Arguing with a capitalist on youtube

[epsilon8998]

If anyone here pays attention to politics on youtube, you may have noticed that a HUGE surge of Free-Market capitalists have established themselves there and are gaining in popularity.

To try to counter this trend, I've recently started a new hobby of finding some of the most egregious free-marketers and launching myself into a debate with them over their beliefs supporting capitalism and opposing socialism. One such person that I have been messaging back and forth seems to be reasonable but I've run into a mental brick wall after pouring so many words into my last message to him that I just can't think.

In my most recent message to him I tried to explain to him how the "law" of Supply and Demand is itself determined by the cost of production of commodities. From this I was trying to explain to him how wages are determined and how they will naturally sink to the lowest level possible. His response was, to say the least, kind of infuriating because he, like many capitalists in my experience, simply discounted the points I made without reasonable explanation.

Here is what he said:
"Again incorrect. Changes in the cost of production shifts the supply curve, not the demand. It's as simple as this. The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product. Oh yes, the quantity demanded might change if the product is elastic, but if it's inelastic there is going to be very little to no change in the demand"

He also makes the common claim that if a worker does not like his or her job then they can simply quit and leave to find another, better one:
"Also, machines displacing people just give people the chance to move and learn new skills, maybe go to an institution and learn something new, its called creative destruction, its the same thing that happened to all the farmers during the 20th century, and also how the US progressed from sweatshops to where it is today."

I have tried to explain to him how that is untrue, but again I'm feeling a bit fried. So I ask you guys. What do you think I could say to this capitalist to get him to realize the folly of his ways?

[28350]

Frankly, economics isn't my strong point.
However, I will give you some advice (because each leftist knows best).
If the capitalist is not working class, don't bother.
It's usually very hard to convince people of that persuasion. Educated people usually don't form their political beliefs around logic, but their class interests instead. (ir)Regardless, even if you were to persuade him, it wouldn't further our cause a bit.
We want class consciousness of the masses, not the approval of the bourgeoisie.

[Tablo]

First, don't debate with people on youtube. They are all idiots.

Second, costs of production do shift the supply curve, not demand, but they would try to counter this shift with layoffs and wage cuts to keep production cheap enough to retain a high profit.

Third, you can't just go get a new job that easily and most people aren't in the position to easily learn new skills. It is kinda hard to go back to school or search for new jobs when you have a family to provide for and often are also paying for things like schooling if you have children.

[epsilon8998]

As much as I appreciate your suggestion, I think I should remind you that the greatest Marxists of all time were not from the working class. Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Mao... All were from educated and reasonably wealthy backgrounds. There's no reason to discount anyone from the struggle based on their class alone. Indeed, I think Marx said somewhere that the revolution would become all the more probably as the natural workings of capitalism started to bankrupt the lower levels of educated elites so that they had to join the working class themselves.

[epsilon8998]

First, don't debate with people on youtube. They are all idiots.

Second, costs of production do shift the supply curve, not demand, but they would try to counter this shift with layoffs and wage cuts to keep production cheap enough to retain a high profit.

Third, you can't just go get a new job that easily and most people aren't in the position to easily learn new skills. It is kinda hard to go back to school or search for new jobs when you have a family to provide for and often are also paying for things like schooling if you have children.

I was reading through some selections of Marx's Capital online, and he did actually say somewhere that supply and the cost of production can and does indeed affect demand, but he said that explaining it would detract from the subject. Do you know where I can find his explanation for that?

Also, I did try explaining to him the reasons why just starting up a new business will not solve the problems of capitalism. But he answered that it's only a factor in monopolies and oligopolies. I gave an answer after that but he responded to that with "TL/DR". Freaking frustrating, I know :blink:

[Tablo]

I was reading through some selections of Marx's Capital online, and he did actually say somewhere that supply and the cost of production can and does indeed affect demand, but he said that explaining it would detract from the subject. Do you know where I can find his explanation for that?

Also, I did try explaining to him the reasons why just starting up a new business will not solve the problems of capitalism. But he answered that it's only a factor in monopolies and oligopolies. I gave an answer after that but he responded to that with "TL/DR". Freaking frustrating, I know :blink:
Cost of production can affect demand because that would cause a drop in wages and thus hurt the purchasing power of consumers, but this is much less pronounced now days within a global economy.

[28350]

As much as I appreciate your suggestion, I think I should remind you that the greatest Marxists of all time were not from the working class. Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Mao... All were from educated and reasonably wealthy backgrounds. There's no reason to discount anyone from the struggle based on their class alone.

I'm hardly discounting anyone from the struggle. I am, as well as most of the people on this board (I assume), petit-bourgeois. However, individuals do not make a movement. Marxism is not about proselytizing to the middle class.

We don't need more theoreticians. Anyone is welcome to join us, but it's the workers we need most. Without working class consciousness, we have nothing.

[lulks]

Here is what he said:
"Again incorrect. Changes in the cost of production shifts the supply curve, not the demand. It's as simple as this. The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product. Oh yes, the quantity demanded might change if the product is elastic, but if it's inelastic there is going to be very little to no change in the demand"
the demand does not need to change for prices to correlate to production cost. the ratio of profit to production cost will tend to be the same in all industries, because once it rises in one industry, more capitalists will invest in that, driving prices down because of the increase in supply. if the cost of production increases, this drives the rate of profit down. because of this, less capitalists will invest in that, which decreases the supply and therefore increases the price, returning the rate of profit back to normal.

[epsilon8998]

I'm hardly discounting anyone from the struggle. I am, as well as most of the people on this board (I assume), petit-bourgeois. However, individuals do not make a movement. Marxism is not about proselytizing to the middle class.

Certainly individuals alone don't make a movement, but movements do have to start with individuals. I believe that movements have to start with some form of debate so that people can begin to see the truth of the matters at hand. Convincing the middle class of the realities of capitalism is a good start.

[epsilon8998]

the demand does not need to change for prices to correlate to production cost. the ratio of profit to production cost will tend to be the same in all industries, because once it rises in one industry, more capitalists will invest in that, driving prices down because of the increase in supply. if the cost of production increases, this drives the rate of profit down. because of this, less capitalists will invest in that, which decreases the supply and therefore increases the price, returning the rate of profit back to normal.

Does the rate of profit always return to normal, or does it tend to always fall as Marx said it would? I'm not actually sure he did say that, that's just the impression I have gotten from my study of the subject. Like someone said above, economics isn't my strong point either, but I try to do my best at least.

[Commiechu]

He also makes the common claim that if a worker does not like his or her job then they can simply quit and leave to find another, better one
If a slave could choose his master would it justify the system? If a slave had a 1 in a billion chance of becoming a slave master, would this make slavery right?

[lulks]

Does the rate of profit always return to normal, or does it tend to always fall as Marx said it would? I'm not actually sure he did say that, that's just the impression I have gotten from my study of the subject. Like someone said above, economics isn't my strong point either, but I try to do my best at least. yes it tends to fall, but each industry tends to have about the same rate of profit. the rate of profit always returns to normal if normal means the average. but the average is always decreasing

[mikelepore]

The capitalism defender said, "The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product." He's incorrect. He's missing a point that is even a part of the capitalist economic theory that he supposedly believes in. It's the point that there is never a certain amount of demand for a product itself with nothing said about the price. There is always a certain amount of demand for the product *at a given price*. For example, how much demand would there be for a one dollar bag of potatoes, how much demand would there be for a five dollar bag of potatoes, etc. The price is part of the description of the product that there is some amount of demand for. If the cost of production were greater, then the price would be greater, and therefore the demand for the product *at that greater price* would be less.

This fact, that demand is not determined until a price is specified, also applies to the stock exchanges. The stock exchange has to match every one share to be sold today with every one share to be bought today. They do this by changing the price to make the supply and demand both move inopposite directions. As the price gets readusted up or down, some number of the limit orders to buy (buy it only if the price reaches x or less) and some number of the limit orders to sell (sell it only if the price reaches x or more) will kick in. The readjustment of the price up or down continues until the quantity to sell and the quantity to buy become equal.

[epsilon8998]

The capitalism defender said, "The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product." He's incorrect. He's missing a point that is even a part of the capitalist economic theory that he supposedly believes in. It's the point that there is never a certain amount of demand for a product itself with nothing said about the price. There is always a certain amount of demand for the product *at a given price*. For example, how much demand would there be for a one dollar bag of potatoes, how much demand would there be for a five dollar bag of potatoes, etc. The price is part of the description of the product that there is some amount of demand for. If the cost of production were greater, then the price would be greater, and therefore the demand for the product *at that greater price* would be less.


Right but he also mentioned elasticity in that passage. My memory of high school economics is a little hazy to say the least. What does elasticity refer to and how does it affect supply and demand in the market?

[lulks]

elasticity measures the change in one variable relative to the change in another. for example, how change in supply is affected by change in price. when prices increase, the supply of that commodity increases because it is more profitable to invest in it. another example is how change in price affects demand. when price increases, demand decreases.

[MarxSchmarx]

The capitalism defender said, "The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product." He's incorrect. He's missing a point that is even a part of the capitalist economic theory that he supposedly believes in. It's the point that there is never a certain amount of demand for a product itself with nothing said about the price. There is always a certain amount of demand for the product *at a given price*. For example, how much demand would there be for a one dollar bag of potatoes, how much demand would there be for a five dollar bag of potatoes, etc. The price is part of the description of the product that there is some amount of demand for.


This is not, strictly speaking, my understanding of how demand is defined in capitalist economics. It's been awhile but I think demand is technically defined as the ability to pay multiplied by the willingness to pay. I suppose you could conjure up a "negative price" wherein I give you money to purchase a product - so I could, say, give you 500 dollars to purchase this piece of dust and you will be willing to "pay" -500 for something you didn't even want though it was free before. Again it's been some time so I may be wrong, but less abstractly, a lot of marketing is predicated on increasing the willingness to pay while keeping the market price constant.

The analysis you describe, Mikelepore, therefore would only work if we suppose producers are perfectly rational and willing to supply an already existing, latent demand that in so doing creates a price, which allows the product to clear the market. However, this behavior I do not believe is a necessary component of capitalist economic theory.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If a slave could choose his master would it justify the system? If a slave had a 1 in a billion chance of becoming a slave master, would this make slavery right?

Don't use that argument, there are quite a few anarchocappies and such that actually support contractual slavery. :blink:

[AK]

There are still sweatshops in America, where poor immigrants toil for long hours. This guy is a nutjob.

[GreenCommunism]

a common argument about changes in technology is that it means less work for workers and more profits for the owners, the rational behind this is that owners invest in new technology or that a scientist invent something which he then sells to make money. and when there is too much overproduction and not enough worker to buy the products there is an economic crisis. something that would be never be negative in feudal times causes massive distress to human society. thus this is a contradiction that would be overcome under communism since technology will be used strictly for the good of society and not for profits.

[GreenCommunism]

Right but he also mentioned elasticity in that passage. My memory of high school economics is a little hazy to say the least. What does elasticity refer to and how does it affect supply and demand in the market?

i don't think we were explained elasticity in my high school. i know the term from watching the wire. elasticity is when consumer can go elsewhere to get your product. an inelastic product is when they have to go at your business to obtain them either because you have monopoly or patent, or not enough shops in the area are serving the same product.

[Chambered Word]

If anyone here pays attention to politics on youtube, you may have noticed that a HUGE surge of Free-Market capitalists have established themselves there and are gaining in popularity.

Life lesson: YouTube is packed full of fucking morons.


To try to counter this trend, I've recently started a new hobby of finding some of the most egregious free-marketers and launching myself into a debate with them over their beliefs supporting capitalism and opposing socialism. One such person that I have been messaging back and forth seems to be reasonable but I've run into a mental brick wall after pouring so many words into my last message to him that I just can't think.

In my most recent message to him I tried to explain to him how the "law" of Supply and Demand is itself determined by the cost of production of commodities. From this I was trying to explain to him how wages are determined and how they will naturally sink to the lowest level possible. His response was, to say the least, kind of infuriating because he, like many capitalists in my experience, simply discounted the points I made without reasonable explanation.

Here is what he said:
"Again incorrect. Changes in the cost of production shifts the supply curve, not the demand. It's as simple as this. The cost of production for a firm is too expensive, the supply is going to shift in, but not the demand for the product. Oh yes, the quantity demanded might change if the product is elastic, but if it's inelastic there is going to be very little to no change in the demand"

That's a strawman, he hasn't even addressed your point.


He also makes the common claim that if a worker does not like his or her job then they can simply quit and leave to find another, better one:
"Also, machines displacing people just give people the chance to move and learn new skills, maybe go to an institution and learn something new, its called creative destruction, its the same thing that happened to all the farmers during the 20th century, and also how the US progressed from sweatshops to where it is today."

If the entire system is like that, how does a worker find a good job? How does this justify exploitation anyway? Workers are enslaved to a boss one way or another unless they act against the ruling class collectively because they require wages to survive.


i don't think we were explained elasticity in my high school. i know the term from watching the wire. elasticity is when consumer can go elsewhere to get your product. an inelastic product is when they have to go at your business to obtain them either because you have monopoly or patent, or not enough shops in the area are serving the same product.

Elasticity is the relation between changes in demand and supply. If a product is price elastic in demand a price increase will reduce total revenue and vice versa (the demand curve will tend to slope shallowly), if it's inelastic a price increase will increase total revenue and vice versa (the demand curve will tend to be slope steeply). If price elasticity of demand is unitary along one part of the curve a price change will cause no change in total revenue.

I cannot remember much about income elasticity of supply and demand, infact I can barely remember anything about price elasticity of supply. This is worrying as I have my economics exam for Year 11 next week. :p

[epsilon8998]

Life lesson: YouTube is packed full of fucking morons.

Whether or not it is is beside the point, since it is still our most readily accessible forum for popular, mass-discussion these days. I think that if there is to be a revolution in the 21st century, it will probably start because of a place like youtube.

[Robocommie]

With all sympathies, I just want to say that all you have to do is remove "with a capitalist" and look at "Arguing on youtube" and just remember that such an activity is similar to arm wrestling to win a bucket of warm piss.

It's just a lot of stress for nothing of any value.

[Bombay]

Arguing with others is a great way to learn stuff. If you want to destroy your opponents, sometimes you have to raise your bar by reading more.

[RadioRaheem84]

OP, do not debate people on youtube. I made the mistake of debating a guy I assumed was a rational person and after two hours of back and forth discussion, it turned into an utter waste of time.

But yes, what the hell is up with all of these right wing libertarians infecting the internet, especially youtube, with their free market nonsense. In every forum, every video, even left wing ones there are a dozen or so libertarians spreding the Gospel or Mises.

Everything on the internet that has to do with politics is anti-NWO, Ron Paul, Libertarian, Mises, Free Market loons. They think they're starting some revolution on the net or something. It's annoying as hell.

You can never win a debate with these people because they're so filled with presupposed conclusions that it takes a whole hour of back and forth just to get them to understand basic concepts of Marxism, socialism, that they have no idea about (yet love to argue against).

They think the State = Socialism. Socialiam = Taxes, Welfare.

They think there is no force in a capitalist society and want you to name a company that engages in force, when the whole point is that the State is used by the bourgoise as a weapon to enact their will, and they turn and say, "ah-hah, see the state is where the force is therefore state is bad and socialism is bad because state = socialism".

It's fucking mind numbing at how stupid and ballsey they are to engage so much in things they have no clue about.

[mikelepore]

........ utter waste of time ......... You can never win a debate with these people .....

Don't forget about the people who read the page and didn't post their own replies. You made an impression on some of them. You're not wasting your time. You are scattering seeds, and occasionally some of them will germinate.

[Chambered Word]

Whether or not it is is beside the point, since it is still our most readily accessible forum for popular, mass-discussion these days. I think that if there is to be a revolution in the 21st century, it will probably start because of a place like youtube.

There is no way a revolution will be started by people with the maturity of an average 6 year old, which is the primary membership base of YouTube.

I apologize to any 6 year olds who might be offended.