Okay, galaxybrain microeconomists.
Explain Tulip Mania. Do you think speculative bubbles accurately reflect the value of the commodity that is being speculated on? What about futures? Debt bundling? You believe that there is a demand for debt, and the price of a debt bundle accurately reflects market demand for debt and its value to society?
You think the market demands debt, and that this debt market provides a value? Do you think that the value of an epipen is thousands of dollars, and that the makework and monopolistic control over production and distribution reflects the value of the epipen in terms of the amount required and amount produced? Do you believe the equilibrium price of a private firefighting force standing outside bargaining with you as your house and family burns is all of your possessions and indentured servitude?
What's the equilibrium price of child pornography? An unwilling human sex slave from Nicaragua? Of fentanyl? Why is the price different if you buy it from a street dealer vs a pharmacy, if the price reflects the value?
What should I read before starting Capital?
That's 15 questions mate fuck off. Make clear, concise arguments, it's really not that difficult. Don't just couch your vague, unformed ideas into retarded questions one after the other and expect people to think that's a good argument
>hurr durr if money was REALLY the reward for hard work why don't sweatshop workers and CEOs earn the same wage if they work just as hard????
What's bait about it? Approaches to econ that are consistent and make sense (at least in their own proposed systems), and are at the same time drastically different from capitalism are really.. non existant. It proposes a complete overhaul of our current systems, and lays down the groundwork for how a completely new one could be built, based on entirely different mechanisms. AND, one of the most central mechanisms (or like, THE central mechanism) is that if someone is working on something, he should kinda own it. A laborer should earn what his work is worth, not what the company can get away with paying him.
But ... it is incredibly vague as far as books about econ go. It really is more art than science. A lot of filler, not a lot of nutrition. It is incredibly interesting though, it's no wonder most economists are very familiar with marxist theory. (political scientists, historians, anthropologists, and other fields in the humanities as well.) It gives you several lenses through which to look at society, and the function of money and the economy. Interesting lenses that you really cannot find anywhere else.
Yea what's bait about my perspective that it's an incredibly interesting book to read, but given how the world works, is ultimately futile in terms of advancing your knowledge of econ?
You started arguing with a straw man when you said:
>Price isn't a simple function of supply and demand.
I specifically said that price is determined by more than simple supply and demand.
>Demand can increase without the supply changing with no increase in price
This is dead wrong. In fact, demand exceeding supply is precisely what increases price. If I have a limited supply of commodities and many people want them, I’ll raise the price so only the richest people will buy. That’s why Super Bowl seats are so expensive. If demand was low they’d lower the prices to sell more.
>You can talk about downward and upward pressures or "true" prices
I never said anything about “true” prices. For that matter, what even is a “true” price?
>Value in the LTV is neither exchange value nor use value
Then what is it? You say I’m wrong but don’t tell me why. Marx isn’t taken seriously in any business departments. All his theories have been debunked. The only people who like him are young revolutionaries.
>If you hope to have some sort of reply to Marxian economics, you should first try reading Marx.
You got something as basic as supply and demand wrong, which even I criticized for being an oversimplification of how economics work. You’re not in any position to tell me what to read.
>not responding to someone’s argument
Bro, just admit you’re wrong.
This is dumb shit.
Questions aren't arguments. You could answer all of them easily if you were making an argument that made sense, but you aren't. You won't touch any of those questions because you understand each of those instances being asked about are clear examples of labor divergence from price.
>>hurr durr if money was REALLY the reward for hard work why don't sweatshop workers and CEOs earn the same wage if they work just as hard????
This, but unironically. The entire point of capital is that the wage system represents an exploitation by the bourgeois class inflicted on the worker in the form of surplus labor value extraction. If workers were being paid what they were worth, it couldn't be profitable to hire them. Noone with a basic understanding of economics would enter into a contract to break even or at a loss when they can avoid it. Since workers don't get to set the terms of their employment (employee liquidity vs employer market power), the employers are the ones dictating the terms, including pay.
You explain Tulip mania first. Do you know what happened? No, that's why they're bubbles. The market isn't perfectly efficient but you already know that. Futures and debt bundling are bretty gud and are very important parts of finance markets which empirically improve capital allocation. Do you know what capital allocation is? Do you understand how interest rates affect capital?
Yes the market demands debt. Yes the debt market provides a value. Look up bonds for the simplest explanation. In fact the value of an epipen is much more than thousands of dollars to someone in anaphalactic shock. You're just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks
Where supply curve meets demand curve dumbass. What's the Labor value of CP? You know that fentanyl is considered an essential medicine?
>if the price reflects the value
No one is saying that. In fact it reflects how little you know since your example demonstrates why LTV is wrong. Value is determined by your willingness to pay not labor involved, as such there is no fixed value of labor. It's purely a negotiation of the value to the seller and the value to the buyer and market forces push it to an equilibrium.
The strangest part of all this is these questions are classic proofs of why LTV doesn't make sense.
>If workers were being paid what they were worth, it couldn't be profitable to hire them.
Who determines what they’re “worth” anyway? They’re paid exactly what they’re worth because labour is completely voluntary and negotiable. Seriously, do you have any graphs to explain your Marxist beliefs? Any mathematical formulas? Anything that hasn’t been debunked 50+ years ago? This is all pure conjecture.
>No one is saying that.
Really? Maybe you should scroll up some more.
>The market isn't perfectly efficient but you already know that.
It isn't efficient at all. It's in fact, inefficient.
>Futures and debt bundling are bretty gud and are very important parts of finance markets which empirically improve capital allocation.
They represent built-in gambling and exploitation. How is that good? Why do you want an economy based on playing roulette and slavery?
>Do you understand how interest rates affect capital?
lol
Do you understand how accumulation affects it?
>Yes the market demands debt.
Does it demand slavery and prison?
>Yes the debt market provides a value.
To society or to the class of lenders?
>In fact the value of an epipen is much more than thousands of dollars to someone in anaphalactic shock.
So the price doesn't actually reflect the value at all? Would you admit the market incentivizes exploiting people in medical crisis?
>You're just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks
Nice hypothesis. Care to elaborate?
>What's the Labor value of CP?
There is none, because it isn't a socially necessary commodity.
>You know that fentanyl is considered an essential medicine?
Yes, and the price doesn't reflect the social necessity of it, because the demand matches the social necessity in addition to people who demand it based on physical addiction.
>In fact it reflects how little you know since your example demonstrates why LTV is wrong.
Point to where. You can't because you're hopelessly confused about what the LTV actually is.
>Value is determined by your willingness to pay not labor involved
Hey look, you just claimed value is equal to price again!
>as such there is no fixed value of labor
There is, because there is a general amount of labor that society requires to meet its needs, and this labor has an average time it takes for a laborer to perform it. The demand for necessary labor is social.
>It's purely a negotiation of the value to the seller and the value to the buyer and market forces push it to an equilibrium.
That's literally never how prices work in the real world. Do you actually believe people go on Amazon and haggle?
>The strangest part of all this is these questions are classic proofs of why LTV doesn't make sense.
It would seem like that to someone who doesn't know what the LTV is, despite it being posted already in this very thread.
Imagine actually thinking labor is voluntary and negotiable for the individual