is a go to for a beginner. Might be a little biased because the author is a self-proclaimed liberal. Otherwise, old head Frederic Bastiat is also pretty good if you want to strengthen your libs convictions and enjoy your read. There are no equations, complex theories, only facts, a few principles, and a beautiful writing. I highly recommend "Economics Sophisms", one of his best work imo.
>>25111914Its alright. Don't forget to study maths.
>>25112383Textbooks are egregiously verbose and the prose are almost always awful. I'm not expecting Shakespeare but most feel like reading a microwave manual. Generally, the first quarter of book contains decent knowledge but then, suddenly, they start expounding upon knowledge that is so wildly esoteric that it's impractical. Anyone with a college degree knows the textbook scam racket.
>>25112470HEALTHCARE IS NOT "PRIVATE" OR FREE IN THE USA, that is such a meme, if you regulate out a 1000 ways to do capitalism and leaving only the crooked, high-barrier to entry, mafia style system, then it is as if you ran the business as government as a monopoly. Regulation and spending tickets lead to socialism, just in a less direct way.
>>25111914I recommend the "Encyclopedia of American Economic History". It's a selection of 30 or so papers centered around various aspects of the economy.
>>25113756Have you read it or are you talking out of your ass?
>>25111914Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State. It began life as a textbook and builds from the ground up, one concept at a time, it is perfect.
>>25114125I was speaking generally not specifically
>>25112383this is a $300 book, that's why people "sleep on textbooks"
>>25111982lol no
>>25112240>being able to see a doctor for freeThe fact that you think it's "for free" betrays your laughable naivety.The national healthcare system in my country is a broken, inefficient money pit.
>>25113436>You can’t even begin a sentence with a capital letter.Fucking rekt.
>>25111914I posted this a million times already. Holy shit if you really want to learn Economics, the very first thing you do is GET A FUCKING JOB
>>25116425>implying economics is a jobTell me, who is hiring economists?
>>25116451This is why you're a dumbass that doesn't understand economics. Economics = Study of choices. What do we do with the money that's given to us? Get a job, get some money and you now are part of the economic system you want to study. You learn through experience. How does a tax break change your choices, how does a raise change your choices, how does getting fired change your choices, how does another company affect you, how does you spending another 10 bucks to have your dog lick the peanut butter off your nuts change the choices you need to make later?All that shit is economics retard. Learn that first before you even bother trying to study the academics of it. Adam Smith is literally writing about JOBS when he wrote his book.
>>25116167It's free if you pirate it.
>>25111982Das right
>>25113942This is just "it wasn't real capitalism". Any market system is going to require a legal framework, which is regulations. To then claim that regulations favor certain capitalists who will acquire disproportionate returns on their capital and consequently more power and then use that power to influence the regulations to then benefit themselves more is just baby's first economic realization.
>>25116167This lil nigga's been buying booksImagine
>>25116425>He thinks economics and finance are the same.Why should I take advice from someone who clearly failed econ 101?
>>25116167They usually help with my back problems
>>25118601>Any market system is going to require a legal framework, which is regulations.Natural law, which is the only non-contradictory way of resolving conflicts over scarce means, is vastly different from the arbitrary dictates of bureaucrats over how other people must use their property, which is what regulations actually are.
>>25118693So might makes right? That inevitably leads to warlords, cartels, or mafia establishments. Are you claiming they are the ultimate expressions of capitalism?
>>25118657Eyyy
>>25118833>So might makes right?The NAP is the opposite of that.
>>25118913Sir it’s 2026 not 2014.
>>25113436TRVE.Every post I see without capital letters and punctuation is the laziest and shittiest posts on the entire board. It always has an aura of angry and dicklet midwit.
>>25111914Mill, Menger, Lachmann, Shackle.Aka Radical Subjectivism. Don’t read Brainlet Marxists.LVT is debunked by Heterodox Economists expect coping Marxoids.
>>25113942Lmfao.You have no idea about Healthcare/Welfare Models.The majority of countries all over the world expect USA.Use a Beveridge Model or Bismarck Model.It’s why the Semashko model failed in the USSR, Warsaw Pact Countries, Albania, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Africa, Middle East.Compared to the Beveridge Model and Bismarck Model that still continues to innovate and improve.The only reason these two models are failing is because of illegal immigration into europe, canada, new zealand, Australia
>>25118913Who enforces the NAP? Or is your entire framework based on the idea that everyone just needs to agree and get along?
>>25118984Nigga no sane Austrian cares about the NAP.The NAP created by Rothbardians and Hoppeans is literally hated by Misesians, Hayekians, Radical Subjectivists.
>>25118990It all just comes back to what I noted, might makes right. I have the resources and the power to keep them, so you get nothing. Morals don't enter in.
>>25118999>Might makes rightLol… you’re one of those cringe niggas
>>25119010?????
>>25118984>Who enforces the NAP?Rights enforcement agencies.>Or is your entire framework based on the idea that everyone just needs to agree and get along?Law is supposed to give you a framework to know objectively if your rights have been violated. No one claims that it's a magic spell that prevents your rights from being violated outright.
>>25119436>Rights enforcement agencies.And if they have the power to enforce their will on belligerent parties, why wouldn't they just use that power to extort people themselves? How does a consensus form around what the law ought to be in thorny cases like if one person's livelihood creates noise that disturbs others near them? Or pollution? Or how ownership of land is established (an infamously difficult case regarding the ORIGINAL right to the land, or in other words, how you can say a person owns the land and that the land isn't stolen property if you go back far enough in the recent chain of sales)? You seem to want to claim a perfect form of law just spontaneous appears and that powerful enough agencies will just make a moral commitment to serve these laws, which all seems even more utopian and naive than the worst sort of communist.
>>25116394>>25112396I'm an actual economist who has published research, specifically in macro analytics and policy. I'm not a leftist but only an actual subhuman can look at the facts and think the US system is anywhere near as good as the French system, for example. Both of you are ideologically blinded and parroting talking pointsObviously universal healthcare isn't free you pedants, nobody thinks it just magically spawns out of the ether.There are pros and cons to both but the pros of universal healthcare empirically outweigh the cons when compared to a private system. Universal saves money on the whole when run efficiently. Saying "my country is inefficient and a money pit" is like saying "my local police station is corrupt so we should get rid of public police". You save money under universal healthcare by having more robust preventative care. The US system eats away at wages by allowing insurance companies to freely inflate prices dramatically above any EU systems, forcing employers to gobble up increasingly large chunks of overall compensation.The US system doesn't do the bare minimum of negotiating drug prices with manufacturers, leaving money on the table to be soaked up for profit. Go read a book instead of regurgitating things you read on tik tok. Anyone with a semblance of knowledge on the topic can immediately tell you're retarded and it's embarrassing.
>>25111914Thoughts on the German historical school of economics?
>>25112357This guy gets it
>>25120670Kek.
>>25120670>I'm an actual economist who has published research, specifically in macro analytics and policy.>I'm a paid shill that regurgitates statist propaganda.Opinion discarded.
>>25120670The entire field of economics is smoke and mirrors because you have an aversion to quantization and reliably recreatable experiments. A chess player can improve his understanding of the game by losing those games in which his predictions was wrong, an economist simply blames the leaders of his target country for not adhering to his philosophy. How does the pros outweigh the cons of UH 'empirically'? Empirically implies some sort of mathematical model was involved, the model was validated with data and then used to predict a outcome that was not expected. Von Neumann was the first and probably the last attempt to bring rigour to your field. Physicists and mathematicians rarely start a sentence with "I'm a expert in this field", because they don't have to, they state the argument and every party agrees on the correct answer. You're "actual economics" is a government sponsored certificate of superior opinion, stated differently, the current ruling entity's certicate of superior opinion on what the best methodology for ruling is.
>>25120506>And if they have the power to enforce their will on belligerent parties, why wouldn't they just use that power to extort people themselves?Because the customers would stop paying them for their services when they learn of the firm's aggression and would go to the bandit firm's competitors for protection instead. This leaves the aggressing firm with less resources and high risk of multiple competing firms destroying them.>How does a consensus form around what the law ought to be in thorny cases like if one person's livelihood creates noise that disturbs others near them? Or pollution?That's a job for private arbitration to resolve.>Or how ownership of land is establishedAn individual is the original appropriator of the land if they transform it and exclude access to it. >(an infamously difficult case regarding the ORIGINAL right to the land, or in other words, how you can say a person owns the land and that the land isn't stolen property if you go back far enough in the recent chain of sales)?If no valid title claim to the land can be proven, then it's assumed to be abandoned land, which is unowned and can be appropriated by a new comer.>You seem to want to claim a perfect form of law just spontaneous appearsNatural law is arrived at objectively through reason. Any alternative method of resolving conflicts contradicts itself and can be dismissed as invalid. For instance, a might makes right method of resolving conflicts contradicts itself by insisting that those best at causing conflicts ought to be the victors of those conflicts, this method is obviously invalid since it asserts that conflicts should be resolved by not resolving conflicts.>powerful enough agencies will just make a moral commitment to serve these lawsThere's a demand from a demographic that wants their rights protected while not wanting to aggress against the rights of others. If there's demand, a firm can make a profit by providing a supply.>which all seems even more utopian and naive than the worst sort of communist.Which is more Utopian? Believing that people can choose to not constantly aggress against one another, or that an omnipotent institution can provide for all possible wants entirely for free?
>>25118931The truth is eternal. Besides, things were better then than they are now.
>>25120882No argument I accept your concession >>25120901>Every single academic across the entire developed world is being paid as part of a grand, unified plan to push propaganda and not a single leak or piece of evidence has come forward in decadesYou are retarded, know that you're retarded, and use this argument because you're too lazy to read a book >>25120910Yet another completely empty talking point What's smoke and mirrors is you pitching it as an all or nothing field. Either everything has rigour and is repeatable or nothing is, and it's not a real science. This is not how reality works. Please read a book.If you use this logic you must also admit that the entire fields of politics and psychology are smoke and mirrors, yet both offer superior solutions for related problems when compared with random selectionLaws of supply and demand are repeatable. If demand for a good is extremely high, as it is for healthcare, and you allow private insurance companies/manufacturers to set prices without government intervention, they will reliably price gouge. Switzerland retains private insurance but does the bare minimum of price regulation. Expanding costs of care as disease progresses is a reliable outcome. When you don't, for example, have wide access to things like diabetes or cancer testing, the system ends up blowing vast sums of money on much more severe illnesses down the line, because the government also isn't just going to allow people to die.Universal healthcare systems in developed states uniformly lead to better outcomes, lower overall spending, higher customer satisfaction, with the only downsides (also reliably) being longer waiting times for middle to high income earners, and sluggish medical innovation. You can pretend that these uniform differences are smoke and mirrors, or that "not letting meemaw get stage 3 cancer that will cost 14 million to treat over ten years instead of doing a CT scan" is smoke and mirrors, but this is only a reflection of your inability to open a book. You will never be taken seriously and nobody will ever care about your opinions besides other tik tok commentors
>>25121675>You are retarded, know that you're retarded, and use this argument because you're too lazy to read a bookYou didn't make an argument though. You made a list of assertions about how government intervention supposedly benefits the economy, that is, you regurgitated statist talking points. My characterization of you is 100% accurate.
>>25120917>Because the customers would stop paying them for their services when they learn of the firm's aggression and would go to the bandit firm's competitors...The bandit firms would have an incentive to conspire against the customers and simply extract payments, as crime rackets always do.>That's a job for private arbitration to resolve.Why would they arbitrate in good faith? They have power to enact violence on a huge scale. You don't. You will be forced to accept their terms.>An individual is the original appropriator of the land if they transform it and exclude access to it. So anyone with sufficient power to "exclude access" is the owner? Again, this is might makes right personified.>If no valid title claim to the land can be proven, then it's assumed to be abandoned land, which is unowned and can be appropriated by a new comer.Proven to what standard? How are disputes settled other than through violence? Do you imagine a person will hear someone else make a claim and go "oh, you clearly have the right, I'll remove myself from the place I've been living because that's the moral thing to do." Dream on.>Natural law is arrived at objectively through reason....Even when a standard is accepted, subjective factors will always be in dispute. If there is no Leviathan with the authority and mandate to arbitrate fairly, it devolves into might makes right.>There's a demand from a demographic that wants their rights protected while not wanting to aggress against the rights of others. If there's demand, a firm can make a profit by providing a supply.As Adam Smith points out, it is always in the interest of business men to collude against the public and bypass competition in favor of inflated profits among them and their interest class."The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
>>25122370>The bandit firms would have an incentive to conspire against the customers and simply extract payments, as crime rackets always do.If that's true of smaller bandit firms, how much more true is it of states which monopolize security? This being the case, how is this an argument *for* the superiority of states?>Why would they arbitrate in good faith? They have power to enact violence on a huge scale. You don't. You will be forced to accept their termsThe two parties of a dispute voluntarily go to the arbitrator to resolve their conflict peacefully. Since both parties have to agree to be adjudicated by a particular arbitrator, the arbitrator must have a good reputation (i.e. a reputation of being fair and impartial). If the arbitrator had a reputation of being biased then one of the parties wouldn't agree to be adjudicated by them.>inb4 what if the parties turned to violence.Violence is expensive and unpredictable, so there's a strong incentive to resolve conflict peacefully. Also if you do have to resort to violence, it's good to have the backing of a reputable arbitrator so that any third parties know that you're not the aggressor.>So anyone with sufficient power to "exclude access" is the owner? Again, this is might makes right personified.Funny how you omit the whole "transforming" part of original appropriation. And excluding access means the owner has the rightful say over who uses it and how it is used, it has nothing to do with the power to enforce that access. If I construct a fence around a patch of unowned land (transformation) and then dictate who I want on the land (exclusion) I am the appropriator of that land and thus the owner. If someone I don't want on the land climbs the fence and excludes me from the land they are a mere possessor and not the rightful owner, because they initiated a conflict in order to claim my land. And respecting the "rights" of those that negate rights is a contradiction. Far from being the personification of might makes right, natural law is its inverse.>Proven to what standard?There'd likely be a paper trail of contracts, you can start there.>How are disputes settled other than through violence?Argumentation and arbitration.>Do you imagine a person will hear someone else make a claim and go "oh, you clearly have the right, I'll remove myself from the place I've been living because that's the moral thing to do."If the arbitrator they've agreed to be adjudicated by rules against them, they are bound to follow the judgement since they agreed to do so.>inb4 what if they don't agree?Then they'll get a default judgement against them. And if they don't follow the ruling they agreed to they can be rightfully physically removed.>Even when a standard is accepted, subjective factors will always be in dispute.Part of the job of the arbitrator is to deal with those "subjective factors." (cont.)
>>25122370>>25122451>If there is no Leviathan with the authority and mandate to arbitrate fairly, it devolves into might makes right.What incentive does the Leviathan have to arbitrate fairly? Certainly not when it comes to its reputation.>As Adam Smith points out...Don't care, he's not the final authority on capitalism. His point just boils down to...>Muh cartels.Cartels are unstable on a free market and quickly collapse in on themselves if they don't receive government assistance to entrench it. The robber barons are a myth.
>>25122451>If that's true of smaller bandit firms, how much more true is it of states which monopolize security? This being the case, how is this an argument *for* the superiority of states?A constitution lays out the mandate of the state and gives exact boundaries for when power is misused. This alone makes the state superior to self-interested corporations.>Strong incentive to resolve conflict peacefullyYes, through crime syndicates, warlords, or other centralization of power that can most effectively project the use of violence without needing to constantly use it. There will always be a power vacuum, the only question is whether there will be an outline of justification for that force that is above the executor of that force to which they can be held. The tension, then, must exist between an armed populace able to join together to wrest the power out of corrupt hands, but the metric by which the hands can be judged corrupt is explicitly outlined.>ContractsAgain, without a Leviathan to enforce them, they aren't worth the paper their written on.>Bound to follow the judgementBound by what authority? If I dispute my opponent, I will almost certainly still dispute with them after a ruling, so why would I abdicate my claim? Why wouldn't the losing party simply appeal to another judge? Again, a patchwork legal system will not work, you need one authority which, at rock bottom, has the power to enforce the ruling.>Cartels are unstable on a free market and quickly collapse in on themselves if they don't receive government assistance to entrench it. The robber barons are a myth.You are simply wrong. Also, if cartels need the government to exist, they will just create a government which helps them exist. But the fact that you can deny the existence of robber barons means you are irredeemably ignorant and not worth any more of my time. Goodbye.
>>25122524>A constitution lays out the mandate of the state and gives exact boundaries for when power is misused. This alone makes the state superior to self-interested corporations.When push comes to shove, states never honor those boundaries. And do you think the state is "above" self-interest lol.>Yes, through crime syndicates, warlords, or other centralization of power that can most effectively project the use of violence without needing to constantly use it.Or rights enforcement agencies which you pretend can't exist.>There will always be a power vacuum, the only question is whether there will be an outline of justification for that force that is above the executor of that force to which they can be held.Power vacuums only exist when nobody is currently in control of the state. This obviously isn't a problem if there's no state to begin with.>The tension, then, must exist between an armed populace able to join together to wrest the power out of corrupt hands, but the metric by which the hands can be judged corrupt is explicitly outlined.Natural law is outlined by applying reason to the problem of scarcity. It doesn't need to be formally codified by an aggressive institution to have validity, anymore than 2+2=4 does.>Again, without a Leviathan to enforce them, they aren't worth the paper their written on.Again, you're pretending REAs and private arbitration can't exist.>Bound by what authority?By the authority you've granted the arbitrator by agreeing to have your dispute adjudicated by them.>If I dispute my opponent, I will almost certainly still dispute with them after a ruling, so why would I abdicate my claim?Because honoring the arbitrator's ruling is part of the agreement you make with the arbitrator when you come to them to resolve the dispute.>Why wouldn't the losing party simply appeal to another judge? Again, a patchwork legal system will not work, you need one authority which, at rock bottom, has the power to enforce the ruling.They can if they want to. But if another arbitrator sees that the complainant has had their case rejected by several other arbitrators with high standing, do you think they're going to waste their time adjudicating a case that in all likelihood is total bullshit?>You are simply wrong. Also, if cartels need the government to exist, they will just create a government which helps them exist.How do you go about creating a government on the free market? The state is the antithesis of the market, because the free market is simply the collection of all voluntary transactions between individuals, which excludes all aggressive actions. The state, by it's nature, is an aggressive institution, and in a society that adheres to the NAP, no such institution would be tolerated.>But the fact that you can deny the existence of robber barons means you are irredeemably ignorant and not worth any more of my time. Goodbye.The only one ignorant of history here is you. Read pic.
>>25112013>the utter drivel that is modern economics just to see how much the field has degenerated since the days of Smith and RicardoWell it was voluntary. Labor theory of value must be burried. Because how would the proles react, if they were told that profit is unpaid labor.
>>25112093>Labour Theory of Value is totally debunked and is only taken seriously by stubborn Orthodox MarxistsProved to be true by Anwar Shaik.
>>25122556>myth of the robber barons holy zased good to see some real shit for once
>>25112855People seethe about Marx because he was racially a jew. Even if he was not religiously a jew at all, and didn't practize the social pratcice of jews: huckstering and money. Indeed he lived in poverty most of his live.People also seethe about Marx, because muh communism bad. Thing is, we entered Capitalism final crisis in 2008. So i understand supporting Capitalism in the 1980s, as it was still a working mode of production. Nowadays it's crumbling under it's internation contradiction, the contradiction between valorization and devalorization, and is obsolete. Still most people still cling to it. Simply because they don't know any better. But what's worse than a crumbling mode of production.
>>25122700>government forces banks to give out home loans to complete bums for "equity purposes" >loans inevitably get defaulted>gov has to step in to fix problem they causedyes capitalism truly failed in 2008.
>>25111972Came here to post this. Bastiat's THE LAW, Economic Sophisms and That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen are absolute classics, irrefutable and extremely readable.
>>25111982>>25112006>if you want to learn about economcis, step one is to get absolutely ignorant of the topic>nothing will prepare you better than a huge tome by a trust fund baby's parasite which has been debunked in every particular
>>25113942>if you regulate out a 1000 ways to do capitalism and leaving only the crooked, high-barrier to entry, mafia style system,Yes but that IS Capitalism. That is not a deviation from Capitalism, it is Capitalism. When Capital gain more power than the State, it took over the State. So the State is not responsible for doing what Capital wants. It is a tool of the Capital. Also sure Capitalism wants some dose of socialism in society. But it is not because muh marxism ideology. It is because with some dose of socialism, paid by revenue tax by the way (45% of total tax revenue, not by corporate tax (6% of total tax revenue in america), Capital can maintain social peace.
>>25121675Relax, im studying economics too. I just thought your post and criticism was funny.
>>25112502>t. Unbelievably Smug Anime-Posting Retard
>>25122702To expand on this, in 2008, Capitalism entered into it's final crisis. It needed 7 years of money printing to survive: fictitious Capital. Around 2012, the Capitalist class, noticed that money printing didn't restart the economy. They probably understood then that it was over. In 2020, the Capitalist class had a strategy for the overproduction crisis (end of Juglar cycle). They decided to put Capital into fallow. As Marx described in Das Kapital, volume 4 (theories on surplus value). Stop production, in order to purge markets of saturation. That is the 2020-2021~ lockdowns for you, as well as the Shanghai lockdowns of 2022. It worked. When the Shanghai lockdown stopped, the economy was restarting, and the Fed interest rates after spring 2022 were strongly increasing.
Thanks to the long march through the cultural institutions, the youth are largely persuaded that there is some thing called "capitalism" which is the source of practically all problems. What is capitalism? Who is a proponent of this system? Is it Adam Smith? We certainly do not administer government in the way which Adam smith suggests in his book. Will we use Marx's definition of capitalism? Marx is largely in agreement with Adam Smith on this topic anyway. Can an honest person really say that this system, as described by these guys, is the system we're using in the western world today?An unintended/unforseen consequence of this phenomena seems to be that the youth are also not able to ignore the disproportionate influence exerted by so called "jews" in finance, politics, media and so on. I wonder if the long march through the cultural institutions will be considered a success when examined with hindsight in 200 years.
unironicallyMan isn't a monolith where any rule or system works for all peoples.
>>25122524> A constitution lays out the mandate of the state and gives exact boundaries for when power is misused. This alone makes the state superior to self-interested corporations.Cmon man. A state is, by definition, a corporation (artificial legal entity). It is a firm who claims a monopoly on dispute resolution over a given geographical area. And of course, individuals in the monopoly firm or do business with the monopoly firm have their own self-interest, which can range from merely wanting to hold onto their job, whether that be elected or within the bureaucracy, to obtaining as much wealth as possible during their tenure. That isn’t to say feelings of patriotism, morality, or ideology don’t play a role, but these factors may also influence people to make choices for the long term detriment of the state.I think your boundary of written constitution and rights enforcement agreement is too harsh. As I’m sure you’re aware, the English have a constitution as well, but it is unwritten. This was the common understanding of what a constitution was before the American Revolution. The move to a written constitution was to solve a problem you mention, that being the scope of the rights entitled to citizens. The U.S. was highly influenced by English colonial business practices, where the rights of colonists were outlined in the charter, going so far as to call their executive a “president,” which was originally a business term. A rights enforcement agency adhesion contract with a subscriber is a constitution of sorts, only the subscriber must objectively place himself under their protection of the enforcement agency and has the option of exit. So let’s assess the two contracts as two different forms of agreements looking to solve the same problem. On its face, to me it seems a party who’s able to unilaterally alter the terms of the agreement between itself and the other party is always going to find decision in favor of itself. Allowing that party to enforce their interpretation of the agreement is also asking for trouble.
>>25111914Don't balk at what I'm going to tell you here, just read them with an open mind, make an honest attempt to understand them."Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin actually gives a pretty good overview of how global economic power plays out. He mostly quotes economists at the time at their own word."Capital" by Marx is very hard read, but gives a philosophical breakdown of the processes of capital all the way down to value and exchange. There are some earlier works by Marx that are easier to read, but imo they're not nearly as developed as Capital.>>25112878>>25112880All of these books are unironically terrible. The black book in particular is full of enough handwaving that the original authors had to distance themselves from it to save face.
>>25122556>Power vacuums only exist when nobody is currently in control of the state. This obviously isn't a problem if there's no state to begin with.
>>25122929
>>25122556>The state is the antithesis of the market, because the free market is simply the collection of all voluntary transactions between individualsThe State became the slave of the Capital. In theory, the State is over the power of money. But once the power of money took over the whole world, money was giving orders to the State, and the State became the slave of the power of money. Libertarians always fail to take into consideration that the world of money is not made of hundreds of thousands of small millionaires competing against each others, in a fair market, but a world where a few gigacompanies worth hundreds of billions have money powers that are so vast that they can bend society to their will.
>>25122929You cannot abolish the State with a decree. Indeed, as long as the State has a function, that is to serve the interests of the Capital, it will continue to exist.
I don’t understand Marx’s theory of value, it seems nonsensical. Apologists will say “it’s not really about prices blablabla” bitch Marx explicitly derives money and prices from labor, he doesn’t make a secret of this. So if I make a shitty knickknack to sell at the farmer’s market and it took me 8 hours it should have more value than the Mennonite cookie that took 0.02 hours. But it isn’t so, it isn’t close to being so. Am I missing something or what? Surely Marxists aren’t this retarded?
>>25123619Marxoids will tell you it's actually the socially necessary labour that value is derived fromjust don't ask them how socially necessary labour is calculated because they have no answer to that
>>25123645I get that but the shitty nicknack that took loads of time might still be bought, so the labor is still socially necessary. It seems pretty obvious that the price of a commodity has almost nothing to do with the number of labor hours it took to make. But again it’s hard to believe Marx or anyone would be that retarded so maybe I’m misunderstanding something. Also like you say how many times more productive is a physician than a bricklayer exactly? The price of their services should theoretically reflect the physician doing much ‘more’ work in the same amount of time but that’s absurd, the work is qualitatively different. You’d think a Hegel reader like Marx would understand this.
>>25123673The coefficients of various degrees of skilled vs. unskilled labor are reflected in the ‘prices’ of commodities; the qualitative differences are reduced to the money-form. You’re completely missing the point and so is every other liberal in this thread. Marx is asking what it IS for something to be a commodity and this is social labor, in the same way that a peasant’s tithe IS its feudal labor. Only under capitalism does concrete useful labor have an exchange value as a commodity. Or let me dumb it down even further for you, our economy just IS this division of labor in which the labor of the tailor and the barber are quantities of universal labor as such. It has nothing to do with prices per se, in fact right in chapter 1 he mentions that diamonds are priced far lower than their (labor) value. And this is what buttblasts liberals, Marx begins with the true beginning, labor, which is more fundamental than anything liberals look at. They can only see wages and prices that go up and down with supply and demand, Marx sees that the essence of capitalism is a particular division of labor, and if you foreground this, you see that it is doomed.
>>25123704non answer
>>25123704>the difference is reflected in money>also, value has nothing to do with pricesTop kek
>>25123708This is going to piss you off but the fact is it is there but it’s invisible.
>>25123717So Marxist economics is a form of metaphysics. You’re positing an invisible ghost quantity to explain economic realities because of a social theory Marx pulled out of his ass.
>>25123704>if you foreground this, you see that it is doomedOH NOES! NOT AGAIN!Commietroons have been predicting this since th 19th century. Any second now, comrades ...
>>25123704>>25123717marxoids are allergic to directly engaging in a discussion and have to do this weird pseud "I know something that you don't" cope
>>25111914Fuck your false-flag thread, you pig-felching Marxtard tranny.
>>25123742I think I explained it pretty clearly in the first post. If that went over your head I can’t help you. Labor value is indeed an abstraction which is only indirectly present in prices but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real, unless you want to deny that we produce commodities by labor.
>>25123741How many centuries did feudalism last?
>>25123754more than the 5 decades communism did
>>25123749how is socially necessary labour derived
>>25123761rekt, and kek'd
>>25123754It's still thriving. Parts of Africa, South America and the Middle East remain under the sway of warlords.
>>25123805every country on the globe is capitalist.
>>25123741capitalism is a temporary epoch in human history. sorry if that makes you upset
>>25123353>In theory, the State is over the power of money. But once the power of money took over the whole world, money was giving orders to the State, and the State became the slave of the power of money.Little problem with your theory. We don't actually do trade with real money (which is a commodity), but with fiat currency that only has value insofar as the state says it has value. How can the state become enslaved by something that they routinely manipulate and control?
>>25122556>Because honoring the arbitrator's ruling is part of the agreement you make with the arbitrator when you come to them to resolve the dispute.kek, people will hold to an agreement because, well geez, they wouldn't just break their word! That would never happen! Genius analysis.
>>25122556>the free market is simply the collection of all voluntary transactions between individualsDo you take into account coercion when considering what is "voluntary"? Clearly certain parties have the luxury to avoid transactions by simply sitting on a stockpile while those with fewer resources are forced into certain transactions by necessity, yet you seem to want to flatten this out to everything being "voluntary". Your worldview seems about as deep as a puddle.
>>25123619Marx views the average reasonable amount of labor for a thing as constituting its labor value. If I make a widget manufacturing machine that pumps out widgets in a fraction of the time, the labor value of a widget is going to drop because I have effected the average labor required to make a widget. But if my machine requires a worker and maintenance, etc, and then I sell widgets at a profit, the labor value of the widget will be exceeded, I will be selling widgets above the cost to me to create them.
>>25124345>the average reasonable amount of laborno mechanism to derive this btw
>>25124334>kek, people will hold to an agreement because, well geez, they wouldn't just break their word! That would never happen! Genius analysis.Actually if you break an agreement, physical force is on the table. It's telling that you're only capable of knocking down strawmen you've constructed.>>25124337>Muh inequalityHaving more than someone else isn't "coercion" in any meaningful sense. Aggression is defined as the initiation of a conflict, if an action doesn't initiate any conflict, then that action is voluntary. Whether people have more or less than others is irrelevant to this question. Deal with it.
>>25124348Interesting choice of words, since you basically concede this value actually does exist.
>>25124362>Having more than someone else isn't "coercion" in any meaningful sense. Aggression is defined as the initiation of a conflict, if an action doesn't initiate any conflict, then that action is voluntary. Whether people have more or less than others is irrelevant to this question. Deal with it.If we went to an agreed upon arbiter, and they ruled I was right, would you concede the point or would it come to violence?
>>25124369I would concede since I agreed to follow the ruling of the arbitrator as a condition of them adjudicating our dispute. Do you think it's okay to break agreements simply because you feel like it?
>>25124362>Having more than someone else isn't "coercion" in any meaningful sense.What if I acquire land in a circular formation around another person? In such a case, I could say that I am merely passively refusing to allow them to trespass on my land, but the result is that they would be trapped. Since I haven't "initiated" anything, how could you call this aggression? Or would you allow that I would had done nothing wrong in creating the circumstances where someone would be imprisoned and starve?In other words, what happens in your worldview when all land becomes privately owned? To evict a trespasser presupposes a place to send them, but if all land is privately owned, and no one willing to allow a landless person to trespass, what happens? Does this not eventually constitute aggression on the part of the land owners in taking away any possible land for non-landed people to exist on?
>>25124371Cool, name the arbiter, but be warned, I have deeper pockets than you, so when they rule in my favor, be gracious about it, okay?
>>25124373>What if I acquire land in a circular formation around another person?>"Heh heh, I bet he's never encountered the donut homesteading question before."If I've managed to homestead in the middle of a "donut", then to get to that point I must have homesteaded a path through the "donut", meaning it's not a true "donut" to begin with.>To evict a trespasser presupposes a place to send them, but if all land is privately owned, and no one willing to allow a landless person to trespass, what happens?If absolutely no one wants to accept this hypothetical trespasser, then they probably have a good reason for keeping them out. And if literally everyone on earth despises a person to the point of complete ostracization, why would the state help them, and why should anyone be obliged to help them?>>25124375>Cool, name the arbiter, but be warned, I have deeper pockets than you, so when they rule in my favor, be gracious about it, okay?I don't have to worry since you come off as a seething brokie. But hypothetically speaking, I would not select an arbitrator that has a reputation for being bought off, as would anyone concerned about bribery. However in out current statist court system, which literally does get bought off (look at Epstein), I have no alternative arbitrators to turn to, so there's no incentive to maintain a good reputation like there would be on the free market. The result of this is the very corruption you imply a statist system is required to avoid.
>>25124397>If I've managed to homestead in the middle of a "donut", then to get to that point I must have homesteaded a path through the "donut", meaning it's not a true "donut" to begin with.So your answer is "that would never happen"?>If absolutely no one wants to accept this hypothetical trespasser, then they probably have a good reason for keeping them out. And if literally everyone on earth despises a person to the point of complete ostracization, why would the state help them, and why should anyone be obliged to help them?So your answer is they should just die? Or where should they go? Again, how does this interact with your precious "NAP" principle? Where can a man go if he owns no land and no landowner chooses to accept him? Your answers thus far will not suffice.
>>25124424>So your answer is "that would never happen"?Logically speaking no it couldn't. If someone tried to enforce such a claim they would be forestalling, i.e. acting like they own my property when they don't.>So your answer is they should just die?If literally no one on earth wants to do business with a person, they shouldn't be obligated to, even if this results in the pariah dying. And if you care so much about this hypothetical pariah, why wouldn't you hypothetically take them in?>Again, how does this interact with your precious "NAP" principle?Aggression isn't when you forbid someone from using your property. You do not have a right to use the property of others without their consent, since that would constitute aggression.>Where can a man go if he owns no land and no landowner chooses to accept him?He can go to an unowned patch of land, and if he so chooses, he can homestead it and make it his.>Your answers thus far will not suffice.>"I don't personally like your answers therefore you haven't provided any sufficient answers to my questions." >:(Your feelings are not the standard of validity.
>>25124439>Everything that exposes my worldview as shallow, vapid, and totally unworkable just would never happen because every human being would just know to abide by my exact rules and never enter into conflict>Also, I will just conjure up infinite unowned land for people to go to.Real question now: are you twelve years old?
>>25124472>The NAP doesn't prevent crime therefore libertarianism deboonked.The law isn't a magic spell that prevents crime, retard. It's a logical framework that allows you to determine if an actual crime has taken place, who the perpetrator is, and who the victim is.>No infinite land therefore deboonked.Property arises from scarcity. If land wasn't scarce there'd be no need to clearly delineate who owns what, since no conflicts over land could arise. You also underestimate the vast amount of land available that has been unjustly claimed by states. Also hypothetically speaking, what if every single state (a number significantly lower than the amount of private property owners) decides to ostracize an individual, what then? Where would this person go? Why do states get a pass when it comes to ostracization but private property owners don't? It's funny, I've answered all your questions, but you're unwilling to answer any of mine, could it be that you have no answers? And what if, hypothetically speaking, every single state conspires to kidnap you, put you in a cage, and then have gorillas anally rape you to death, what then? Is statism now refuted?
>>25124348It doesn’t matter and you still don’t get it. What are you exchanging when you buy a sandwich? Ultimately, labor. There is no other source of wealth (land etc having value only via labor). The point is that capitalism functions in this radical abstraction of labor, so that the labor in the sandwich is exchangeable via money with the labor of working at a call center or whatever. When qualitatively different things are equated in this way the relation is quantitative, the limit is indifferent to being. “But where is this number?!” You’re still not getting it, you have to think a tiny bit to understand it. I’m not even a commie. Marx was a leftist yes but first and foremost a critic of liberalism.
>>25124365interesting how I didn't say "value" at any point
>>25124498You’re literally too retarded to even defend Marx properly. The quantity of real value is measured in labor hours, different intensities of labor being reduced by the abstraction itself.
>>25122708lmao another temporarily embarrassed billionaire, just waiting for his business breakthrough
>>25123821>capitalism is a temporary epoch in human history. sorry if that makes you upsetThis>>25124497>The law isn't a magic spell that prevents crime, retard. It's a logical framework that allows you to determine if an actual crime has taken placeThis I understand about lolbertarianism. We'd like to uphold good laws across multiple lands in all our hearts. But talking to one lolbert he and his friends were shocked at my slight support of a collective. None of them could explain how anything they wanted could work by just severe individualists. I argued for balance and the friend spat nails at me.Can't uphold a NAP or anything without collective mutual agreements and organization.I couldn't even touch on the subject of the Holy Church of Capital and their lord and savior Debt.
>>25125047>Can't uphold basic arithmetic or logic without collective mutual agreements and organization.Statists actually believe this.
>>25123821Why, because you say so? History disagrees.
>>25111914 Oeconomicus - Xenophon On ways and means - Xenophon
>>25124499You referenced the difficulty in finding the value, not that it doesn't exist. It would be pretty retarded to argue you can't derive a value but then also say the value simply doesn't exist. You'd probably want to lead with that second point, genius.
>>25124497Your questions are retarded. Even when a country like the USA goes to deport someone, they have to find a country willing to take them, they don't just take them to the edge of the border or coast line and dump them across the line. States actually grapple with this issue and allow the person to stay and be fed and housed until they can be removed. There would be no such mechanism under your proposed system, even under the principle of the NAP you seem to think it'd be fine to dump some unwanted person in the ocean or kill them for trespassing. Again, you seem to want to assume that human rights would just automatically be respected by individuals without an actual overriding justice system and legal standard. This is why I asked if you were a child, you seem to have absolutely no clue how the world actually works.
>>25125475Because it constantly shits itself in crises and war and produces an industrial proletariat that has an interest and ability in overthrowing it.
>>25125058Math and logic are not going to hold your not-community together or make large numbers of people holding up in their citadels, underground bunkers or other mote encircled properties follow the NAP.And pointing out how you could organize agreements is by collective action is not statism. Maybe you're joking. I can't tell sometimes. But can you explain how you can live with 1 to 5 people, a stack of gold bars and expect everyone else to respect this NAP even though no one goes outside for fear of getting shot for trespassing?
>>25125475>History disagrees.Recorded history. They would record that there was nothing before capital. They do claim the necklaces people were buried with was money and that primitive man used shells. They'll say anything to further the delusion of their god.
>>25125598>"All states wouldn't ever decide to collectively ostracize someone.">But what if they did?>"But states wouldn't do that."Imagine failing the breakfast question this hard lol. Also...>Muh constitution>Muh due process>Muh USACompletely refuted by the fact that the US has a documented history of using CIA black sites to disappear people without due process at all, and the constitution has been powerless in preventing it.
>>25125774Individualism doesn't oppose social cooperation. This includes cooperation for security. The idea that social cooperation somehow undercuts libertarianism is false.
>>25125951The constitution exists as a declared standard. The whole point of having different branches of government and spreading out power is to create a balance of power with the ultimate aim of serving the populace and respecting certain bedrock rights and freedoms. You've totally missed the entire purpose of the nation state, and it's quite frankly just embarrassing at this point. Your worldview is devoid of all principles and is purely power vs power with an incoherent appeal to "non-aggression" which is something a weak party would cling to but would have no appeal to a strong party. Also, the nation state would be in violation of their own stated principles if they kicked someone out without due process (and much more so if they just killed people), but you've admitted private property holders would technically be in line with your principles to just kill any unlanded person on their property who had no where to go. If you were actually smarter, I'd consider you a psychopath, but instead I think this is just borne out of retardation.
>>25111914Capital Vol. 1. It's not just econ though. It's a eye opening treatise on the human condition of modern times
>>25126162>The constitution exists as a declared standard. The whole point of having different branches of government and spreading out power is to create a balance of power with the ultimate aim of serving the populace and respecting certain bedrock rights and freedoms.So the different branches of government fail by their own standard as set by the constitution.>You've totally missed the entire purpose of the nation state, and it's quite frankly just embarrassing at this point. The purpose of the nation-state is to pillage and plunder. Idgaf what retards like you think it is.>Your worldview is devoid of all principles and is purely power vs power with an incoherent appeal to "non-aggression">"Your worldview is devoid of principles with the principle of non-aggression."Your statement is a self-contradiction.>which is something a weak party would cling to but would have no appeal to a strong party.The appeal to the "strong" party would be not having their "strength" diminished by having their assets stolen by the envious "weak.">Also, the nation state would be in violation of their own stated principles if they kicked someone out without due process (and much more so if they just killed people)Oh no, a state violating it's own stated principles, that's never happened before. Tell me, how does declaring war with a foreign country without first obtaining congressional approval not violate the principles outlined in the constitution?>but you've admitted private property holders would technically be in line with your principles to just kill any unlanded person on their property who had no where to go.Wow more things I didn't say! I said that you have a right to physically remove people from your property, and if no one is willing to accommodate them, they shouldn't be obligated to, even if the pariah dies as a result. I never said you have the unilateral right to actively murder someone merely for being on your property. The state on the other hand does believe it has that right, as evidenced by the existence of black sites that are used by even "rights-respecting" states.>If you were actually smarter, I'd consider you a psychopath, but instead I think this is just borne out of retardation.You're not as smart as you think you are and that's a very tough place to be.
>>25126185It’s kek to see how people argue against it. “But, but, prices follow supply and demand and are based on utility!” No shit, Marx knew this. The point is that what’s ultimately being exchanged is labor. A physician does “more work” in an hour than a barista because of how his work is valued but it’s still work, labor that is being exchanged. “But that’s absurd! How is a doctor doing more work than a barista they’re qualitatively different!” In the same exact way that a piano stands in proportion to a rug by its price. Marx even says in chapter 3 that oversupply is, in effect, the producer doing “less” work because his work isn’t as necessary. You can find 20 paragraph essays by libs with econ degrees on Reddit by people who can’t understand what Marx is saying.
>>25126263Or even more simply: Marx’s theory of value isn’t about how prices work but what prices actually are.
>>25126263>The point is that what’s ultimately being exchanged is laborwoah... something you learn in the first chapter of any introductory econ textbook
>>25124497nta but I was reading your conversation and jesus you're fucking retarded>what if every single stateYes, it would be bad. This is why we can mutually recognize that we want to be represented within our states. Congrats, you just figured out what republicanism is.>>25126206>Oh no, a state violating it's own stated principles, that's never happened beforeYou're right, we should have stronger standards and regulations on power. Thanks for pointing it out.>I never said you have the unilateral right to actively murder someone merely for being on your propertySo you're only 90% ancap ?
>>25124498>>25125592heyexplain how the socially necessary labour is calculated
>>25126739It’s the price of the good - assuming you’re not underselling or ripping someone off. The commodity is more or less valuable based on its utility, scarcity, but what is being valued as common to all commodities is labor.
>>25126308Marx was so right and so in-line with bourgeois economics up to the mid-19th century that economics as a field has had to pay nothing more than lip service to any of their past ever since.It's like if Einstein's theories didn't conditionally converge into Newton's, and so physics had to be completely re-written to pretend nothing had ever happened before 1910.This retard >>25126739 thinks he's arguing against "Marx's" "Theory of Value" when he's actually arguing against Smith's theory of Natural Price. You know, from the fucking book in the OP.But it wasn't just Smith or Ricardo; literally every dude with a real education had a labor theory of value until it became convenient to purge it and pretend it never existed outside the mind of Carlos Marco.
>>25126800ok cool man now explain how the socially necessary labour is calculated
>>25126884You mean why is one price higher than another? No one calculates it it’s spontaneous.
>>25126884You having to slice and dice the concept of gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeitszeit just to even pose the question is completely self-defeating.No need for a response from me (who isn't that other anon anyway).
you can ask a marxist how many days in the week and they'll say everything but the number 7
>>25126917You can ask a bourgeois economist how the length of the working day is determined and they'll start at you in slackjawed confusion.
>>25126800A lot of the typical replies you see to Marx boil down to capitalism satisfying subjective utility (the worker isn’t exploited, he’s glad to work). But Marx doesn’t deny this or how efficient capitalism is, like you say he’s grounded in bourgeois economics. The issue is that the value you create as a worker is accumulated by a third party and takes an antagonistic form.
>>25126206>I said that you have a right to physically remove people from your property, and if no one is willing to accommodate them, they shouldn't be obligated to, even if the pariah dies as a result.So is this standard just based on your own personal feelings? How strong of a responsibility does the one evicting have to find a place to deport the trespasser? And why would a property owner feel any obligation to do any leg work when evicting a trespasser? The very clear outcome is property owners would simply kill trespassers and feel justified in doing so. Again, your entire worldview boils down to "people wouldn't do that" when very clearly they would.As others in this thread have stated, you are irredeemably retarded. Your own principles are inconsistently applied to the point of being utterly incoherent in your own hypotheticals, and somehow you think a world of many individuals with varying moral sensibilities can somehow adhere to it.And, to chime in with the other half dozen anons who have already said this, you have no idea what a nation state is or what its purpose is.
>>25126884Identify a particular area of commerce, say one state or province. Find where a particular widget is produced and calculate the chain of workers contributing to the production of that widget. Calculate the labor inputs divided by the widget outputs. Repeat process and calculate the average among the different producers. You've now found the average socially necessary labor for that widget, at that time, in that place.
Hayek, Smith, and Bastiat, plus Coase and Demsetz papers. For textbooks, start with Nicholson and Snyder if you already have decent math background (you have to know calcuIus). Learn micro before macro. Macro is hand-wavey and mostly bullshit. You are better served learning the underlying philosophy of the various schools than the actual mechanics. Mankiw is okay as introductory macro textbooks go.
>>25126976and if it takes one worker 2 hours but another one 4 hours to produce the same thing?
>>25126263Is all labor worth the same?
Endless debates about the LTV, when Anwar Shaik proved it to be true.
Oh by the way for all those that think that we cannot go from labor, to actual prices, they are wrong. Anwar Shaik predicted actual prices, with cost of production data, with a 2% accuracy.
>>25127104>Anwar ShaikOh you mean the Meme Poojeet Marxian Heterodox Economist that doesn’t even like Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Hoxha or Kim il Sung.Lmfao.This JEET would have got shot by Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, Kim il Sung.It’s why Anti Revisionists hates Heterodox Marxian Economists
