Anonymous justinian 64w

real

6

Anonymous justinian 64w

The poor had significantly worse footwear options before the dawn of capitalism

-3

Anonymous #2 64w

I know this might sound crazy but this is in large part because of the humble potato (and also big boats with steam engines)

9

Anonymous justinian 64w

potato power go crazy

9

Anonymous #2 64w

Things like steam engines are inseparably linked to the rise of capitalism. Even today, all the countries with the highest median incomes have liberal economies.

-1

Anonymous #2 64w

They certainly correlated but the link isn’t inherent

6

Anonymous #2 64w

we can innovate w/out capitalism tbf

2

Anonymous vampi 64w

Innovation happens under every economic system, but free enterprise systems see a higher rate of innovation.

-1

Anonymous #2 64w

sure but how we innovate now is not for our benefit. consumers aren’t thought of as anything more than a means to an end, we have capitalists creating privatized products developed through investments, of which those investors are profit driven

4

Anonymous vampi 64w

Profit is a two-way street. An voluntary exchange cannot happen unless both sides believe it makes them better off. Innovation that leads to exchange generally benefits the masses.

-2

Anonymous #2 64w

emphasis on “believe” 💀

1

Anonymous #2 64w

The problem is that you are thinking merely in terms of wealth generation and not things like morality, humanity, or building a sustainable society. I don’t just mean environmentally sustainable (that too) but literally physically sustainable. You can have all the wealth generation you want but a society with people starving on the street just won’t stay functioning well for very long. That isn’t to say a revolution would happen, it might just be a sad gloomy breakdown or something.

3

Anonymous vampi 64w

Individuals know far more about their own self interest than any central planner ever could. Humans do not always act rationally, but they do so more often than not. A world in which we trust individuals to know which groceries they want is a better one.

0

Anonymous justinian 64w

Famine and starvation is rapidly plummeting. What still exists today is primarily due to wars and authoritarian politics.

1

Anonymous justinian 64w

We are closer than ever before to solving world hunger, and the driver of that trend is free enterprise systems.

1

How much of the world is untouched by colonialism? Not to mention that countries like Luxembourg were victims of imperialism, not perpetrators.

1

Colonialism is a fundamental element of mercantilism, a completely distinct economic system from economic liberalism.

-2

The most prosperous countries in the global south tend to be the ones that have the most liberal economies.

-2

Anonymous #2 64w

get lost

2

Anonymous #2 64w

how hard is it to understand what i said and what that implies for product quality

4

Anonymous #2 64w

also ur tripping if u think the global south is benefitting from capitalists lol

2

Anonymous vampi 64w

The highest quality products in the world are a result of free enterprise mechanisms.

1

You are right about one thing, products are becoming more affordable. Nothing else you said is supported by the evidence. Global poverty is rapidly falling.

0

If we’re both potato farmers, which scenario is better for you? A.) We both harvest 100 pounds of potatoes. B.) I harvest 100,000 pounds of potatoes, but you only harvest 1,000 pounds.

-1

I’ve done plenty of reading on the labor theory of value. It was decisively refuted over 100 years ago. There is an economic consensus that its a poor model.

-1

The LTV is taught in economics departments the same way that Lamarckism is used to teach evolution. It’s an old, debunked theory that helps us explain how we landed on modern explanations.

1

You’re missing the point. Maybe another thought experiment will help. A.) We both harvest 100 pounds of potatoes and sell them for $1 each. B.) You take a job at my farm. With a division of labor and more resources available, we’re able to harvest 100,000 potatoes together. Even if I pay you only $1,000, are you worse off than scenario A?

1

The gist of the Labor Theory of Value is that the value of a commodity is proportional to the amount of labor time required to produce it. Marx’s specific version adds in a lot of other assumptions (many of which are also wrong) but we have to start by acknowledging that the core claim is objectively false.

1

That thought experiment was about inequality vs poverty. It applies whether or not the capital owner works.

1

You’re clearly not talking about the labor theory of value, but the surplus value theory, an idea Marx plagiarized from Rodbertus. The surplus value theory is built on the assumptions of the LTV so ultimately they have the same flaw: value is subjective.

1

I think you’re misunderstanding the video. In the first three minutes, he explains the labor theory of value (LTV) in a very roundabout way. Around 2:50, he gives a vague definition: “The labor theory of value was to say let’s look at commodities, things that are produced that we all need, by focusing on the labor in them.”

1

He explains the LTV similarly to how I have, even if his version is confusing. The LTV says that the value of a product is determined by the amount of labor required to produce it. At the 3-minute mark, he shifts to explaining what happens if we accept the LTV as true—this is where surplus value theory comes in.

1

The problem, as I’ve mentioned, is that value is subjective. How much someone values a product depends on their personal preferences and circumstances. You probably get this intuitively—you’d pay a lot more for a glass of water if you were stranded in the desert than if you were at home.

1

When we apply subjective value to surplus value theory, it falls apart. Both buyers and sellers of labor, like in any other exchange, have their own subjective beliefs about value. An employer only hires someone if they believe they’ll get more value than they pay, *but* the worker only takes the job if they believe their compensation is worth more than the labor they’re selling.

0

I’m explaining that the point is built on a false premise. Of course they do. If they felt their labor was worth more than their compensation, they would seek another job, start their own business, etc. This sounds like an argument for a robust welfare system, not an argument against capitalism.

1