Jump to content

6 Men Arrested In Plot To Kill Michigan Governor


abrasivesaint

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, glorydays said:

@Merceryou didnt touch any of my arguments on my definition of LTV

I'm using the Marxist definition, which is exactly where is my argument is aimed.

 

Quote

And you misquoted me numerous times.

That's arguing on bad faith and building strawman arguments against me.

Can point to where I misquoted you specifically?

 

As I understand it, your theory (Marx's) is: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity

 

I'm demonstrating this theory is false.

 

Quote

The problem I have with the argument that Labor Theory is just some throw away idea is that:

 

1) if it were just some debunked throw away idea that doesn't need consideration, then why is it still being taught in economics and business schools as fundamental to understanding capitalism

It's not being taught outside of Marxian Economics, and Marxism/Socialism. The idea that it's taught in business school is 100% false. Nobody is taught labor theory of value in business school. Economic theory is broken down into opposing schools of thought and Marxian Economics is the only school of thought still using it.

 

More importantly than it's unpopularity, and consensus among every other relevant school of thought as debunked, it has failed to prove sustainable, or even a preferable alternative to capitalist economies which tend to have demonstrably higher standards of living. If Marxist actually understood economics they wouldn't be Marxists. It's like explaining algebra to a toddler sometimes.

 

Why Marxism is still relevant after 150 years of failure is a different discussion all together. It's never once outperformed, or raised living standards in direct comparison to capitalism. Ask anyone who's lived under Socialism, it sucks.

 

It's pretty much the same discussion as "Why is fascism is still relevant in today's politics" and doesn't mean fascism is right. I couldn't fucking tell you in a 12oz post why authoritarianism is still popular. Both of these forms of economic governance are demonstrably inferior, and cause so much human destruction when compared to free markets.

 

For me, it's a non starter. I grew up in West Germany for 6 years, and could look over the wall at depressed, poor East Germans, with their shit communist made automobiles that blew black smoke and barely ran. Meanwhile on in the free market side we rode on highways with no speed limit in pimp BMW's,  Mercedes, Audi's, Volkswagens etc. and lived richer, fuller lives. I'll never be tricked into thinking central authoritarian planning of an economy is superior to a free market.

 

Truth be told I do read a lot of Marxists though, and genuinely feel like Sanders is much more Authentic, and believe it or not logically consistent candidate than neoliberals like Biden/Hillary etc. Although I disagree, I have way more respect for him than either Trump, or Biden just as a human being.

 

In my opinion Marxism just fails to grasp a core economic theory that actually works, because it's built on top of things like LTV as a central pillar of economic theory. I genuinely think most Marxists do have their hearts in the right place, and don't assume all marxists are just lazy people who want to leach off the rich. It feels like a much more humane way to examine Social/Political/Economic interactions but it's just fails to acknowledge economic reality in several areas. I fully understand why Marxism is appealing. Again, I just don't agree with it.

 

Quote

You must count labor power within the product. 

It's automatically priced in, but not the only deciding factor when valuing a good, or service. The value still remains subjective to both the buyer, and seller.

 

Quote

Is a chair worth more in price if made by hand?

Depends on the chairs makers subjective skills in chairmaking, and the person buying the chair's subjective taste in chairs.

 

Again, it's 100% Subjective.

 

Quote

Is a chair worth more made by IKEA?

Depends, did someone with zero craftsmanship build the chair you're comparing the Ikea chair against in a junior high shop class? If yes, the answer is, you guessed it, subjective. The kids parents might find that piece of shit chair little Billy made with his one handed shop teacher priceless, but it might sit in a thrift store and not even be taken away for free because of it's subjective value on a free market.

 

Also, is the chairs buyer looking to replace one chair in a matching a set they already own originally made by Ikea? They might pass up a chance to drop $200 on a $2000 dining room chair that does not match the set they already have because of subjectivity.

 

Quote

2) By discounting LTV, you are affirming capitalist propaganda that workers cannot negotiate both their worth in the market and their rights as individuals.

That's a straw man. I'm not coming close to affirming that nonsense. Workers can, and do negotiate their wages in free markets, sometimes even on a collective basis.

 

Quote

LTV is not just a theory on employee worth but also an idea that Labor in general has an identity and that owners cannot take away that worth. 

LTV's only function is that it's used to justify seizing property from rich people like Jeff Bezos, who's only crime is conducting completely legal, and 100% voluntary interactions on a free market successfully. Everyone who works for him does so because it's their best option, but I don't need to go into that again. There has to be at the very least a flimsy, easily disproved mental framework to justify taking away what's he's legitimately earned operating on a free market.

 

Bottom line, LTV is easily disproved, and taking away someone's wealth isn't justified by LTV. If you value your labors for less than $15 an hour, so you're willing to trade it for $15 an hour, and a grocery store values your time stocking it's shelves at more than $15 dollars, it will gladly pay you $15 and hour for your time. The worker, who has agreed to the $15 an hour doesn't suddenly own the grocery store, or an additional portion of it's profits suddenly after stocking the shelves.

Edited by Mercer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

I'm not attacking you guys, again lol....This subject is very near and dear to my heart

 

@Mercer

@misteraven

 

You guys are now moving away from LTV to sign-recognition (brand recognition). I confess, I didn't think we would move into this theory since I was really arguing for worker's rights and worker recognition within capitalism.

 

The reason why I called it "capitalist propaganda" is because the arguments you guys presented are talking points that Owners use to keep wages low.

 

There are examples you guys gave that has me digging deeeeep into my pockets for an answer.

What you guys are talking about is something Baudrillard talks about in late-stage capitalism.

 

Within Baudrillard’s analysis concerning advertising, packaging, display, fashion, “emancipated” sexuality, mass media and culture, and the proliferation of commodities; there was a major proliferation of sign-value and multiplied quantities of "spectacle and brand". Baudrillard claims, commodities are not only characterized by use-value and exchange value, as in Marx’s theory of the commodity, but sign-value — the expression and mark of style, prestige, luxury, power, and so on, which becomes a more important part of the commodity and its consumption.

 

From this perspective, Baudrillard says that commodities and products are bought and displayed as much for their brand value as it is or more so than their use value. Brand value has become a necessary part of the commodity and consumption within capitalism. Baudrillard's claim was influenced by Thorstein Veblen's idea of "conspicuous consumption". Baudrillard used Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class and argued that everyone within a consumer society is a "conspicuous consumer".

Society is organized around the consumption and display of commodities so that individuals can gain prestige, identity, and standing.

 

The value of labor is NOT discounted, but that sign value is added onto the equation.

 

(The price of the product at market value + Sign Value) - (Labor Value + Means of Production) = Profit

 

I believe discounting Labor Value within today's capitalism is inhumane.

Sweatshops are used in this way.

Yeezy being made in Pakistan and India where the workers who make the product can't even afford the product is the norm.

 

It's the reason why i love 12ozprophet and the brand name. It's made in America with materials made in America.

Labor value is NOT taken out of the equation, it was just lowered in value.

 

Edited by glorydays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mercer said:

I think I've proved LTV factually incorrect. It's not capitalist propoganda, subjective value is a provable economic fact.

What is the math behind calculating the value of a product, then.

 

Cuz a mechanic adds his man hours and labor to his prices.

 

Contractors add their labor value to their prices

 

Even sex workers give their prices through the amount of labor they provide

 

psychologists are nothing but emotional labor and thats what they charge as a price.

 

you proved nothing to the contrary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Value is subjective. It changes from person to person, and moment to moment depending on an incalculable amount of conditions, and personal preferences. There's no way to calculate one absolute value for something that applies to everyone because that's not how value works. I can understand if you disagree, but you're asking me how to calculate value, as if you haven't read me repeatedly typing this, or understand what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what does this have to do with the terrorists in Michigan?

 

Marx talks about Alienation within the system.

The jobs available within the system are not the occupations that people want.

Nobody wants to work at fast food chains, in telemarketing, in any service industry, or manual labor jobs.

 

Assembly line work takes away the creativity of building something with your own hands.

The labor force then feels alienated from the product they help to make. The product means nothing to them.

 

Marx then goes on to say that anger at their job and the society around them grows to the point of violence.

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mercer said:

Value is subjective. It changes from person to person, and moment to moment depending on an incalculable amount of conditions, and personal preferences. There's no way to calculate one absolute value for something that applies to everyone because that's not how value works. I can understand if you disagree, but you're asking me how to calculate value, as if you haven't read me repeatedly typing this, or understand what I'm saying.

you're going to have to give me some sort of citation to which calculus and the author of such.

 

Because even keynes doesn't say what you're saying. Keynesian philosophy, one of the building blocks of late stage capitalism, has an equation to quantify value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glorydays said:

you're going to have to give me some sort of citation to which calculus and the author of such.

 

Because even keynes doesn't say what you're saying. Keynesian philosophy, one of the building blocks of late stage capitalism, has an equation to quantify value.

Do you understand what the word subjective means?

 

How can something that is subjective be calculated?

Edited by Mercer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Do you understand what the word subjective means?

 

How can something that is subjective be calculated?

if value is subjective as you say, then why do we have laws establishing a minimum wage and state laws that protect labor value

 

in cali, we have california payday laws that tell employers when and how much labor is paid for their work

 

countries that don't recognize labor value also, coincidentally, have slave labor and sweat shops

Edited by glorydays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, glorydays said:

if value is subjective as you say, then why do we have laws establishing a minimum wage and state laws that protect labor value

 

in cali, we have california payday laws that tell employers when and how much labor is paid for their work

 

countries that don't recognize labor value also, coincidentally, have slave labor and sweat shops

Take a moment to think this through... Obviously you're reading a lot of theory, many things that can be analyzed and determined academically don't necessarily translate into accurate real world application. Honestly, like warfare, politics and economics are probably among the best examples of that. You can spend a lifetime studying war and come up with expansive theories, but its nothing like the experience of looking into another humans eyes and ending his life before he ends yours.

 

You know value is subjective, so I'm unsure why you're going through such extremes to jump through hoops and uphold economic theories that you can easily establish as incorrect by your very own life experience. The very concept of value being subject is so routine that it all but defines your Instagram feed. You place value on brands like Supreme, WTAPS and even our very own 12ozProphet. There's very little difference between any of those three, let alone any other t-shirt out there except for the subject value that makes you wan to collect some, but completely avoid others. You're willing to pat a premium for some hype sneaker or hard shell, that inherently doesn't have enough difference in materials and or craftsmanship to make it meaningfully different than the thousands of others out there.

 

You've watched the surge and lulls in these products. There was a time when BAPE commanded astronomical prices and hype. Now, its largely fallen out of favor by comparison. Likewise, we've watched Dunks and Jordans cycle through peaks and valleys of demand, with prices for them adjusting accordingly to the level of demand and supply. End of the day, the difference in materials and labor between the Jordan that languishes at a Nike outlet store is inconsequential in comparison to the friends and family version that Drake gave out that was worth thousands. Likewise, that very same shoe some kids would pay thousands for would be completely written off by my dad that could give a fuck about Jordan or Drake.

 

You see... Subjective. I'm sure you can look at your daily life and find dozens of examples of this. So why keep doing the mental gymnastics to try and subscribe to theories when you can so easily disprove them in practice yourself? Lots of things sound great on paper that don't hold up in practice. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, glorydays said:

if value is subjective as you say, then why do we have laws establishing a minimum wage and state laws that protect labor value

Same reason we have people who believe in Socialism. People want to forcibly change the world through state force and the threat thereof, and majority of them think it's a good idea to interfere with the free market. Minimum wage laws are a little off subject. Besides, the government fucks up constantly, so the fact that a government did something else that kind of relates to LTV isn't a very strong argument. I mean Germany elected Hitler, and Venezuela Elected Chaves, that didn't work out very well for either of them? Just because there's a government does something doesn't make it valid, or right.

 

For a more accurate answer to your minimum wage question (not that I'm giving up on proving LTV 100% wrong here) peoples wages are subjective in value. An employer's may value an hour of one person's labor more than an hour of another's because it's subjective. One person may work harder, be more enjoyable to work with, have better training/qualifications, or negotiated a higher raise using an offer from another employer. Minimum wage laws require the threat of force/punishment by the state, whereas valid free market labor negotiations are completely voluntary in nature, and require no threat of state violence, or coercion.

 

Just like the other example I gave with weed, this subjective value that applies to terms of employment changes. Sometimes the employee becomes less valuable to the employer than their compensation, and the employer has to decide if it's worth it to keep them working there, or not. Sometimes an employee finds a better offer, and they all of a sudden value their labor more than what the current employer is willing to pay them. Maybe the current employer all of a sudden values the current employee's labor more, knowing the employee plans on leaving, and changes the wages they're offering the employee to meet this change in subjective value.

 

I'd like to just stop there, as this is still an effort on my part to show LTV is easily disprovable.

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@glorydaysim back. This thread has turned into a fucking nail biter @Mercer.

 

Id like to clarify one thing and Im going to completely ditch everything else I was talking about last night. 

 

I absolutely dehumanize labor. When I make a hire, it is because the individual can perform a task that 1.) I cant 2.) Dont want to, or 3.) To replace my labor because my efforts are better spent on another task.

 

Im not hiring these people because they volunteer at soup kitchens or do youth outreach or tell funny jokes that make me laugh. While these are noble qualities in a human being, they are irrelevant to me. That doesnt mean i hit them with a stick when they cant perform.

 

 

That being said, I want to go some where else.

 

Trying to jump into this double dutch thats already going 8 million miles an hour.

 

 

If all products have an assigned value based on their labor, how can companies possibly have swinging tiered values one the same product dependent on wholesale purchasing. In your model is seems that a thing should cost a dollar no matter how many you buy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@misteraven

@Mercer

@mr.yuck

 

I love all of you guys and this board and i believe this was one of the best discussions we had on this board in a long time.

 

Now I fully agree with all of you, obviously, whether I like it or not because, and rightly stated by Raven, I practice the very things I go against.

 

The point of my arguments has always been to support the labor class and the recognition of the worker within capitalism.

 

If we all come to the agreement that labor has no bearing on any of today's consumer products, then you cannot deny the slippery slope of ownership.

Employers and owners would be paying labor whatever they think theyre worth without any regard to pricing out the products they make.

 

An enterprising, and albeit shitty owner, might be giving his or her employees slave wages in amounts that are fucking unlivable.

 

Again, my arguments were to defend the labor force and to recognize their value in the marketplace.

 

The one thing I still don't understand is why, if the marketplace is truly a free market, the labor force has no value at all.

 

Isn't skill and manpower a commodity also?

 

That's all i'm asking.

Edited by glorydays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, glorydays said:

 

The one thing I still don't understand is why, if the marketplace is truly a free market, the labor force has no value at all.

This one is easy. It does have tremendous value that is quantified in every terms of employment. Employee compensation is usually an employers biggest expense.

 

 

Edited by Mercer
remove a comma
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mercer said:

This one is easy. It does, have tremendous value that is quantified in every terms of employment. Employee compensation is usually an employers biggest expense.

But doesn't that negate your argument on wavering subjective prices?

 

Employee compensation and price value are not in separate vacuums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand your question fully but no, it doesn't negate the fact that values are subjective, and they are subject to change.

 

This same value subjectivity is the foundation to every voluntary economic transaction you make, from deciding your wages, what you're willing to offer an employee for compensation, or whether or not a good/or service is worth buying for the price that's being offered. This changes person to person, and from moment to moment.

  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glorydays said:

@misteraven

@Mercer

@mr.yuck

 

 

 

Isn't skill and manpower a commodity also?

 

That's all i'm asking.

It can be. But it's not the driving factor of value. I suppose true value can only be assigned to an action once a transaction to purchase has been initiated.

 

I think it makes more sense to break it into two scenarios: product labor and service labor. 

 

In my opinion, product labor has zero value. Thats why manufacturing of goods is outsourced to countries where labor is beyond dirt cheap in an attemp to hedge losses in the event that the product doesnt sell.

 

On the flip side, service labor is predetermined before the labor is exacuted. If the transaction isnt favorable to either party, nothing happens and no labor is expended.

  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glorydays said:

If we all come to the agreement that labor has no bearing on any of today's consumer products, then you cannot deny the slippery slope of ownership.

Employers and owners would be paying labor whatever they think theyre worth without any regard to pricing out the products they make.

As it should be. Can't tell you how many times a kid walked into our studio with a college portfolio and explained how they wanted a near 6 figure starting salary. In a place like NYC this is possible because you have organization like American Eagle that in a creative rich environment is looked at as a shitty job for a designer. Those guys have to pay much more to get designers to skip the many cool companies you can work for by paying much more. Likewise, they have a business that can afford to pay those types of salaries. Many of these same designers had portfolios that I thought to be so weak, it wasnt even sure it worth my efforts and the space they'd occupy to allow them to intern. But the beauty of a free market is all works based upon an equilibrium of what the market can bear. There's only so much I'd be willing to pay. Likewise, there's a minimum a person requires in order to do the work. At a certain point equilibrium as a whole is inevitable because people need to work and employers need labor. If I set my expectations too low in what I'm willing to pay, nobody works for me. Likewise if an employee sets their expectations too high, they simply don't get the job. The main driver in such a system not working is when an authority steps in and sets rules that disrupt the natural balance that generally exists in such a dynamic.

 

2 hours ago, glorydays said:

An enterprising, and albeit shitty owner, might be giving his or her employees slave wages in amounts that are fucking unlivable.

Wages aren't necessarily intended to be "livable". Another misconception that has infected people these days. Minimum wages should not be livable as the jobs that pay minimum wages are not supposed to be careers. The young person that signs up to flip burgers does so as a starting point. You earn some money, you gain experience and skills that hopefully translate into something that facilitates the next step in your path towards a career. Crazy how as a society we're losing touch with something so freakin fundamental and obvious. 

 

So then the government steps in and establishes a "livable" minimum wage. So now an employer needs to qualify the decision to hire or maintain an employee accordingly, as well as compensate for the extra cost (which @Mercercorrectly pointed out is usually the largest expense an employer has), which means they're going to trim staff to the minimum levels necessary to maintain the business, very likely raise the prices for their product or service and certain be far more critical and discerning of who they're hiring. Net result is a lot of people get let go, starting with the less capable and qualified (and generally the poorest), prices creep up across the board essentially erasing the extra income you're now earning. You've now created a much more competitive environment in which the very segment at the bottom that you attempted to help are disproportionately affected.

 

Now we even see it going a step further... Why even bother with human labor and all the expenses and difficulties of maintaining a capable staff when you can just replace them with a robot. Doesn't take much ingenuity to create an automated method of flipping burgers or counting inventory on Walmart shelves. The harder you push on minimum wages, the more the math starts to work on the investment to simply replace that labor force with automation. 

 

Again, stepping stone... Allowing that individual to work to the inevitable conclusion that they should step up to something that is more rewarding, both in terms of their role, as well as the associated income.

 

2 hours ago, glorydays said:

The one thing I still don't understand is why, if the marketplace is truly a free market, the labor force has no value at all.

 

Isn't skill and manpower a commodity also?

Go back and reread all the comments. Nobody said labor has no value. Labor is an integral part of the system. Indeed skill is a commodity and the more scarce it is, the more inherent value it'll hold in most situations. If there's only 3 human beings that knew how to fix the cracked screens on iPhone and the tools and materials were impossible to find, those three individuals would be making a ton of money. But if a youtube video shows how easy it is and half the kids in high school decide to launch side hustles to fix iPhone screens and the materials are cheap as well, eventually the service isn't worth anything because you'll end with too many people capable of the work and not enough iPhones with broken screens to fill that supply of "fixers". Eventually it'll be basically free. So the goal is to recognize this and adjust your side hustle to something else in which your services hold greater value.

  • Like 1
  • Truth 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@misteraven

 

I've read your arguments, and as someone that I look up to, I believe that your arguments hold more weight than the arguments that i put forward.

You have more experience, obviously more, than i could ever amass now, so I concede my point.

 

The thing that worries me, especially about the future, is if corporations and mega-owners continue to abuse their position and abuse their workers.

 

I still support the labor class tho...i kinda want to be on the right side when people start to riot lol

Edited by glorydays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being honest, I don’t want you to agree just because you might look up to me. I’m merely putting a different point of view in front of you and providing food for thought. You (and really everyone) is best served when you take the time to look at the problem, dog out the answers and then draw your own conclusions based off your collective understanding. Part of that process is cross referencing inputs and applying rigor to your conclusions to see if it holds up.

 

it would be a mistake to adopt a conclusion simply because you look up to whoever put it in front of you or skipped all the critical thinking just because an “expert” claims it as truth. That’s kinda how you bought into the Marxism to begin with. 
 

Best advice I can give you is to maintain a skeptical position regardless of who’s making claims or speaking “truth”. Then navigate outwards from there. 

  • Like 1
  • Truth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, glorydays said:

@misteraven

 

I've read your arguments, and as someone that I look up to, I believe that your arguments hold more weight than the arguments that i put forward.

You have more experience, obviously more, than i could ever amass now, so I concede my point.

 

The thing that worries me, especially about the future, is if corporations and mega-owners continue to abuse their position and abuse their workers.

 

I still support the labor class tho...i kinda want to be on the right side when people start to riot lol

@glorydayshonestly gotta throw dap for at least being aware of politics, to be honest you've argued marxism better than anyone else on here yet. Seems like most other people go straight to anger, throwing insults immediately. I wouldn't sell yourself short on your debate skills because you do know your shit. Half the people on here who claim to be some form of Maxist or another have never even read Marx, (or anything for that regard) and haven't even heard of the LTV or know what it means. I was surprised you knew about Keynes too granted most people never even heard of him. Even though I strongly disagree, I've read a couple of books about him, both critical, and in support of Keynesianism and I also find it an interesting topic of debate. Debate is actually one of the main ways I'll learn something and adjust my perspective later after reading up on something I may have missed. Anyway, good looks on this debate, and respect for actually giving a fuck about something outside of just yourself.

Edited by Mercer
  • Like 1
  • Truth 1
  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2020 at 12:54 PM, Mercer said:

I can address the fact that people do want to work at fast food restaurants or they wouldn't apply for these jobs, and show up for work. Why do people do this? 

 

 

Want and necessity are very different things. Corporate strangleholds in a region combined with family, living and societal circumstances will have a mother fucker working a job they despise real quick. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
  • Props 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...