Market value is not what the labour theory of value refers to. Price and value are separate concepts. Smith defined value according to the quantity of labour, which is relatively objective. The subjective value of a commodity is another matter entirely, which Marx was well aware of.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, Smith defined value according to the quantity of labor, which is precisely the point. This is a quasi-communist mistake. The fact that he recognized subjective value makes the error even more mysterious. Had he read the Spanish Scholastics, who clarified these matters at least a couple of centuries earlier and thereby laid the foundations of Austrian economics, he would not have fallen into such a basic mistake -- and Marx would have had less precedence and authority to build on. If you think I've got it all wrong, I'd be receptive to hearing you out on a recorded Zoom call that we can post to the comment section here. Thanks again.
That's a great question. Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I would like to engage with you, but in response to your question, the sentence mean exactly what it says. Here is a recent conference that covers some of the details: tinyurl.com/5yd7da53. If you are knowledgable in these matters and would like to talk about it for the channel, please let me know. Thanks again for asking.
He thinks this is a math question where two negatives make a positive. When in life have you seen two wrongs make a right? The speaker gets the description of the issue correct. However, his claim about the root causes of war is wrong, and very superficial.
all good points except although PRICE is subjective for the buyer, the value of labor input is rendered OBJECTIVE the moment a capitalist prices a good/service in order to make a profit relative to labor cost this relative pricing relationship is absolute, regardless of the market-determined price. in other words, labor has objective value as a function of production itself INDEPENDENT of price. Marx understood this...liberals dont.
4:24 “….Root causes of war are physical and mathematical…” In math, there will always be true statement that cannot be proved. So the root cause of war is not physical or mathematical, that is not profound enough. In other words, materialist argument against a materialist argument (materialistic scientism) is not arguing anything, you’re just preaching to the choir🤦♂️ This is not a math problem where two negatives makes a positive. This is the lived experience where two wrongs do not make a right. Curt Gödel proved this in 1932 and is considered one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the modern era. Jonathan Pageau can help you think if you have patience and if you want to have eyes to see and ears to hear. Your choice to give up your possession and follow the Logos. Your possession are not physical, they are ideas, they are metaphysical. Last nugget I can share is that you don’t have ideas, ideas have you. So don’t be so diluted as to think that you have a new idea here, you really don’t and neither do I. Love is the way.
Was the video actually ten minutes and half got lost? Here I am naively believing that the groundwork for an actual argument is being made. And then... end of video! Is this a joke? :(
@@donaldviszneki8251 Thanks for the feedback. What's definitely true is that I almost always feel like I have a lot more to say. I usually hold back to not make things too complex. I see that for at least one person, in this case, the strategy didn't work. Thanks again for letting me know.
*Calling all Americans* with more knowledge of your political players than this curious Aussie. A serious question: Who, in your political system might be a moderate party force or future POTUS that could steer a path into the next decade where the US pulls back from its militaristic and political hegemony to accept the new multipolar world order of which the US seems so frightened? On the extremes you've got the Socialist Dem Sanders vs the GOP Neocon Hawks .. who look like they'll never give up the dominant narrative of us vs them. And Trump v2.0 would just be a wildcard!. And then there's the deep state who'll crucify anyone who doesn't play it their way. Is the US so divided that a party swing either way will make no difference and just maintain the bipolar status quo? Any hope???
Having been born and raised in the US, it certainly seems like our global hegemony is nearing an end. Since our hegemony is primarily economic, I am watching the US Dollar closely. I expect countries to divest in USD. It appears the BRICS may be attempting this soon. From what little I know of history, collapse of empire is also associated with war and conflict. I would expect UA / RU to escalate. This month, October 2022, it would seem the war is entering another escalation stage (troop conscription, civilian infrastructure targeting & nuclear sabre rattling). I don't see any realistically electable POTUS on the horizon that would change course, except maybe Trump (who doesn't have much of a chance of re-attaining office).
@@jato72 Thanks. Aware of all that. True, US hegemony is being challenged by Russia and friends. But you know, how a threatened bully state digs in more -- and none more so than the US. A there's the president, B there's the system, C there's the people, D there's the global forces. It would take all 4 to bring about serious foreign policy changes. I wanted names! Future presidents? System-busters. I've recently discovered Tulsi Gabbard, and Candace Owens -- both impressive middle path thinkers, imo. And yes, I know they are not of the same party. A dual Presidential ticket perhaps!?! Lol.
@@thedolphin5428 Midterm elections are happening now (I just mailed my ballot). I am interested to see how it shakes out. Your POTUS candidates will be appearing next year. To early to call, but I expect Biden vs. Trump. It is possible the Democrats somehow perform a rare maneuver and run someone other than Biden / Kamala, but I doubt it.
@@jato72 You guys don't have any what we call independents. Your last was Perot, although ... Trump #1 started running without a party. Gotta be a millionaire for the cost, or to have party backing! So it's always Bib or Bob.
Thanks for your comment. Fukuyama is a very smart person. He's just not very grounded when it comes to the limits of democracy as we know it today. He doesn't seem to appreciate that democracy has evolved several times and needs to evolve again if it's going to live up to its potential
You must be high Luis. His loud mouth is one of the most responsible for concerns today. You should take all of his recordings and put them in a Burn bag (CIA). Then put them in the microwave for 6 hours. Then set it on fire. After that get a NATO approved (NSA is ok) degaussing paddle(AML6 KG or something is NSA)and BEAT the ashes with it. I am not sure if there is a NATO approved paddle but that irony would be "thick" Giving him a platform right now is bizarre Luis. There are humans on planet earth, 8 billion who are having issues. And putting his message on a tower and intentionally amplifying it is really weird.
Right an a college degree automatically magically makes you a genius on this? John is a chronic liar and claims Putin has never said he wants restore the Russia empire. I don't mean just the claims recently that Putin literally made I mean ever.... Not only that he uses ver RT language he calls the occupation of Donbass a *coup* against Ukraine and Crimea a restoration rather than a annexation. Fo realist garbage
@@maxpowers4436 lol Matlock... It's not just john. I do not know where you went to college. But until Feb 24th 2022 this critique of Mersh was not really as trendy. I am not sure what happened then. But.
Claiming value is subjective is rather like claimg humans are mailable. He wants cake in his stomach to be still on the plate for his eyes to look at.
Mearsheimer proved to be right. Fukuyama has been humiliated.
Humiliated is a strong word. I would say he was overly optimistic.
The depth of foolishness (of russians) is so gigantic and yet masked so well that you never mind their behavior is that irrational ((
Market value is not what the labour theory of value refers to. Price and value are separate concepts. Smith defined value according to the quantity of labour, which is relatively objective. The subjective value of a commodity is another matter entirely, which Marx was well aware of.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, Smith defined value according to the quantity of labor, which is precisely the point. This is a quasi-communist mistake. The fact that he recognized subjective value makes the error even more mysterious. Had he read the Spanish Scholastics, who clarified these matters at least a couple of centuries earlier and thereby laid the foundations of Austrian economics, he would not have fallen into such a basic mistake -- and Marx would have had less precedence and authority to build on.
If you think I've got it all wrong, I'd be receptive to hearing you out on a recorded Zoom call that we can post to the comment section here.
Thanks again.
@@eismscience this comment would make a more interesting video. Please do it
@@donaldviszneki8251 Thanks for your comment. Can you say a little more about what part is especially interesting?
"Root causes of war are physical and mathematical" What does this mean?
That's a great question. Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, I don't have as much time as I would like to engage with you, but in response to your question, the sentence mean exactly what it says. Here is a recent conference that covers some of the details: tinyurl.com/5yd7da53. If you are knowledgable in these matters and would like to talk about it for the channel, please let me know.
Thanks again for asking.
He thinks this is a math question where two negatives make a positive.
When in life have you seen two wrongs make a right?
The speaker gets the description of the issue correct.
However, his claim about the root causes of war is wrong, and very superficial.
all good points except although PRICE is subjective for the buyer, the value of labor input is rendered OBJECTIVE the moment a capitalist prices a good/service in order to make a profit relative to labor cost this relative pricing relationship is absolute, regardless of the market-determined price. in other words, labor has objective value as a function of production itself INDEPENDENT of price. Marx understood this...liberals dont.
Crypto currency is a good example of subjective value.
Yes, it is, but so is everything else..Value is subjective precisely because every human is different.
4:24 “….Root causes of war are physical and mathematical…”
In math, there will always be true statement that cannot be proved. So the root cause of war is not physical or mathematical, that is not profound enough.
In other words, materialist argument against a materialist argument (materialistic scientism) is not arguing anything, you’re just preaching to the choir🤦♂️
This is not a math problem where two negatives makes a positive.
This is the lived experience where two wrongs do not make a right.
Curt Gödel proved this in 1932 and is considered one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the modern era.
Jonathan Pageau can help you think if you have patience and if you want to have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Your choice to give up your possession and follow the Logos. Your possession are not physical, they are ideas, they are metaphysical.
Last nugget I can share is that you don’t have ideas, ideas have you.
So don’t be so diluted as to think that you have a new idea here, you really don’t and neither do I.
Love is the way.
Was the video actually ten minutes and half got lost? Here I am naively believing that the groundwork for an actual argument is being made. And then... end of video! Is this a joke? :(
Doh! I'm not sure what you mean, but I appreciate your feedback.
@@eismscience It just feels like half of a ten minute video essay. A lot of groundwork, and no conclusion reached.
@@donaldviszneki8251 Thanks for the feedback. What's definitely true is that I almost always feel like I have a lot more to say. I usually hold back to not make things too complex. I see that for at least one person, in this case, the strategy didn't work. Thanks again for letting me know.
thanks for putting me onto this debate, I'm gonna watch it tomorrow
Thanks to you for your interest and comment.
*Calling all Americans* with more knowledge of your political players than this curious Aussie. A serious question:
Who, in your political system might be a moderate party force or future POTUS that could steer a path into the next decade where the US pulls back from its militaristic and political hegemony to accept the new multipolar world order of which the US seems so frightened? On the extremes you've got the Socialist Dem Sanders vs the GOP Neocon Hawks .. who look like they'll never give up the dominant narrative of us vs them. And Trump v2.0 would just be a wildcard!. And then there's the deep state who'll crucify anyone who doesn't play it their way. Is the US so divided that a party swing either way will make no difference and just maintain the bipolar status quo? Any hope???
Having been born and raised in the US, it certainly seems like our global hegemony is nearing an end. Since our hegemony is primarily economic, I am watching the US Dollar closely. I expect countries to divest in USD. It appears the BRICS may be attempting this soon. From what little I know of history, collapse of empire is also associated with war and conflict. I would expect UA / RU to escalate. This month, October 2022, it would seem the war is entering another escalation stage (troop conscription, civilian infrastructure targeting & nuclear sabre rattling). I don't see any realistically electable POTUS on the horizon that would change course, except maybe Trump (who doesn't have much of a chance of re-attaining office).
@@jato72
Thanks. Aware of all that. True, US hegemony is being challenged by Russia and friends. But you know, how a threatened bully state digs in more -- and none more so than the US.
A there's the president,
B there's the system,
C there's the people,
D there's the global forces.
It would take all 4 to bring about serious foreign policy changes.
I wanted names! Future presidents? System-busters.
I've recently discovered Tulsi Gabbard, and Candace Owens -- both impressive middle path thinkers, imo. And yes, I know they are not of the same party. A dual Presidential ticket perhaps!?! Lol.
@@thedolphin5428 Midterm elections are happening now (I just mailed my ballot). I am interested to see how it shakes out. Your POTUS candidates will be appearing next year. To early to call, but I expect Biden vs. Trump. It is possible the Democrats somehow perform a rare maneuver and run someone other than Biden / Kamala, but I doubt it.
@@jato72
You guys don't have any what we call independents. Your last was Perot, although ... Trump #1 started running without a party. Gotta be a millionaire for the cost, or to have party backing! So it's always Bib or Bob.
@@thedolphin5428 Yes, we are very polarized now. No more Ronald Reagan 1984 elections where he carried 49 out of 50 states. Those days are long gone.
I am not sure this was a debate? Does Fukuyama even have a college education? I bet he was the loser who is crying to U Chicago about John
Thanks for your comment. Fukuyama is a very smart person. He's just not very grounded when it comes to the limits of democracy as we know it today. He doesn't seem to appreciate that democracy has evolved several times and needs to evolve again if it's going to live up to its potential
You must be high Luis. His loud mouth is one of the most responsible for concerns today.
You should take all of his recordings and put them in a Burn bag (CIA). Then put them in the microwave for 6 hours. Then set it on fire. After that get a NATO approved (NSA is ok) degaussing paddle(AML6 KG or something is NSA)and BEAT the ashes with it. I am not sure if there is a NATO approved paddle but that irony would be "thick"
Giving him a platform right now is bizarre Luis. There are humans on planet earth, 8 billion who are having issues. And putting his message on a tower and intentionally amplifying it is really weird.
Right an a college degree automatically magically makes you a genius on this? John is a chronic liar and claims Putin has never said he wants restore the Russia empire. I don't mean just the claims recently that Putin literally made I mean ever....
Not only that he uses ver RT language he calls the occupation of Donbass a *coup* against Ukraine and Crimea a restoration rather than a annexation.
Fo realist garbage
@@maxpowers4436 lol Matlock... It's not just john. I do not know where you went to college. But until Feb 24th 2022 this critique of Mersh was not really as trendy. I am not sure what happened then. But.
Prof John is brilliant and smart than Fukuyama
I am writing from Kyiv / Ukraine & just want to remind to not overcomplicate that mindset of barbaric "russian" society!