>>25488319
Moronic, as anyone with a 4th grader's level of understanding of capitalistic markets could show you...
As well as Marx's "labour theory of value".

>>25488332
Marx’s labor theory of value has to do with the *market value* of an asset, not its price; both Marx and finance make a firm distinction

File: 2025101112562532520241007(...).jpg (145 KB, 800x1200)

145 KB JPG

>>25488319
Yeah well he also critiques marketing, slaes, and advertising as fake and gay and wasted labor towards fetishism, without realizing that this allows for a more equitable distribution of resources while not requiring bolshevik repression.

Bourgeois will fight each other in the knowledgeworker pits to get the newest iPhone while the guy making their fries or even a homeless mfer has a 3 cammera 5g phone he bought at Walmart which is broadly comparable in almost every respect, all thanks to marketing.

Fake and gay is the way.

>>25488319
Yes Marx predicted everything.
Still retards will not read it.
Even when Marx will be rehabilitated, they will still not read it.
Just repeating that it was a guy who predicted how it would turn out, without actually reading the guy.

>>25488332
>US federal government owes $40 trillion worth of debt
>Nvidia, a single computer chip manufacturer, has a $5 trillion market capitalization (approximately ~$1 trillion greater than the GDP of the entire country of France)
>Tesla, an electric car company with an ~11% global market share of electric battery vehicles (and a minuscule share of total global automobile sales) has a market capitalization of 1.09 trillion; a little less than twice the total GDP of the country of Sweden
>Bitcoin, an online token with no proven real-world use value, has a market cap of $1.58 trillion
>Domestic nonfinancial corporate debt represents ~72% of the total GDP of the United States of America

yeah this Marx guy sure was a retard when he predicted fictionalization and fictitious capital would come to dominate the economies of advanced capitalist countries. totally OWNED by facts and logic.

>>25488546
The newest iphone can run console-tier video games and you can throw it as hard as you can against the ground it won’t even scratch the screen, and that is the iPhone Air which is the very lightest and thinninst one.

iPhones and the cheap phones are completely the same for 99% of the shit people do with phones, but there is absolutely a difference if you care about cameras and that sort of shit. It’s just a much finer piece of hardware and that isn’t obvious because you don’t need it for the vast majority of shit you do with a phone and like you said it is a status symbol. People prefer a luxury car or sports car to the equally functional cheaper car as a status symbol but they are not equal pieces of hardware.

>>25488546
I have the same idea. Luxury products are a boon. They are priced way above their labour value and prevents richfags from not wasting too much human labour while funneling liquidity back into the economy.

>>25488751
>They are priced way above their labour value

I hope you realize that the difference between a Rolex watch and a wal mart watch is not just brand name

>>25488784
I know, but the difference in labour and material put in between those two does not justify the actual price gap.

File: Ahimsa-square-c0a91561bb5(...).jpg (509 KB, 1440x1440)

509 KB JPG

>>25488784
The majority of the value of a Rolex comes from its being a Rolex, even if there is some difference in quality.

Wine is another example, it having been proven on multiple occasions (and a rare example where this sort of thing is open to science) that professional sommeliers cannot distinguish the "quality"/price of a wine in blind taste tests.

A prole can buy Champagne grown from the same soil 2km over which the Bourgeois pays $500/glass for.

I remember a Karl Lagerfeld video where he called all fashion essentially fake and gay, and said the only real luxuries left are private jets and yachts, as these allow you to actually do things/go places which the poors cannot, and that Bourgeois women with their $45 {4500} (assembled)-in-Italy ((made in thailand)) bags are larping.

You may say that this is an interesting thought to have occurred to a fashion designer, but I think he was broadly speaking correct.

>>25488319
Das it mane

Das kapital

>>25488832
No, the majority of the PRICE of a rolex does, not its value. Market value is not reflected by price except in *market equilibrium* and market equilibrium would only be achievable with a rolex if there were no copyright on the design or brand; this copyright ensures equilibrium is never reached which inflates the price. However even if equilibrium could be reached, and consequently a rolex drastically dropped in price, it would still cost much more than a normal watch. The drop would also apply to iphones but probably not nearly as much since they are not kept deliberately scarce like trading cards and Rolex watches are

All your other points also have completely and totally to do with your lack of distinction between price and value when this distinction exists in both economics and Capital.

File: White-Handed-Gibbon-1024x768.jpg (65 KB, 1024x768)

65 KB JPG

>>25488853
>it would still cost much more than a normal watch
Than a plastic watch? Sure.
Than another gold watch? No.

LVMH is one of largest corps in the world despite serving a very small customer base for a reason.
The margins in luxury are crazy, and purely the result of marketing, which does in fact serve the public good by getting well to doers to recirculate capital for a nothing while not at all feeling abused.

(I acknowledge this effect mechanically mostly relies upon, ahem... women) (Though as I said, it is generally a [good thing] from a utilitarian POV, one of the best)

>>25488875
Rolexes are renowned for their craftsmanship. “It runs like a Swiss watch.” It’s like saying the engine of an Italian sports car is the same as any other car, the only difference is the paint job. Rolexes were strongly preferred by pilots over government issue watches in WWII because of their extreme durability and reliability

Now it is true that in this age, a watch being of an extreme level of craftsmanship is no longer important because we no longer rely on analogue computers, but the extreme craftsmanship is still there

File: images.jpg (30 KB, 335x597)

30 KB JPG

>>25488908
oh shit lmao you're some materialist-tard who go got by the salesman kek.

what are you doing on the barrel dweller board champ?

>>25488926
>a product with artificial scarcity has salesmen

You’re not very bright, champ.

>>25488332
>as anyone with a 4th grader's level of understanding of capitalistic markets could show you...

then show us?

>>25488810
Wal-Mart watches are probably sold below their labor value, Rolex watches are probably sold above their labor value. But when it comes to luxury commodities, Marx’s mentions an economist who believed diamonds are never actually sold at their full labor value unlike sugar and so on, and although doesn’t actually endorse this idea, I am sure the labor of the engineers of Rolex watches is priced in more than the labor of the physical production and acquisition of the materials is

>>25488319
Value is already fake and gay, it's all in your (as a social being) head. Marx was a stirnerite who tried to prove that economics is a spook.

>>25489677
“Value is social” doesn’t make it fake. Your “ego” is also a social product of the collaboration of the cells of your body

>>25488908
>sigh
How much did you pay for your watch anon

>>25489686
It's fake in the same way acosmists see finite beings as fake. It's not real. You can destroy it and it won't persist.

>>25488319
Capital is a mix of half-truths and outright bullshit hidden in a huge steaming pile of populist polemic
whether some small part of it is true or not doesn't matter, the same way it doesn't matter if Flat Earthers do understand that light travels in a straight line: Marx's overall theory and its conclusion is still as uncontrollably tainted as if a recipe called for 20 grams of cow dung in your ragu bolognese (or to taste)

>>25489705
I don’t wear a watch

>>25489706
>it’s fake because in Marvel comics #4839…

>>25489715
Polemic is a very small part of capital, and most of it is just an excuse for Marx to make literary allusions. I realize and understand you wanted to appear smart and informed and on /lit/ people try to pull this off by opinionated bluster, like betting big with a poor hand at poker. However, consider this, it will not actually add to your quality of life if someone who is just as stupid as you are thinks you’re smart

>>25489770
>Polemic is a very small part of capital
no, it's used inherently in the reasoning Marx employs, such as arbitrarily dismissing the risk premium that everyone considers before investing their funds in anything
> you wanted to appear smart and informed and on /lit/ people try to pull this off by opinionated bluster
you'd know of course

>>25489831
Risk has a negative economic value. Investors have to estimate if that value is negative enough to exceed positive expectations. It’s done on a massive scale with countless investments, similar to a casino: a casino expects to lose many times throughout the day. Of course, the casino is not actually creating the money people win, it is taken from losers. The casino “assuming the risk” doesn’t make any difference, no

File: 0 and 00 is a big differe(...).png (1.19 MB, 1600x900)

1.19 MB PNG

>>25489925
>Risk has a negative economic value
oh, no, not to Marx; he just pooh-poohed the idea, basically laughed it off while muttering something dark about exploitation

>Investors have to estimate if that value is negative enough to exceed positive expectations
yes
or in Marxist terms, the positive payment from that venture to the capitalist must at least match the quantified potential loss of risk, to recompense the investor for taking the risk, otherwise the investor simply would not bother
same shit different dialectics
but Marx rejected it and did not give any sound financial reason

>a casino expects to lose many times throughout the day. Of course, the casino is not actually creating the money people win, it is
adjusting the odds of the game so that over enough repetitions of the game, it always wins
paraphrasing Mario Puzo, the percentage is the infallible god of casinos

>The casino “assuming the risk” doesn’t make any difference
this is a different topic: you are now talking about the casino's business model, whereas previously, you were using the casino as an analogy

there is a difference: in reality, investors cannot adjust the odds by adjusting the rules of the game, as a casino can, so that they always win

setting aside the analogy and on the topic of actual casino business, the risk in the game rules is not the only business risk a casino runs
so casinos do in fact go under all the time
Bally's is about to

>>25489952
> oh, no, not to Marx

You haven’t read Marx.

>in reality, investors cannot adjust the odds by adjusting the rules of the game

True, sometimes investors, if they anre extremely ambitious, are closer to professional poker players than casinos, and very often they use the retirement of proles to do it. But I am still not seeing how this affects the nature of value or of fictitious capital

File: file.png (375 KB, 1691x870)

375 KB PNG

>>25490044
>You haven’t read Marx.
And you may have read it, but you failed to understand it.
I was referring to Chapter 7, Volume 1, this paragraph

in this one paragraph Marx proves he not only fails to understand investor risk; he also demonstrates that he fails to understand how a civilisation works beyond subsistence level; fails to understand that work and skills also contain inherent value because nothing can be done without them*; fails to understand marketing, salesmanship and persuasion**; fails to understand specialisation, comparative advantage, and economies of scale; fails to understand supply chain and inventory management; and fails to understand the value of people management

*ironically for someone talking about "labour theory of value", he insisted that labour has no value, only the physical commodities it transforms. but that's typical Marxist stupidity and duplicity for you
**again, ironically, he seems not to understand the value to be gained from persuasion, even as he is writing a document to persuade others
or perhaps he pretends not to understand

and as I said, rather than writing in rational, approved academic manner and letting the facts and logic speak for themselves, instead all of it is riddled with polemic and rhetoric, which is all Marx really is, in order to push nonsense dressed up in populism onto retards like you

>>25488618
>there is absolutely a difference
lol

>>25490080
Marx understood all of those things and planned to cover them, Capital was intended as over a dozen volumes which would include material on banking, credit, all of that. He only completely polished off volume one before dying and he had written two more volumes which were assembled and edited by Engels after his death.

If you even read the list of economists Marx mentions and quotes from and read you would know he was totally familiar with all of those concepts, you are just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks because you can’t even confront his central thesis. And, by the way, it was developed to cover specifically all of what you are talking about by Lenin in the work Imperialism

>>25490170
>he planned to cover them
except he didn't
>his central thesis is correct despite him not finishing the proofs, he would totally have shown the proof of the equation, he just died before it was complete, but you gotta believe that the answer is correct, it really is "42"
lol
lmao even

>>25490192
It is irrelevant that he didn’t because it is impertinent to this theory of value or profit. His proofs for that were entirely finished

>>25490196
>it is impertinent to this theory of value
yeah, because risk, skills, marketing, specialisation, economies of scale, supply chain management, inventory management, and people management all have zero value-add, so it doesn't matter that Marx left them out of his theory of value
also,
>It is irrelevant that he didn’t
>he didn't so it is irrelevant
is a circular argument, idiot

>>25490221
If I risk money on a poker hand, that doesn’t add value to it, no. It has zero value even if I get a big pay out. If I risk my life to break into your house, that also adds zero value to whatever I take. Risk doesn’t add value *except* in the sense of labor being required to obtain something frequently being failed. E.g. a well has certain value but if half the wells dug do not result in a functional well then a functional well is double the value because it takes twice the socially average labor to achieve.

Economies of scale do not create wealth. They are are organization of labor which augments its efficiency

Marketing does not generally create value. It *might* sometimes lead to greater market equilibrium which causes prices to approach value, but that is a different thing and anyway it seldom is about that

Inventory management is labor Specialization

Supply chain management is labor

Specialization of…labor?

This is like complaining Marx didn’t talk specifically about car washing in a capitalist society in his works on its fundamental mechanics. You could go on and on and on about what he didn’t cover because it is potentially infinite and no work or author has ever or could ever cover all of it

>>25490192
okay but he was GOING to, and those unpublished volumes would have been works of absolute genuius

>>25490301
>If I risk my life to break into your house, that also adds zero value to whatever I take.
Sure it does. If two objects are materially identical but one came off the shelf and the other has a fascinating provenance, the one with the interesting backstory will be more valuable

>>25490313
That isn’t value. Value is the price of a good or commodity when markets are at equilibrium

>>25490301
>a well has certain value but if half the wells dug do not result in a functional well then a functional well is double the value because it takes twice the socially average labor to achieve
yes
how can you purport to understand this and then proceed to not understand (or claim not to understand) that this is the very value-add that Marx summarily (and smarmily) rejected?
it's the exact same mathematical formula but simply reworded?

the same principle applies to
>Economies of scale do not create wealth. They are are organization of labor which augments its efficiency
and hence, add value

and also
>It *might* sometimes
actually it often does, but the process is so invisible that most people fail to appreciate it until it is gone
>lead to greater market equilibrium which causes prices to approach value
however you prefer to phrase it, same shit different dialectics

>Inventory management is labor Specialization
>Supply chain management is labor
>Specialization of…labor?
they are all important skills (and nowadays, technologies) that allocate resources in a way that reduces waste, especially wasted time. The fact of the matter is that it can be proven very easily that an organisation that specialises is going to produce goods and services more efficiently given the same resources as an organisation that attempts to treat every worker as a generalist.

>This is like complaining Marx didn’t talk specifically about
It's far more egregious than that. He literally describes this in the above paragraph I excerpted, and then proceeds to pooh-pooh it all in a single sentence or two of polemic.

At this point all this is either wilful ignorance or mala fide.

>>25490398
There is no mathematical formula for value except maybe one so abstract it has no mathematical application and is just shorthand for the verbal formulation

Labor being organized doesn’t add value to the labor, it rather multiplies the productivity of the labor. This actually does the *opposite* of adding value, e.g. a set of clothes prior to economy of scale is more valuable than after the advent of economies of scale.

>actually it often does,


It doesn’t often do so, not today. People in sales and marketing say this as a way of gaslighting themselves into thinking what they’re doing is an important public service because this belief is vital to maintaining the positive attitude and sincerity those sectors demand for success

> they are all important skills

Yes? And? Marx says skilled labor is obviously worth more than unskilled labor but clarifies when he is talking of labor as value he does not mean an individual’s labor but the amount of labor it takes on average for society to accomplish something and all that is of course a part of this endeavor

Investors who take serious risks are considered absolutely dogshit investors and are generally lambasted on news and by capitalists as corrupt or retarded when they inevitably lose a bunch of of other people’s money

File: lolcommies2.jpg (104 KB, 540x410)

104 KB JPG

>>25488319

>>25488319
it's ridiculous. marxists have purposefully disabled themselves from conducting hypothesis tests.
just ask yourself these questions:
Are there any notable investment bubbles before marx?
What were the speculative assets from 100 (50, 20, 10) years ago? Where are they now?

a very simpleminded person might be tempted to say, "we have MORE fake wealth bubbles in the past 10 years than we did in the past!" Obviously, that is because of the internet and faster communications -which marx didn't predict at all.

>>25490883
Are there more speculative assets and more speculation and do they compromise a larger portion of the profit economy than in the past?

>>25488336
The labour theory of value is moronic though, look it up.
Marx's ideas on how labour should be priced were out of touch with reality because the man never did a hard days work in his life.
He was out of touch with the group of people he was supposedly advocating for.

His friend paid for all his shit because he owned part of a trust.

The man was a moron

>>25491240
I have read Capital and it never says anywhere that labor should be priced as x. In fact Marx says labor’s economic value is only the material necessary to sustain the life force of that worker in performing his labor. The problem is you are just really really stupid and basically make Dennis Prager look informed and nuanced by your idiocy

>>25491310
>labor’s economic value is only the material necessary to sustain the life force of that worker in performing his labor
yeah, that's how we got the "doctors should only be paid as much as garbagemen" attitudes that doomed the USSR and Democratic Kampuchea

Marxists are all fucking idiots

>>25491597
No it isn’t you are such a fucking moron, such an outstanding imbecile. Marx is not suggesting that how much a worker gets paid be based on that, he is quite clear that that is how much their wages tend to as markets approach equilibrium (and equilibrium of labor on the market requires anti-union laws, e.g. the Taft-Hartley Acr), he said the idea they *ought* to be paid that much is considered barbaric even to capitalists. Even as they approach equilibrium though, medical labor is more socially average labor; all skilled labor is, because it is always the value of unskilled labor compounded by how long it takes society to accomplish something including the training and labor hours spent by those who fail the training and so on

You are just so breathtakingly dumb it is a shame we haven’t figured out how to use stupidity as an energy source because if we did you would single-handedly solve the climate crisis.

File: spit-take-drink-213470880.gif (659 KB, 220x220)

659 KB GIF

>>25491806
>the climate crisis.
He thinks there's a "climate crisis"!

Your not nearly as smart as you think you are

>>25491809
I am absolutely positive that you cannot even define what thinking is. In any sense, from philosophical to scientific

File: file.png (145 KB, 1712x362)

145 KB PNG

>>25490422
>There is no mathematical formula for value
pick up an accounting textbook
>This actually does the *opposite* of adding value
yeah, because making two hundred shirts as opposed to one hundred shirts is actually the opposite of adding value
fucking idiot
>Yes? And? Marx says skilled labor is obviously worth more than unskilled labor but clarifies when he is talking of labor as value he does not mean an individual’s labor but the amount of labor it takes on average for society to accomplish something and all that is of course a part of this endeavor
NOPE
he blatantly dismisses the concept, both in that paragraph, and then in the subsequent chapters, and on this stupid notion rests his stupid thesis that workers are being underpaid

for example this excerpt from Chapter 19, where he states categorically (in summary of the previous excerpt I posted) that investors ought not to be paid for taking risks
which is fundamentally and monumentally retarded

>Investors who take serious risks are considered absolutely dogshit
irrelevant
you can't do anything at all without taking risk
even a farmer takes a risk when he plants seed; no harvest is guaranteed
or to use your own example, you may dig a well but you risk the well failing if it turns out that water output is neither fixed nor what you thought it would be, and therefore this risk must be compensated

but did Marx care about that?
did he fuck

>>25491806
>he said the idea they *ought* to be paid that much is considered barbaric even to capitalists
except his entire thesis of alleged oppression is reliant on the notion that the workers are underpaid
and he thought workers are underpaid because he refused to accept that management and risk and so on, which investors do contribute, are all important value-adds to the final product, and ultimately to society, that should be remunerated
he repeats it over and over throughout Vol 1

is this why Marxists are still around? they are such total pseuds who don't even know what they're reading that they end up thinking that Marx meant the opposite of what he really said?
dumbfuck

>>25488319
Accurate. Example: Bitcoins and trading real-world money for in-videogame currencies.

>>25488332
'Moronic' was not an option in the question answers, which asked: "Accurate? Or woke?". Furthermore, you make a fallacious and ambiguous appeal to comprehensiveness of a system, and entered a sentence without a verb.

In another word:

No.

>>25488319
Well, look around you. Observe a bit. Do you see a lot of fakeness and gayness? Are yóú fake and gay? Yes, no?

Answer however YOU want. There's your answer.

>>25491832
...the latter of which are EXTREMELY fake and gay.

>>25491822
>pick up an accounting textbook

Formulae for intrinsic value are simply a way of tallying cumulative value, they do not provide said value out of thin air if there is absolutely no idea what it is to begin with.

>that investors ought not to be paid for taking risks

Investors are paid for making money, not taking risks. That’s simply the reality. Especially since a large portion of the investor class today are investing the money of others and are paid based on profits as asset managers. While asset managers must and do take risks, their risks are always expected to be calculated risks which don’t jeopardize their whole project but are offset by hedging and based on quantitive analysis which leads them to understand (in drastically simplified terms) that “x will make money 65% of the time and lose money 35% and so replicating it 10,000 times of comparable volume will be net profitable”. Investors who end up losing the assets of the clients are not considered unlucky but simply extremely bad investors who gambled with the money instead of played casino with it

>you can't do anything at all without taking risk

Right when I drive to work I am risking dying in a car accident

>but did Marx care about that?

Of course, that sort of thing makes the socially average labor required for functional wells rise because it takes into account the labor used in failed wells. This doesn’t make your risk itself valuable because just like individual labor, individual risk fluctuating higher or lower doesn’t increase the value of something. If I take ten hours to make x of wealth when society averages fifteen minutes to do so, that does not make that particular unit of wealth worth forty times as much. If I produce the unit in five minutes of equal quality, that doesn’t make the unit worth a third as much. Likewise an individual degree of risk has zero bearing on the value of something. If you mine a diamond in safe way or a totally unsafe way, it has zero bearing on the market value of the diamond. If risk is required for the diamond, then market value will change to incorporate the socially average cost of labor in acquisition of said diamond including the labor caused or costed by damage or death

File: Pepe-with-communist-hat-o(...).jpg (19 KB, 348x299)

19 KB JPG

>>25489952
>>25490080
>>25490330
Wrong, you're confusing prices with value again.
Value for the classical economists simply meant the underlining substance of a good sold on the market. Their conclusion was simply that given that every commodity requires labor, the substance of every commodity is labor. It's in a way almost tautologic.
Arguing that prices go up because the investor risked his money is completely irrelevant. Arguing about prices in light of value is also irrelevant because they operate on 2 fundamentally different scales.

>>25491822
>his stupid thesis that workers are being underpaid
>his entire thesis of alleged oppression is reliant on the notion that the workers are underpaid
Wrong again. Marx isn't arguing that workers "ought" to be paid the full revenue that they bring to their companies. This would be an ethical critique of capitalism, and it's one he avoids and even condemns in the Gotha programme iirc (although he might use moralistic language from times to times).
The theory of exploitation is simply that for the capitalist to make money, he has to be paying his workers less than the revenue they provided to the enterprise. You're getting filtered by the word "exploitation" which used to be common language, with no intrinsic moral character in the 19th century.

>he refused to accept that management
This shows you have fundamentally not understood what Marx is saying. Unironically read his book. All of the value-creation stuff is about the fundamental necessities for a capitalist economy to function : wage-labor (which requires surplus value and the commodification of labor-power), commodity production (which requires labor to be sold), and private production of the means of production.

>>25492628
Price approaches the reflection of value as markets approach equilibrium. There is no such thing as pure equilibrium just like a geometric point doesn’t exist in reality but as markets *approach* equilibrium, prices approaches reflecting value.

By value of course I mean what Marx calls exchange value. When he uses the term value without any qualification, as he says, he also means exchange value, or what we today call market value. What Marx calls use value is today called utility

>>25488600
>US federal government owes $40 trillion worth of debt
Debt is not fake?
>Nvidia, a single computer chip manufacturer, has a $5 trillion market capitalization (approximately ~$1 trillion greater than the GDP of the entire country of France)
Making close to 100 billion dollars of profit yearly, having grown its profit and revenue by over 2000% in a 5 year period due to AI demand for GPUs. Seems reasonable?
> Tesla, an electric car company with an ~11% global market share of electric battery vehicles (and a minuscule share of total global automobile sales) has a market capitalization of 1.09 trillion; a little less than twice the total GDP of the country of Sweden
Tesla is a cult, the investors believe Elon Musk will deliver on robotics eliminating the need for anyone to work. Also self driving cars are coming and will be standard soon.
>Bitcoin, an online token with no proven real-world use value, has a market cap of $1.58 trillion
Bitcoin is also a cult, that will eventually go to 0.
>Domestic nonfinancial corporate debt represents ~72% of the total GDP of the United States of America
So?

>>25488332
Posts as smugly retarded as this should result in auto bans.

>>25493533
>Debt isn’t fake?
Marx’s concept of fictitious capital includes any capital that isn’t either productive capital or hard cash. Debt/credit, stocks and options are all very much fake according to Marx because they don’t represent real existing value. And he’s right. The entire stock market has become a gigantic speculative bubble and the US can never and will never pay back all the “debt” it owes, meaning no one actually owns that money, meaning it doesn’t actually exist.

>>25490883
>a very simpleminded person might be tempted to say, "we have MORE fake wealth bubbles in the past 10 years than we did in the past!" Obviously, that is because of the internet and faster communications -which marx didn't predict at all.

wrong, shitskin. it's because of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. AI being unprofitable was 100% predicted by marx, even if AI itself wasn't

>>25493779
Capital is stored value like electricity is stored energy. If I take out a loan I am using and hopefully multiplying that energy and then paying back the lender interest (since he did me a solid by lending me his energy, and I should give him more back).
> The entire stock market has become a gigantic speculative bubble
Speculation is good. At its core it is a belief in the future. Who would've guessed that we would have advanced AI just 5 years ago? The speculators were right - and were rewarded. If Musk's Tesla cultists are right that he's going to bring us to space and make work unncessary, good for them.
> US can never and will never pay back all the “debt” it owes
Then don't buy US treasuries? Your choice (ooh "choice" -- scary word for a communist!). Obviously investors disagree with you.

>>25494277
Will hopefully respond to your other points later, but I just want to address this one real quick since it's easy:
>Then don't buy US treasuries? Your choice (ooh "choice" -- scary word for a communist!). Obviously investors disagree with you.
At this point it's a well-established fact that the federal government will almost certainly never be able to pay back the full $40 trillion principal it owes on its debt and it's not even going to try. Right now America's entire fiscal model is to simply pay interest and issue new treasury bonds to reimburse investors for matured ones. All well and fine, but when government spending exceeds government revenue (as it currently does and will for the foreseeable future) this model quickly leads to a ballooning debt, which in turn leads to
>exploding interest payments (creating a feedback of exploding debt to pay off the interest on the old debt)
>exploding interest rates to keep investors interested in the bond market
and, eventually
>severe austerity measures, i.e., spending cuts and tax increases
>expansionist war to open up new markets and resource pools (American politicians and military planners are clearly already preparing for this because they know it's inevitable)

You may have read headlines lately about a "bond crisis". This is just an illustration of the problem and it's only going to get worse if the US continues on its current trajectory, which it will.

Unsurprisingly, a Marxist (Vladimir Lenin), using the Marxist method of analysis, predicted all of this in his seminal work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I highly recommend you read it; it will clarify many things about the existing global financial, political, and military landscape that might otherwise be opaque or borderline incomprehensible.

>>25492628
>Value for the classical economists simply meant the underlining substance of a good sold on the market.
No such thing, there are more objective metrics of value though, like utility, because if someone values some luxury brand garbage it doesn't mean it's useful. Whether someone values alcohol doesn't change the fact it's unhealthy. Whether someone values buttcoins doesn't change the fact it's a waste of resources and energy. Whether people value services doesn't change the fact that a country gets it's power and sovereignty from actually making things. You can value a whole lot of nonsense but at the end of the day you still need food, housing, water, utilities, the basics. This is why command economies can still function because even if millions of people have differing desires it's not as though you can't actually predict and plan what they NEED to some degree, even if it's not the most efficient. Then again the opposite isn't the most efficient either, since people's wants don't necessarily reflect productive directions. However, value in the economic sense is inter-subjective, it's value is what is exchanged for. These subjective valuations are not commensurate, they have no common measure. We can sort of create one with money but it's just a spook. Money can create a sense that there is some objective metric when there isn't.

>>25494526
Refinancing the debt doesn't make it not real. If the US decided to default on its debts there would be serious consequences for the country.
The American government is in this absurd debt-to-gdp ratio because of socialist policies demanding that government take care of people's welfare, social security, healthcare, and education, as well as a WW3 like defence budget far exceeding any nation in the world.
It's politically impossible to do anything about this, that's why they only do things for show like DOGE (either this or the people who rule us are so retarded they thought they could eliminate the deficit by eliminating "fraud").
Politicians are just hoping economic growth from AI and technology will grow the GDP and thus make the debt insignificant.
>You may have read headlines lately about a "bond crisis". This is just an illustration of the problem and it's only going to get worse if the US continues on its current trajectory, which it will.
Weren't you supposed to be arguing that this is all "fictional" - meaning there's no consequence to not paying it off?

>>25494526
>At this point it's a well-established fact that the federal government will almost certainly never be able to pay back the full $40 trillion principal it owes on its debt
Yes, socialism is a surefire route to ruin. Who knew?

>>25494653
Fictitious capital can be fictitious and still have real consequences. If I buy
1,000 iPhones with counterfeit money, the fact that the counterfeit money is fake doesn’t suddenly mean the supplier has no longer lost 1,000 iPhones. Likewise, fact that the US government has been financing its spending for decades with fictitious IOUs that it has no intention of paying back doesn’t make that spending less real nor does it erase the consequences that will occur when that spending dries up.

Regarding your point about “socialism”, I can see that you’re confusing Keynesian New Deal style deficit spending with socialist economic planning. An understandable confusion, since fake socialists like the DSA have done everything they can in recent years to blur the distinction and cause people to use words incorrectly. However, historically actual Marxists have favored hard (usually gold-backed) currency as a self-regulating tool for ensuring that government allocation of resources remains logical and sustainable. Though of course, these Marxists had the ultimate end in mind of reaching a state of general economic abundance where money was no longer necessary, i.e., the higher stage of communism.

>>25494662
Socialism is for socialized banks, not privatized central banks

>>25494741
Central banks don't spend public money. Governments spend it - on socialisation.

>>25494745
Central banks loan money

Governments spend plenty of money on privatization and privatized corporations and always has a double-standard when it comes to the rights of corporate bargaining and contracts of capital versus corporate bargaining and contracts of labor which it regulates far more

File: IMG_3156.jpg (158 KB, 1260x1027)

158 KB JPG

DEI initiatives are all fictitious capital, but you don’t hear Marxist cucks saying it!

>>25494763
Do they even CUM the Constitution? Do they know about trannies in women’s sports???

This is why I MAGA

>>25494752
>Governments spend plenty of money on privatization
How does a socialised institution (viz. government) spend money in the private sector?
Can't wait to hear this one ...

>>25494924
I think the issue is you are begging the question. The government is not socialized, it represents the interests of the owners of private property. The Federalist Papers even say the first duty of government is to protect the property of the propertied class from the laboring class. I don’t think this needs much further elaboration but I am willing to give it such if you are truly ignorant

>>25488784
The rolex uses real japanese quartz, not that fale shit they sell at walmwart

File: AdamSmith.jpg (405 KB, 960x1433)

405 KB JPG

>>25492628
>Value for the classical economists simply meant the underlining substance of a good sold on the market. Their conclusion was simply that given that every commodity requires labor, the substance of every commodity is labor. It's in a way almost tautologic.

It really has nothing to do with this at all, and stems from Adam trying to find a good approximate for to compare real prices across multiple ages and in different coutnries.

He introduces it as you say, but in practice spends much more time linking it to prices, which Marx misunderstood, as is usually the case with him, as he was a fan of the much simpler and easier to understand and midwitted reductionist Ricardo.

>At all times and places that is dear which it is difficult to come at, or which it costs much labour to acquire; and that cheap which is to be had easily, or with very little labour. Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.

>Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human life.*1 But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man’s own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.

>Equal quantities of labour will at distant times be purchased more nearly with equal quantities of corn, the subsistence of the labourer, than with equal quantities of gold and silver, or perhaps of any other commodity. Equal quantities of corn, therefore, will, at distant times, be more nearly of the same real value, or enable the possessor to purchase or command more nearly the same quantity of the labour of other people. They will do this, I say, more nearly than equal quantities of almost any other commodity; for even equal quantities of corn will not do it exactly.

Marx only read this first bit, as he was wont to do, being a breadth>depth thinker, which is why he is so popular with midwits everywhere, like a zizek or j peterson.

SMITH's labor theory of value, is in practice used in 9/10 places to compare prices, not assign some schizo Platonists idea of value.

>>25493737
Define "retarded"

>>25488319
Until my daying day I will stand by the idea that if someone is literate and chuddy enough, they will follow the
Chud>Marxist>Trotskyist>Neocon pipeline

>>25491834
>Yes, a sentence can be constructed without a verb, known as a verbless sentence, but it is often considered incomplete or lacking in meaning. However, these sentences typically rely on context to convey their meaning.
AI reply because you're an ESL retarded fuck (likely a pajeet based on your assumptions that English is an extremely rigid rule-following language, which it is not and never was) and therefore deserve nothing more.
>>25491310
that's not true at all, in fact he specifically states that machines don't have any inherent value except the labor that went into creating them which on false value is patently absurd.
IE I have a machine that cost 100$ to make, and it makes 20X 10$ widgets, how does Marx explain the surplus values here? He said it was exploitation of the people making the machine. But we know nobody got exploited here.
Say the resources to make the widgets suddenly ran out, and therefore the demand for widgets increased. Are the workers that made the machine now even more exploited? of course not.
But Marx's texts are full of such schlock. And if you spent any actual time working in a factory you'd know people aren't getting exploited, they are paid what they are worth for the work they do. Now we could actually re-create these kinds of exploitative situations by importing lots of low-skill, uneducated people from foreign countries here to undercut the current labor class in the US, if you're so worried start there.

>>25495192
>Say the resources to make the widgets suddenly ran out, and therefore the demand for widgets increased. Are the workers that made the machine now even more exploited?
other people itt have pointed out to you repeatedly that value≠ price. why the fuck is this simple concept so difficult for you?

File: Pancake.jpg (25 KB, 499x400)

25 KB JPG

>>25495170
>Trotskyism is the Chud form of Marxism

>>25495170
the Peter Hitchens route. You'll be arguing that skimmed milk is fascism in due time.

>>25495192
>But we know nobody got exploited here.
Untrue. The machine makers are not exploited in the moment when it creates widgets worth 200$. They are exploited in the moment where the machine is sold for $100 but all workers in each step of the process of making that machine from scratch are paid a grand total of $60 while $40 go to the capitalists in each step of the process. (From the mining firm to the processing firms to the final assembly line).
>Say the resources to make the widgets suddenly ran out, and therefore the demand for widgets increased.
Lol what? You are looking at a drop in supply here not an increase in demand. And for exploitation you'd have to consider the actual revenue of the operation and not the price of each individual widget. There's no telling if the increase of price due to poor supply translates into increased revenue.

Infact, the labour theory of value wins here because a drop in supply would lead to increase in price precisely BECAUSE the labour involved needs to be paid the bare minimum to survive despite the falling sales.
>they are paid what they are worth for the work they do
That is true. Under capitalism labour is a commodity for sale. Therefore labour is paid what is precisely it's market value. Which is unequal to the actual economic output that the labour creates and the difference is pocketed by the capitalist. This wouldn't happen and the labour would earn it's full economic output if workers controlled the means of production.
>Now we could actually re-create these kinds of exploitative situations by importing lots of low-skill, uneducated people from foreign countries here to undercut the current labor class in the US, if you're so worried start there.
The funny thing is that, given the capitalist schlock you are advocating for, one would assume that American citizens are actually being over paid because you just admitted that "workers are paid what they are worth for the work they do." But if that were true then it would be impossible to undercut American citizens with immigrant labour unless they were being overpaid