Skip to main content

The Labor Theory of Value according to some YouTube videos...

The labor theory theory employed by many anti-capitalists generally hinges on the Marxian unit of account called socially necessary abstract labor time - where abstract means average - because fuck Capital Volume Three's even worse quagmire of prices of production.

This is fun and short;

The following video deals with the Marxist rebuttal to the, admittedly half-baked, mud pie criticism. He points out here that it is only after a good is sold that one can begin looking back through time to try to figure out how many labor-points went in to it;

This one's more lighthearted. Two t-shirts employ the same SNALT as each other but seel for different prices. One features Che Guevara, the other Milton Friedman. Different strokes - and therefore different prices - for different folks;

Aaaaaand a more technical exposition of marginalism;


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …