Communism, Gaming, and Larry Summers: 50,000 Subscriber Q & A
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 сен 2024
- An unreasonably long Q & A, there were too many good questions! No visuals bar the questions themselves, you can listen to it like a podcast :)
My Patreon: www.patreon.co...
My Twitter: / unlearnecon
Production by Hobbie Stuart: / hobbiestuartmusic
Artwork by Jacob Cob
© 2021 Unlearning Economics
I am an academic economist from the UK who has long been critical of the economics profession and how economics is used in public policy. Mostly the channel will cover economics with a critical perspective but I aim to educate people about economics in the process, so I'll try to explain key concepts and ideas along the way. That way, even if you disagree with aspects of the videos you will hopefully learn something from them. Subscribe for more!
Chapters
1:00 Mainstream economics
2:39 How I am
3:03 David Graeber
4:03 Learning economics
5:45 Economic measures
6:11 Bad economics
7:20 Pluralism
8:27 Common sense economics
10:23 Land Value Tax
11:30 Influencing mainstream media
12:48 Ayn Rand
14:08 Economic anthropology
15:22 Planned economies
17:31 Unlearning economics
19:13 Econ burnout
21:16 Monopolies
23:01 Marmite
23:41 MMT
26:09 Descent into heterodoxy
28:43 Buses
29:31 Leftist economists
33:00 Overrated and underrated economists
36:06 Historical economist
37:34 Communism
39:45 My research
41:23 Motivation
43:25 Econ papers
46:47 AI
48:10 Gaming
50:18 Interdisciplinarity
51:41 Fiscal responsibility
53:55 Favourite RUclipsrs
55:15 Upcoming videos
56:38 Worker ownership
1:01:36 Studying pluralist econ
1:02:39 Novels
1:03:42 Football
1:04:37 Economics as religion
1:05:40 Universal basic income
References (in rough order of appearance)
Al Roth: An economist who saves lives [Matching] www.bbc.co.uk/...
Debt: the First 5000 Years, David Graeber
CORE Textbook www.core-econ....
Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations, Marc Lavoie
Atlas of Economic Complexity, Ricardo Hausmann et. al
Where Profits Come From [Kalecki Profits Equation], Levy et al. www.levyforeca...
economic-compl...
Reconstructing economics: Agent based models and complexity [power law reference], Mauro Gallegatia and Alan Kirman
Sell Blood, Burn Car, Ride Bus ... ? podcasts.apple...
Shedding Darkness, Joan Robinson
The Methodology of Positive Economics, Milton Friedman
The Priority Heuristic, Brandstatter et al
Come on.
Its a fact we all came here to hear his opinion on Comminism.
Speak for yourself. I'm here for a definitive view on Crash Team Racing.
I am here for football
I just liked the drippy book icon don't come to my house @FBI
Nothing like a good does of larxist-meninist thoery
i saw "communism gaming" and "unlearning economics" and i had to click
"Marxist without the rubbish bits" is probably the closest I've gotten to identifying with a singular economic identity
Analytical Marxism, I assume.
Omni-Marxism
What would you say are the rubbish part of Marxism ?
@@tacituskilgore7035 As an entire social, political, and economic philosophy more than likely the absolute adherence to the labor theory of value, the overuse of dialectical reasoning, and the use of technological determinism over a more pluralistic view of history. Not to say I don’t find value in all of these things, but Marxists, from my interactions, tend to stretch these out well past their breaking points.
The rubbish bits are the best bits!
The rate at which this channel is growing is both well deserved and amazing.
If he grew any faster, we could give him a Tiger status. Or since he's British, it'd be a, I dunno, badger or something. Just some sort of animal to indicate he's growing fast.
Waiting for Pewdiepie to try to diss him.
@@HistoricaHungarica oh shit, it's there a backstory behind this comment?
@@jojomen100 i think its just a joke about how pewdiepie has made diss tracks on fast growing youtubers who might overtake him for a laugh
One of the smartest lefttubers on the platform
"you'll always require people organizing from the bottom-up."
Hell👏 yes👏
I wouldn't say I'm a full-on Anarchist, but the way they see society through the lens of hierarchy and criticize central planning I've always agreed with.
I think they needs to adress more why people like centrally planned things.
For example, that the alternative to central planning is "if you don't like amazon, build your own amazon". Instead of it just being a state company, whose boss you can vote out if they don't have... fair wages, for the boss too (lower for the boss), or wtv.
Also, it makes it seem like people are in their house saying "you know? I'd like to make a fabrics factory". No, people go outside, see what jobs are to grab, and grab them. Maybe you'd like to be the boss of a company, and for that apply for elections I guess. But wtv.
I'm just saying that there's more than that to say, in part recognizing more the attractive of centrally planned.
Also I myself am trying to put all these arguments together (there are a bunch) to have a clear picture of them. And I get the "wanting to create a company and work in it" sentiment. But, again,... what I said higher, having to create a company to fix the current company being a*holes, is . Now govt intervention can be an option too, except maybe they hide info from you, and you're just chasing from behind always the problem.
Idk.
On the discussion of Prof. Wolff, I'd say from personal experience that he's a great introduction into the pasty world of economics. Especially to the salty, armchair spectator basics like myself that grew up in rural post Reagan Texas.
Same but not rural
My guess is that he intentionally speaks at a surface level to make it accessible for the general uninitiated audience. His educational background is as solid as it can possibly get so it's certainly not a lack of depth on his part.
@@the80386if you read his work or watch his latest podcast on dialectics, it's pretty clear he knows his shit.
Thank you unlearning economics for introducing me and many other socialists to market socialism. Too many of my leftie friends think "socialism is when the government does stuff", and for a while that's what i thought it was too. Thank you for introducing me/us to the distinction. You've gotten me into economics a bit more, even if i barely understand anything
Market socialism is the real-life version of vaushes meme-y "super-capitalism". And IMHO it's based af.
It's like seeing Captain Picard on screen only to learn that irl he's played by equally awesome Patrick Stewart
@@EmNought There are problems with market socialism. Which is why it obviously isn't the end goal of an economic system if such a thing exists. It's just the next logical step that will be able to provide for it's citizens while fighting foreign capitalist aggression way more effective than a planned economy, which is a failed and opressive system.
@@justaguy4081 aren't you confusing two meanings of market socialism 1) a form of mutualism with some semblence of individual, collective and state agency I. E.: 'yes companies and enterpreneurship exist but are under democratic control by workers and citizens, and the state acts as an intermediary to prevent the reproduction of capitalist inequalities' and 2) Oskar Lange's system which is in fact a form of marxist-leninist state control with simulated market economic calculations?
As much as I've read on market socialism (which admittedly is not enough) I'm in favour of the first meaning of the term. Granted, I would find some kind of post-scarcity automated system more endearing, but insofar we haven't reached the technological capacity to not coerce people to do at least 'some' necessary work, that's cannot be done spontaneously and voluntarily. And it's not a matter of human nature. It's more of incentivising enough people at once at any given moment for the system to not fall apart.
For me MS is the best thing we can have without a global paradigm shift and under some form of scarcity.
Yes, I'd like it to only be a transitional phase before something better arrives, but it won't be the end of the world if we do settle on MS done right.
P. S. Market socialism as I see it isn't a planned economy. It's more of a guided and goal-oriented economy but indirectly so. With maybe some exceptions like basic infrastructure (roads, energy etc.)
@@EmNought I don't think I confused the two meanings. I'm not in favor of Lange's system. Isn't he the guy who advocates for central planning but this time democratic, or am I wrong? I think I made the need for a predominantly market orianted economy in a transitionary phase clear, in fact it might be the case that at least some parts of the economy will always be market orianted. I don't believe in a way larger state control than already present in social democracies in Europe.
@@justaguy4081 "a planned economy, which is a failed and opressive system."
You are now manually aware that planned economies are so efficient that multinational corporations use them to great effect when distributing resources internally
1:10 Once I had a professor who was way too deep into economic imperialism, and he tried to explain sexual orientation in terms of matching theory. He was going to give an example, so he singled me out, asked for my sexual orientation, and before I could finish saying "gay" he got startled and changed the subject entirely lol.
Anyway, thanks for the lovely video.
I hate this in general, when a professor/teacher just points to you and asks random personal questions in an attempt to make a point. I was once asked about the scenes written from a woman's POV in Ulysses and if I could relate to them as a woman. I am a trans man but wasn't out yet, so it was incredibly awkward. Like not even dysphoric I just had no idea how to answer. I wish the professor had just asked me to give a feminist critique of it instead ffs
Wow, sorry about that. Economists always find a way to ruin things, even with their good ideas...
HAHHAHAAH, that's the closest you're gonna get to seeing a live self-own
Yeah my university has a first year unit called "the economics of everything". I always question why they have that and not a first year unit that introduces heterodox Econ or simply a unit that teaches students to be more pluralistic in their economics.
This Q&A gives many reasons to like UE, but one decisive reason is that he consistently pays attention to women thinkers and writers.
As an anthropology student it was very nice to get our whole methodology validated, because for such a long time, fieldwork has been devalued by positivists and the "serious" social sciences. I specifically chose it over sociology or economics to get hands on experience and actually be able to interact with the people I'm studying more frequently.
As a financial econ major, your channel is so important and has really revived my interest in economics but more importantly how much knowledge I lack and now want to gain.
If you ever have a free second, a list on important/interesting readings would be super helpful. But if not, I def don't mind relistening to this videos for all the economists and papers mentioned
Fantastic content. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite youtube channels. Especially love your thoughts on Georgism/Libertarian-Municipalism/UBI. Would love to hear even more thoughts on economic policies based on anarchist/minarchist principles, particularly the attempt to merge georgism with anarchism as promoted by Leo Tolstoy and others!
I totally share the MMT frustration. MMT people will often say things like taxation doesn't actually finance spending, as if the claim was that we can trace every individual dollar back to it's source and taxation was the only source of dollars, rather than that taxation is what enables spending.
But that's exactly what so many people in the general public think. The belief held by people in the public is that Govt bank account reads "£0" up until the point it receives taxes and then it can spend that money. All that "Taxes don't finance spending" means is that any spending done by the Govt. is not financial constrained by the taxes it collects because none of those actually contributed to the amount in the first place.
"... rather than that taxation is what enables spending." Isn't this basically what MMT says though? Any time Warren Mosler tells this story he always starts with the Tax Liability - i.e. you all must by law pay £X - and then the only way people will get and £ to pay the tax is if Govt. spends £ into the economy first and the collects taxed amount back. But they don't collect it to then finance more of their spending because they don't need to, they issue that currency.
*As a point, I have had conversations with people and could show you screenshots if you like where they clearly show that they believe the only place Govt. gets money from is the Taxpayer which is clearly incorrect as you agree in your statement- i.e. taxation is not the source, Government is.
I mean, MMT does agree that taxation enables spending, in that without it you'll just get uncontrolled inflation.
When your question goes unanswered and the parasocial illusion dissolves
I think you're spot on about Wolff. His target audience is entirely different
When are you going to start a feud with Economics Explained?
this would be fantastic
Yes! Economics Explained is such a neo-liberal, un-critical shill channel.
That guy has zero imagination or intellectual integrity.
I'm beginning to believe it's a psy-op channel, so one dimensional.
Im not an economist or an expert on Marx, but my understanding is that the LTV's primary function isn't really to explain prices in the market, it's a logical construction which explains where value comes from - as a logical construction, I think its pretty solid. I don't think it has to have explanatory power in terms of actual economic exchanges in order to be an important insight, since if you accept the logic of the argument, many insightful conclusions about the nature of capitalist society follow.
The economists have come to hate those early economic thinkers (including Marx), because of, I think, the fact that they actually made attempts to understand and explain the fundamental nature of things. They'd rather play in their paddling pool (albeit an important paddling pool) forever than try and come to grips with the core of anything -- vulgar economics.
Maybe, but without empirical evidence this is not really useful. Marx's predictions ultimately failed to come true, in science, that should be enough to discard the theory or at least heavily revise it.
@@fellinuxvi3541 bourgeois economists' judgements on what counts as "empirical" is laughable.
@@marxwasright25 And? Pretending abstract concepts are empirical is even more so.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Someone hasn't read Marx and it shows. Might want to read Cockshott while you're at it.
As a Marxist one of the more affirming things I experience is that even after 150 or so years, people are still explaining why Marxism is suboptimal or dysfunctional using examples of capitalism in action.
The call is coming from inside the house, people!
marxism doesn’t work because it requires capitalism to work and capitalism doesn’t work
There have been some historical examples of Marxism in action though. Some demonstrations.
@@botero01 This is correct, they're mostly really positive (compared with alternative systems from the same period)
@@blackmail1807 Not liking it =/= not working.
See I'm not a fan of capitalism, but I would never say it doesn't work. If it didn't work it would collapse tomorrow morning and the work would be easy for us.
The problem I see here is idealistic thinking that uses conceptions of human nature or morality, usually remanents from current or past dominant ideologies, which are completely dissociated from the actual development of societies.
@@DeoMachina Like what?
Robert Hahnel was mentioned when Richard Wolff was brought up. Hahnel is the best and clearest voice on participatory economics (Moreso than Michael Albert) and I'd love to hear your engagement with his work and that line of thought.
I love this conversational format for a Q&A. This channel is a treasure.
Edit: OMG Mexie collab coming up. I am dead. All your upcoming videos sound super exciting.
Most excellent.
Identifying as a Post-Keynesian, you're probably a reader/listener of Steve Keen. His criticism of MMT seems pretty salient. Another particular discussion on the topic I found deeply satisfying is Colin Drumm talking to C. Derick Varn on the Zero Books channel.
As for these questions overall, the only thing that was really missing for my taste was something relating to cybernetics (I personally love Stafford Beer and the General Intellect Unit podcast which introduced me to his writings).
Loved the surprise that my comment was in the video! Love the channel, keep it up.
As someone in CS, I think the AI question is a bit more complex due to the mechanical-turk elements of AI; you need large amounts of data to train the program to behave how you want. Even if you have AI distributed equally throughout the UK for example, you incentivize the use of historical as well as cheap (often foreign, I think India is the largest source these days) training data. A lot of that data can be off shored for cheaper than collecting data within the community, thus replicating injustices from those other communities and histories. A coworker was telling me a big issue is in American healthcare, where much of the historical data echos racist tendencies from the 1900s, which is almost required to be used if you want to train an AI on that kind of task, since the scale of non-biased data just doesn’t exist.
I think criticizing planned economies by saying the USSR failed to provide for its citizens isn't really fair, it's the same thing as dismissing markets by pointing to the modern US, like a lot of leftists (regrettably) do. The Soviet model was ONE attempt at implementing a planned economy, it shouldn't be viewed as the only possibility. That isn't to say there aren't criticisms of economic planning in general, I'm sure there are, but the ones you presented here were a bit lackluster in my opinion. I understand you probably didn't have the time to fit all that in, though.
Even better would be to stop repeating coldwar lies, like the " USSR failed to provide for it's citizen", which is clearly false in basic measures of well being.
@@someotherandomman Yeah, it was far from perfect, but the Soviet Union managed to achieve a pretty impressive standard of living all things considered, at least in terms of heavy industry and basic necessities
The failure of the USSR was that they didn't take the time to expect the unexpected, and the same problem is why the USA sucks ass in the exact same department
While I get this, I think that the difference in scale between saying "markets" and saying "centrally planned" is enough to explain the difference. Markets are versatile, you can have capitalist markets and socialist markets, you can have well regulated markets and poorly regulated markets, you can have markets be relegated to a certain part of the economy, or you can have them be the entire economy. However a centrally planned economy is always a centrally planned economy, what other possible model could there be?
@@fellinuxvi3541 well, central planning and planning in general are not the same thing, for one
As a Chemist coming to the end of my masters I've been seeking none chemistry related reading to come up for air between dissertation writing and have turned to economics. Thank you for your book recommendations and the videos you have provided as a pier head from which to jump off from. I hear a very Wirral accent, I think, and as a plastic Everton fan, haha we won (for once).
Seeing economy questions as sudoku is literally how I get over shitty econ 101 classes. Amazing !! good content
Congratulations! It's wild to see the growth of the channels, seems just yesterday you had a thousand:O
I'm so glad you decided to make this channel, I've learned a lot and it's just so incredibly important that leftists properly understand the issues we advocate and that we can actually argue for how and why things should change.
So thank you, I'm looking forward to the 100,000 q&a in two weeks :^)
Thanks for the Ha-Joon-Chang recommendation. I had picked up 'Bad Samaritans' but forgot about it after reading a few pages, not because it was boring, but I got caught up with school exams. After watching this video, I added 2 more books of his to my Kindle and started reading one of them -- 'Economics: The User's Guide'. Extremely readable, accessible style for complete laymen to economics. I should know, I am one xD.
Congrats on the 50k!, thank for putting your time and effort in order to have a high quality debate, hope you channel grows many times over in numbers of subs.
Love to hear the support for ha joon Chang, I had the privilege of having lectures from him at the start of my undergrad this year and it changed my outlook on economics more than any other module yet.
I’m actually reading Olstrom’s “Governing the Commons” right now, just before I flipped on this video. Haha it’s fantastic. I was assigned it for a graduate course in Political Science, tho.
"Maybe I'll fire up Bloodborne on the computer."
silly man
You could do a monthly Q and A podcasty kind of thing. Listening to this makes me want to hear more of your perspectives on things, they're fascinating
I'm not sure why but I suddenly feel the need to be productive in my degree after this video...
You should put a timestamp at 00:00 in the description , so that bookmarks will show up on the video player
So that's why some videos have them and others don't. You learn something everyday.
There are the videos I wish you would make someday (basically your opinions on these topics). Please do consider them. It would help leftists without an economics background (including me) a lot.
- mixed economy of china
- labor theory of value
- the philosophical basis of marxism : dialectical materialism
- role of geopolitical tension and conflicts in global economy
Hi! I'm taking A level econ and you've made me really love the subject! The stuff we do at the moment feels really slow/just uninteresting but this channel has introduced me to loads of concepts I can't wait to study in the future! Are there any particular books you'd recommend to someone who wants to learn about the more off topic subjects and ideas in economics but who doesn't have very solid foundational knowledge of economics yet?
Thanks for answering my question! I checked out the CORE website and it looks really cool. Hopefully I'll be able to start working through the text soon! There are a lot of topics I want to tackle where not being a complete ignoramus on economics is prerequisite.
I'm stoked about the excellent recommendation and am looking forward to your next video!
Before starting that, I recommend reading Ha-Joon-Chang's introductory "Economics: The User's Guide". Extremely readable helicopter view of the entire field (including criticism). It's a great mental model to have in mind before starting with the more rigorous CORE textbook.
@@glokta1 thanks for the recommendation, just bought it!
I feel like a de-centrally planned economy can answer some of the critiques of a planned economy
*decentralized planned economy like participatory economy which he didn't even mention which surprises me for an economist or he simply doesn't want to mention is as it could go against his idoelogy of market socialism.
I don't think he's against this, but historically, all societies which tried decentralized planning required the state, as he points out in the video. Planning within production units can be done very effectively with ownership of the commons, but across production units, calculation problems tend to arise.
Besides, as he talked about in his video on housing and breadtube, sometimes markets just work better.
As an addendum, maybe the Spanish experience serves as a rebuttal. Although Catalonia was anarchist in principle, and the communes were organized communally, coordinating between communes was really difficult, and if I'm not mistaken, they sometimes needed to be taxed in order to share their wealth.
I love that you have read Graeber, he was a help in my radicalization as well. His essay "Against Economics" is a great little polemic as well.
Slavoj Žižek, who considers himself a communist and is a Marxist, also thinks that something that functions like state is necessary, he even says that such thing needs to extend globally. Now, being a communist and pro-state seems contradictory... but he's also a Hegelian, so that checks out.
Communists often said that „state“ just means „the instrument of the power one class holds over the other“. Without classes, there would be only administration but no state. In it Self that’s not a contradiction. I can’t really imagine what that would look like, but that’s beside the point I guess….
Thanks for the Q&A! On the topic of left-wing economists, what do you think of Anwar Shaikh? I have been (very) slowly working through his 2016 book/textbook and enjoying it so far, especially with how he covers and presents different theories and what their takes are on particular issues. I'm a bit unsure how to place him in terms of heterodox economics overall though, since I mostly hear kind of vague criticism or vague praise from more lefty folks, and not much at all from more mainstream people. However I still roughly get the impression that he is at least "prominent" or "important" in some sense as a left-wing economist lol. I'm sure I'll have a better sense of things once I am done with his book in terms of his particular take on things, but I'm curious what your take is.
Woah, surprised at seeing the university I work for mentioned on here! Really neat!
Congrats on the continued growth, hope you can keep it up
There's an old adage: All models are wrong. Some, however, are useful.
I forget who first said that. I think it was about physics. But it applies in econ too. Models can be useful, but when you trust the model over actual evidence, then you are forgetting that it is, inherently, wrong.
Statistician George Box
Could you elaborate at some point on your criticism of planned economies? You stated the economy of the USSR didn't work and I think it would be good to explain by what metric you measure it a failure and how central planning caused that failure. I've always found this a very sticky topic to unravel, one I still don't understand down to its specifics, so I would love to hear your take.
I want to know how he differs "planned economy" from "market socialism" when under all considerations that are completely similar in method and focus?
Or is the whole enlargement for one and against the other based on a subjective belief that socialist is "communal"
From what I understood, his criticism of central planning is mostly moralistic (a body taking decisions for too many people, considering this is a bad thing is just an ideological appreciation, as respectable as an opinion that it can be).
Then this finds a contradiction when he does not consider that decentralised communes would be much effective, which shows a clear distancing between what he sees as correct and what he sees as possible. This distancing has been long solved by dialectical materialist philosophy imho.
I found his " Large economic organizations/ the State cannot ever be fully justified" immediately followed by " these types of organizations are a necessary evil" very telling.
Yanis Varoufakis is one of my favourite leftist economists, and very high-profile. Surprised there's no mention
Yannis Varoufakis is great in theory but when it comes to practice he is so narcissistic that he cannot realistically achieve much. I am Greek and voted for the party that made him finance minister, I remember him talking in TV back in 2013. I was enthusiastic about his potential as a finance minister. All he did was ruin the progress that was done by our economy and needlessly antagonise our debtors. Despite that I would still vote for his party to be in the Greek parliament simply because of his theoretical knowledge and his input on many matters. In general a great theoretical mind but terrible when it comes to implementing and negotiating his policies.
@@keepitflowyartem3973 I take it you disagree with his autobiography btw? He paints himself as very moderate and conciliartory in it.
I did this quite off the cuff so there's a lot I didn't mention, Varoufakis is good though!
@@keepitflowyartem3973 what would you have had yanis do differently?
@@Happyduderawr Honestly I agree with all his theoretical opinions but because I live in Greece, I have seen his day to day behavior in the parliament. He has been stopped by police and he used his position as a politian to scare the cops that stopped him. He usually sets high moral standards for others but doesn't keep them himself. I just can't trust a person like that. I want him in the parliament I just don't believe he can be a leading figure in my country's or the worldwide Leftist movement.
oh my god, I LOVE 'THE CIDER HOUSE RULES.' i jumped outta my chair when you mentioned it! it's such a beautiful warm treasure of a book. it seems like it's gonna be a pretentious, great-American novel wannabe book but then it turns out to actually be brilliant! I love you more now
what you said about anarchy is interesting. I also wonder about how we would make big projects (like updating infrastructure) under anarchy. I don't mind having a body of delegates just as long as there are no borders, a monopoly on violence, or private property it's not a state, so it's all good.
also, I almost majored in econ but I love anthropology so the classes didn't make any sense to me. I went on to do history but I love hearing an econ major say that the classes could have been better. it's very validating. thank you
John Irving is pretty underappreciated among contemporary literary figures. He's not really postmodern and experimental enough to appeal to some folks but he's also not really sentimental and didactic enough to appeal to other folks. But when you read something like The World According to Garp you wonder why any other books even try to exist.
The problem with comparative advantage is not the theory of it, but the narrative of it. The narrative presumes a simplified understanding of what "advantage" looks like. In countries that have provided generations and generations of investments in high quality public education, those countries are going to have comparative advantage on high skilled workers that is hard, if not impossible, to catch up to (Similar to the stacking effect of value that happens with social media).
You can also simulate comparative advantage. In CA, it is incredibly inefficient to produce almonds, but that doesn't matter, because CA is willing to absolutely devastate its environment and waste enormous amounts of water to tap the almond consumer market.
Yup, absolutely this. There's so much that's detached from "geography" or "natural resources" of countries which was pointed to in my early econ classes as a key part of the narrative of competitive advantage, but so much of comparative advantage today is built on POLITICAL facts which are not fixed features of the land but creations we decide to promote or acquiesce to.
I don't agree with the idea that education is impossible to catch up to at all. My grandparents on both sides were rural dwelling farmers who never would have dreamed of being able to get a university education, but my parents both went to university and became chartered accountants, which wasn't in any way an isolated phenomenon. From one generation to the next there was a huge change. It can take some time to build up education infrastructure, but once it's done it's absolutely not a permanent competitive disadvantage. Just look at a country like South Korea which went from being extremely poor at the time of independence to now being a fully developed country with a huge tech industry that competes with or even outpaces many western countries that industrialised hundreds of years ago in certain regards.
Certainly it's possible, but how many countries did what SK did? SK required a lot of special case things happening.
(Noob Question) I agree prices shouldn't warrant a full 'theory', but isn't the labor theory of value more about the nebulous concept of 'value', rather than about pricing? I always read it as more of an answer to 'why do commodities cost anything?' and 'how is that final price distributed between worker and capital?' rather than 'why does commodity X have price Y?'
You are correct, friend.
That is a really great video, I'm going to use this as an opportunity to talk about how I very much appreciate this channel for making me think more critically about my studies.
Your plans for the future sound interesting. For one, I'm regular watcher/listener to Mexie's channel/podcast, but next topics you mentioned sound even more interesting.
I would really like to see you tackle market socialism vs more Anarchist or orthodox Marxist versions of communism, I often get doomer-vibes from 'econ' and 'markets' etc but these few videos and especially the question about 'Why not communism' does make me very curious!
Edit to elaborate: I feel I lean to agreeing with you that we need more answers for our highly complicated distributions etc etc, I'm leaning to your answer but as mentioned above, the market part feels really icky, I feel I've been very disillusioned with markets and such because I do feel that even under co-op style workplaces I can see similar contradictions for instance on local vs local scale, or classically; nations vs nation...
Also, when I say 'the economy is made up' I mean it's not cut in stone, mallable, we developed it around ideological lines and will do so again in the future, in Fisher's terms; there *IS* an alternative, we just gotta find it... But I'm sure plenty people just are tired enough of the things around it and just want to yeet economies
15:22 Yeah, that's why I prefer some form of participatory planning. Central planning creates big bureaucracy and just replicates the same thing that the corporations do.
I agree about how participatory planning is necessary. Although I would say that central planning in the 20th century is different compared to how central planning could work in the 21st century. The leftist RUclipsr "Tristan Won't Shut Up" put out 2 videos about how Amazon and Walmart are examples of planned economies that work and how their models could be altered to being more participatory and leftist in nature. It's an interesting watch.
@@ajiththomas2465 Step ONE needs to be democratisation of the work place. It's a tangible material change that effects everything from the ground up.
@@tombrown407
I definitely agree with you there. I am very much in favor of worker co-ops and unions. The main point I was saying is that modern technology and tools makes it so that the idea of a centrally planned economy (for the people) could work in the 21st century, with big companies like Amazon and Walmart being run like centrally planned economies, as stated in that video I recommended. Not to say that I fully agree with the idea of a centrally planned economy but I just want to point to a video that I think asks done good questions.
@Nifty Swarm I think these measures would not be enough to offset the undemocratic nature of the USSR. What I mean by this, though, rests on a conception of democracy that I take from Aristotle and Paul Cockshott (the latter being the man who introduced it to me). Democracy used to mean rule by the common people, rule by the poor. To achieve this requires mass assemblies (akin to referendums today), random selection of citizens onto councils that carry out administration (a.k.a. sortition), and the control of the law by the people (through juries). This was practiced in ancient Athens, where elections were only used for offices that required specialized knowledge. Any system that bases itself on election rather than sortition leads to oligarchy.
I base myself on Chapter 13 of "Towards a New Socialism": ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
@Nifty Swarm I think it fair to critique the exclusion of women, slaves, and foreigners from citizenship; this is not something we should try to replicate. However, Athens was a democracy where small farmers and artisans ruled instead of the slave owning aristocracy, so the Athenian system serves as a good example of democracy within a class society. Of course, we ought to expand on this experience and subject as many aspects of society to popular control as possible. I think, at the very least, sortition provides a strong counterbalance against exploiting classes.
The point about data is very true. Often those in power seek out data to confirm their biases/positions, rather than empirically studying the world to actually understand it better. Any even if they do, the challenge of interpretation would still get in the way of any planned economy as you mentioned.
The Dispossessed!!! LeGuin is wonderful, was delighted to hear this on your favorites list
I'd like to hear thoughts about sovereign wealth funds/ social wealth funds especially when used with dividends and soft economic management. Also, about energy currency.
I almost never watch Q&A videos but made an exception here because I knew it would be informative and interesting; I wasn't disappointed. But I am disappointed that I missed the chance to ask you a question.
I recommend looking into Jason Hickel's work. He's also very academic and rigorous but very readable.
I'll be blunt: I find him very subtely intellectually dishonest. His numbers and reading of reports is always a little off when I go to the main sources, even if he does make a number of valid points.
You're absolutely wonderful, I can't thank you enough for these videos! So informative and non-ideological, which is incredibly rare in left-wing circles.
I wouldn't say he isn't ideological, but he certainly backs up his beliefs, critiques and proposals with a nuanced analysis of the evidence. That's I think what's missing from leftwing (or any) discourse.
@@juanpablograjalescanseco28 Yeah, maybe "non-ideological" is taking things a little too far, but his videos are far more nuanced and generally feel like he's drawing his politics from his analysis rather than the other way around. That's more so what I meant.
The Larry Summers rant gives me life
I'm so excited! I've already cut things pretty thin, but next time I do my budget I'll try and fit you into my patreon.
Now that I’ve heard your views on cybernetic central planning, I gotta say that I think it’d be really worth it for you to engage with some of the ideas proposed in “the People’s Republic of Walmart”! All your concerns about undemocratic planning and the like are addressed in that book, wherein the authors advocate for the kind of economy you seem to be arguing for (ie an economy made up of highly democratic, worker-led cooperatives with some sort of democratic central coordination body that doesn’t have some sort of all encompassing mandate to do whatever it wants). They just mean to say that the kind of complex coordination required for a modern developed economy is possible through modern computational power, and that that power can and should be used democratically
I don't think he really addressed "cybernetic central planning", as he never used the word cybernetics. He just addressed central planning in general, using more computing power. But as Stafford Beer pointed out already in the 70s and actually started to implement in Chile, using computers for a planned economy doesn't require vast amounts of big data first and foremost, but requires good models, real time networks, and democratic participation.
Check out the General Intellect Unit podcast as well in case you haven't.
@@DankAudioStash24 maaate I know all this haha 😄 (included GIU 😉). I just used “cybernetic planning” as a shorthand for what he did talk about, that being using computers to solve productivity problems of planning (ie the absence of price signals). And Stafford Beer did indeed say that, but Chile in the 70s wasn’t on the same level of complexity as say the US is today. Plus more modern computational methods and the like would still boost efficiency, even though we wouldn’t have necessarily needed them to run an economy well enough. That’s even true to an extent with the Soviet Union
@@DankAudioStash24 I should also add that in my original question to him for this q&a, I mentioned Stafford Beer and Paul Cockshott as part of my question to him on planning. This new comment of mine is essentially a continuation of that basically so I hope that clears up what my intentions were with my comment here
@@Jokkkkke Nice. 😁👅😁
@@DankAudioStash24 Sorry if I sounded dismissive or even flippant earlier btw! I can see more clearly now that from your og pov, it wasn't necessarily obvious that we were on the same page from the beginning. Anyways, glad there are more fans of Beer here! The man deserves more attention. Happy you brought him up because that point is still salient, no matter how much technology has progressed since the early 70s
First of all, I just wanted to say your videos have been incredibly informative and thought provoking. I also wanted to ask if you had any plans to publishing a video or discussing health economics or your opinion on universal healthcare? Also wanted to know if there were any economists or papers you would recommend in relation to the previous subject matter?
Brilliant as per, would love a maybe shorter video on an ageing population and what it means for the economy.
Thank you so much, UE, for treating data as plural
The idea of a land value tax makes me think about the story of how alot of already rich people im Newfoundland: fishing collapse in 1992, oil production begins in 1997, oil boom 2002-2014. The government went nearly bankrupt in those first five years and sold crown land for pennies per hectare. Said land was sold at 1000s% markup and filled with McMansions in the oil boom.
Happy with the brazilian representation
Very interesting Q&A ! But I wonder, what do you think the « bullshit parts » of Marxism are ? As not a Marxist myself, I find quite hard to really put into words what I think is wrong with this doctrine sometimes.
Highly recommend the discussion between Colin Drumm and C. Derick Varn on the Zero Books channel on precisely that topic.
@@DankAudioStash24 I'll look it up, thanks !!
@@DankAudioStash24 Hi, I know it's been a year but I'm interested in watching the video that you're talking about here and I can't find it. Could you please send a link here?
Koopa Troopa and Dry Bones are peak taste my man
please play Bioshock 1 and 3 on live and critique its social theories
Man I really disliked bioshock :( Not a fan of shooters, really.
@@unlearningeconomics9021 wow very sad. As far as shooters go though, the shooting part in Bioshock is pretty unimportant.
PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF WORKER COOPTS
He said in this video he is working on a very in depth video on worker co-opts.
This was great. Appreciate your insights and am looking forward what you have in store.
In regards to the UBI question at the end, most of the proposals I’ve seen for one are more about giving people supplementary money on top of what they make from working rather than giving them a fully livable amount of money. Yang’s UBI plan for $1,000/month wouldn’t be enough to live off of anywhere in here in the US so you’d still have to work on top of the cash you’d unconditionally would receive.
I think if you do run into the problem of having too much of a UBI that I’d stop people from working. You’d probably have to bite the bullet and means-test it so that people who are unable to work because of disabilities and such can get enough to live off of without working while those who don’t have those disabilities and can work would only get a supplementary amount.
But who knows, maybe people will just still work regardless of how much the UBI gives them 🤷🏾♂️
Studied history and political science and hearing Polanyi's name triggered a core memory.
shadow priest two for two
An idea, maybe a bit niche but do you think it could be interesting to cover the Chancellor's budget?
When mainstream press cover Sunak you get a lot of...weird stuff like actual religious iconography lmao
I'm interested in what economists think about the current plans
As a leftist who doesn't know much about economy I'm very grateful for your channel, thank you!
How can you even say such a thing with a straight face? If you don't know much about the economy then how can you identify as anything!? Take a couple minutes and reread what you just said 20 times.
@@creamperson9135 I spent months researching the topic of left-wing economics before identifying as a leftist. I'm not an economist so unfortunately I know that there are aspects I'll never be able to understand, but I listen to what leftist economists have to say and try to understand as much as I can. If one had to understand every single aspect of economics in order to identify as anything, close to no one would be involved in politics.
@@leilahassani2988 You’re not getting it... Read what you just said 20 times, seriously. Try to see what’s wrong with it.
@@creamperson9135 I understand what you're implying. And I'm saying you're wrong.
@@leilahassani2988 Think about your preference for left wing economists. Now notice the circular reasoning you’ll use to justify this preference.
@17:00 An economist and computer scientist named Paul Cockshott talked about this specific subject. It would be really cool to see what you think of his theories.
reeeally looking foward to your video about alternatives to capitalism!
I very much disagree that planned economy does not work in developed economies. quite a lot of things need to be produced on a regular basis, at scale. building materials, energy, vehicles, clothing, basic food can be planned for, because their consumption is stable, with seasonal variation only. all the natural monopolies are also a place for planning. everything that relies on pre-order is done via planning (from import substitution, to building an LHC).
No way I'm translating this
The Economics in school reminded me of when I studied it in school during the GFC. I had an economic teacher who would give us 3 hours of homework a night in the subject. The country got bailed out by the IMF and the only homework she gave was "watch the 6pm news!!!"
I haven't had any bad experience with debating MMT. The thing I criticize the most is fractional reserve banking. MMT talks up the "sovereignty" of money but banks are the ones that create the most money. I don't think it's good for the economy for banks to loan money just for profit. That probably largely responsible for boom/bust cycles. So go to a full reserve or positive money banking, and only the US Treasury would create money to fund a full-employment program. That is Chicago Monetary Reform. My twist to that would that the employment funded would be for cooperatives.
Could you argue that Engels was doing anthropological economics?
been watching your channel since philosophy tube housing crisis video. Keep up the great work!
so your take on mmt is something like this (feel free to correct me if I am wrong):
A:"ifwe dont need taxes for spending why not make tax 0"
B:"because taxes are needed to control inflation"
A:"so you print out money, wait for inflation to happen to find out you dont have enough, and then tax it. Sounds like using tax to pay for something but with extra steps"
Im not necessarily here to tell you that you're wrong, just that you dont have the argument right:
1)The argument is that taxation is not only meant for controlling inflation. It also aims to reduce inequality (which can cause inflation if the hoarders spend, on top of ruining democracy), along with disincentizing bad behaviour (i.e carbon tax)
2) MMT acknowledges resource limitations cannot be circumnavigated by printing money. If you have an unemployed sector of the economy, printing money to get them to work wont require taxation or cause inflation because you are utilizing an unused resource for productive activity. However, if you need 3 million tonnes of gold to build a rocketship, and there is only 4 million available, a redistribution of resources is required where printing money would not help (and would cause inflation)
I agree, his "substantive criticism" of MMT seems disingenuous in that he's interpreting "taxes don't pay for spending" as "taxes are unnecessary", and then claiming that his interpretation of MMT contradicts MMT when it states that taxes are necessary to control inflation. Seems like he has more of a personal issue with social media interactions regarding MMT, than he does with actual MMT material.
_The Dispossessed_ is your favorite book? I am vibing and I am subscribing.
-...Did I use "vibing" right? I don't know how you kids talk sorry-
Thank you for answering my question :)
23:41 "You spend what you want and then when inflation increases you use taxes." I think you miss a very crucial point that MMT raises. What is the limit to government spending and when does spending cause inflation? The neoclassical and orthodox answer is that spending should be limited to the amount of tax revenue. You don't suggest a limit, just that we "spend what [we] want." For MMT and Post-Keynesian frameworks it is the limit of real resources (labour, machinery, resources etc.), or in other words how well aggregate supply can keep up with aggregate demand. To me Bill Mitchell does a lot of important work studying this, particularly showing the immeasurability of the NAIRU. Knowing the real limits to government spending is not "fruitless", it should be one of the most important areas in macroeconomics.
Thanks for answering my question m8
For your future work on New Optimism, you should check out the book "The Glass Half-Empty" by Rodrigo Aguilera. His blog has some more interesting posts like "The New Right Ecosystem".
Thanks
how could someone dislike this
His question didn't get answered first.
Thanks so much for the helpful links in the description!
Thank you so much for your channel. It's my favorite by far. What do you think of Michael Hudson?
I have now seen all of your videos, and your deadpan humour always makes me laugh, I think you’d make a great Joan Robinson:) I appreciate all the economists you recommend, particularly the female ones, and your work has definitely made me want to go out and read more so I’ll probably start there! Also going to read Repossessed, I love that you’re an Ursula K Leguin fan. I’m looking forward to a more in-depth video of UBI, particularly how it would work with inflation, one thing about it that not many people seem to talk about is how UBI would make ‘women count’, as in, it compensates everyone (all genders) for the unpaid labour they do that society couldn’t function without. I think you mentioned making one and you’re a creator whose pragmatic lens I would trust to capture the pros and cons as accurately as possible.
Project Cybersyn anyone ?
computers can be used to fix the downside of centrally and de centrally planned economy
almost like the central nervous system in the human body
it is centrally planned but there are semi-autonomous parts that are overridden only when a problem interrupts normal functioning
also the brain deals with information overload by ignore repetitive information
Best breadtuber out there
What's a breadtuber?
@@lalitthapa101 A leftist RUclipsr
@@lalitthapa101 leftist RUclipsr
@@thorkellhyden9694 ohhh thanks👍. He is a leftist? I didn't know that
@@lalitthapa101 Breadtube is named after Peter Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread because it was originally a reddit term for obscure anarchist youtubers. It ended up referring to every leftist (and some left-leaning liberal) youtuber in existence (as with all obscure online leftist terminology, l*berals eventually stumble upon, and ruin it) and then it morphed into referring to famous (mostly social democratic) youtubers some leftists (rightly imo) get mad at for not being revolutionary or motivating people to organise.
I have to disagree with idea that economic planning can't work. We more or less see the application of cybernetics in Amazon and Walmart, and I dont believe, at this point in time in 2021, we're short on the computing power necessary to scale this out. This isn't to say I'd advocate for the abolishment of markets overnight, but I think a hypothetical approach could be to gradually phase out markets wherever possible, essentially render them obsolete, and if there are still a few niche industries or sectors that simply can't be done away with, then so be it, but I think the application of cybernetics, IoT, blockchain, etc. could largely eliminate the need for market coordinated economic activity.
Yeah I am pretty facinated by cybernetics, need to read up on it, I think the main issue is how you democratise the planning process, as he said in the vid, central planning holds a lot of politcal power. Could you expand on what LoT is?
@@johnwright7916 Yea, I would agree that ensuring a democratic process is a serious concern as it relates to building out any centrally planned political/economic system. That said, I think cybernetics offers the potential for a significantly more democratic and integrative system, if properly implemented, which granted, is easier said than done.
IoT = Internet of Things
Hey, I remember that godawful Friedman snippet from my own economics classes when I studied political science. It really was the only economics methodology text we read. Now I feel kind of proud for thinking "something is fishy about that argument", even though I was still a somewhat milktoast economic liberal :D
17:25 But that doesn't exclude a planned economy. Doesn't "planned economy" encompass just about every mode of distribution that isn't based on exchange?
On a related note, might I recommend Neil C. Fernandez's Capitalism and Class Struggle in the USSR: A Marxist Theory?
What system does not have exchange of any kind?
@@fellinuxvi3541 Any pre-credit economy like immediate-return hunting and gathering as well as planned economies, including business-internal planning like what makes Walmart and Amazon so efficient.
@@TheJayman213 Ah, yeah, you're absolutely right about hunter gatherers, but you have to take into account the very simple goods and services we're dealing with.
As for big companies, I would not call them efficient by any stretch of the imagination, they create massive waste and are arguably becoming responsible for their own destruction.
I hope you make a video about the LTV in the future where you expand on your opinion. Because so far I am under the impression that the LTV is indeed a very scientific theory which is able to make predictions, as is shown by the works of Shaikh, Cottrell, Michaelson, etc.
PS: Also have you engaged with the Cockshott/Cottrell modell of cybernetic planning?
The LTV is flawed and cock-shot/cottrell model of cybernetic planning is also flawed.
@@mementomori1749 can you elaborate?
Just a statement is not enough
@@LibertarianLeninistRants The LTV postulated by Marx pushes all heterogeneous human labor into this homogeneous socially necessary labor unit, and Marx completely disregards capital or animal labor as a source of value (while providing no coherent explanation), it's also irrelevant since it doesn't explain prices. In regards to cock-shott's works on the LTV, he used wage rates which already renders the LTV useless. Also, what if I told you that capital inputs correlate with market value? yes, and cockshott's study proves that. See what I just did? I just postulated a fallacy just as you and every Marxist does. I assumed that capital is the factor that solely does the job, without taking into account internal or external factors. He must've also faced a transformation problem since there's no way to quantify labor and doing so (by guessing or postulating a subjective process) is woefully unacademic. Does 1 hour of labor input = $5 of market price? why is that?
The cock-shot (lmao)/cottrell model is to use "labor values" to determine prices, which is idiotic to say the least and lacks enough mechanisms to prevent large-scale shortages or surpluses. Their model also laughably concedes to markets for consumer goods, kinda similar to that of Lange. Here's an excerpt from the book;
"It is clear that market prices do provide a basis for calculation under capitalism: by reference to prices, firms are able to decide on cost-minimizing technologies, and to decide between producing different products on the basis of their profitability. And we don’t feel any need to dispute Mises’s claim that the price system provides for a reasonably effective coordination of economic activities. Neither would we care to assert that the minimization of monetary cost of production or the maximization of profit have nothing to do with achieving efficiency in the satisfaction of human wants".
Correct me if I'm wrong but despite this, they allow for the allocation of resources and planned coordination as regarded to the state. This obviously still fails to destroy mises' point of inefficient resource allocation (although they did address it, information still remains highly distorted), and they still face the 'incentive problem' and that of corruption. So they still haven't destroyed mises' argument on the ecp, they've conceded.
@@mementomori1749 _"The LTV postulated by Marx pushes all heterogeneous human labor into this homogeneous socially necessary labor unit"_ Yes, thats the same thing any price theory does. With the difference that labor is closer to the production that price.
_"and Marx completely disregards capital or animal labor as a source of value (while providing no coherent explanation)"_ He "disregards" animal labor in the sense that animals are not doing productive labor in themselves, only if guided by humans. Bees do not produce honey to benefit human society on their own, horses do not pull the ploughs without being directed by humans. At first I had problems with understanding this too, but there is a special feature that makes human labor unique in contrast to other animal labor and that is that human labor is way more flexible - it ranges from muscle to brain, from painting to building canals, from building rockets to doing surgery. Human labor transforms nature more than any animal labor we have encountered. In regards to capital: No capital in itself is productive. You can throw as much money into a forrest as you want, it will not transform into furniture. Same goes for literally everything. Capital is only productive when it commands human labor. And yes, human labor can do without capital. Hence capital is superfluous and not necessary to explain any productivity.
_" it's also irrelevant since it doesn't explain prices."_ It does. Strongest correlation between input resource and price result is human labor, more than any other resource. See Zachariah, Labour value and equalisation of profit rates: a multi-country study
_"In regards to cock-shott's works on the LTV, he used wage rates which already renders the LTV useless."_ Eh, no? In what way would that diminish anything?
_"Also, what if I told you that capital inputs correlate with market value?"_ I'd say you have to prove that.
_"See what I just did? I just postulated a fallacy just as you and every Marxist does. I assumed that capital is the factor that solely does the job, without taking into account internal or external factors."_ Capital doesn't do the job, because labor does the job for Capital. Thats the point. No mainstream economist denies that, they just let it fall under the table because its an inconveniant fact that the WORKING CLASS is keeping the economy running, is producing all the wealth and not the Capitalists.
_"He must've also faced a transformation problem since there's no way to quantify labor"_ There is and there always was. Its called time. Measured by a clock.
_"Does 1 hour of labor input = $5 of market price? why is that?"_ The market price is always a combination of all the inputs, including capital input (energy, machinery and other costs). But labor input is more correlated with the final prices than any other resource.
_"The cock-shot (lmao)/cottrell model is to use "labor values" to determine prices, which is idiotic to say the least and lacks enough mechanisms to prevent large-scale shortages or surpluses. "_ Why? Prices will adjust according to demand as well, in case you haven't read it. The mechanism is basically a market without profit incentive, because prices will be set locally for the goal of market-clearing. Which means if a product is high in demand, prices will go up; if its low in demand prices will go down - this is a proven method in any system to make sure that products are gone at the end of each production-delivery cycle. In the end, those selling prices will be compared to production prices. If selling prices are lower than production prices, the products are not valued enough so production will be scaled down until equilibrium; if selling prices are higher than production prices, the products are valued more than their production costs so this justifies further investment.
_"Correct me if I'm wrong but despite this, they allow for the allocation of resources and planned coordination as regarded to the state"_ Correct, the planning will consists of two main parts: First, the voting for plan targets, i.e. increasing or decreasing of income tax, state services (healthcare, public transport, military, childcare, pensions,...), etc. in such a way that there will always be a balanced budget (f.e. no increasing of all sector budgets while decreasing taxes lol).
Second, the consumer choices adjusting the production of consumer goods via the algorithm explained in the previous paragraph.
_"This obviously still fails to destroy mises' point of inefficient resource allocation (although they did address it, information still remains highly distorted)"_ How is it distorted? The real social costs of resources stops being distorted by prices and people betting on certain stocks. It's all very clear, human labor cost will not be weighed against prices, but human labor cost is the measurement in which economic calculations find place. So in contrast to Capitalism, outsourcing because of cheaper human labor elsewhere or choosing to not automate because of the required capital investment falls down in the CCmodel. Externalities can be included in any step of the calculation algorithm.
_"and they still face the 'incentive problem' and that of corruption"_ What is the incentive problem? I believe corruption will be majorly scaled back when the system is required to be 100% transparent by law.
Mises wasn't against using labor time, he conceded that point first; that it might be possible to actually build a complete system based on labor time calculation. He just deemed it infeasible (well, 1930s "computers" were obviously not on his mind being able to solve "millions of equations" while todays computers are easily able to do so)
@@LibertarianLeninistRants (1/3)
'𝘠𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴. 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦.' - Any examples at all? even if you could provide examples, I don't understand this whataboutism since I don't support any such theories that oversimplify models and postulate models that are intentionally misleading.
'𝘏𝘦 "𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴" 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴. 𝘉𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴. 𝘈𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 - 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘴, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘺. 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭: 𝘕𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘴, 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭. 𝘏𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺.' - Wow, congratulations on fetishizing human labor. Anyways, first of all, animal labor is productive labor and your logic applies to human labor as well. Human labor can only be productive if guided by animal or machine labor. Humans don't pull ploughs without the use of horses, thereby making their (horses) productive. Human labor is flexible, such as any other form of labor. The examples provided require machine (and animal) labor to be created. To say human labor is what transforms nature again completely misses the point I'm trying to make. My point is that yes, human labor is important, but it isn't more or less important than machine labor or animal labor, which both constitute the production process. Nonetheless, the nature of labor is pretty much irrelevant when speaking of realism. The action, is in constrast.
'𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦. 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘡𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘩, 𝘓𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴: 𝘢 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪-𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺' - I already addressed the nature of these sort of "studies". This also falls into that as well as the laughable use of wage-rates. In fact, I'll just let Marxists (Nitzan & Bichler) explain why these sort of studies are horrendously flawed;
- "The empirical studies in question do not use actual labour-time data to estimate labour content but instead use monetary data from the input-output tables. Those of us who have claimed evidence for a close correlation between labour values and prices are guilty of circular reasoning since we presume what we must show: that it is possible to work backwards from money to labour time."
- "The correlations presented in the literature are spurious since they do not take into account industry scale. The observed price-value correlations are, they claim, an artifact of the differing scale of industries, with “large” industries naturally showing both a high aggregate price of output and high labour content"
Marx's LTV (Volume III) doesn't explain prices, nor does volume I & II.
Happy for your vids, I know you already answered plenty of questions but how much of your critiques do you think rely on high level econ knowledge vs logic & intuition?
Hours ago: Hey, neat, new channel. Don't binge the videos. Do.not. Binge. Them.
Hours later: checks time: Oh. Goddamnit.
There’s a more familiarity with Wolfe something the brits wouldn’t understand. He is willing to talk about his upbringing how it shaped his economics. “The bits” certainly must be as important as the sand on a beach.