The Austrian school of economics

[Ludwig von Thatcher]

Oh my you are simple minded. Yes anarchy would be stateless, but it would be a non sequitur to say that all stateless societies are anarchy. Are you really going to go to absurdities like claiming that feudalism is anarchy? You do understand that there is an absence of the state in feudalism right? Anarchy is the absence of hierarchy, not just the state, at least according to the historical definition as developed by Bakunin and Kropotkin in the 19th century, although anarchist thought has been seen in the works of various Chinese philosophers centuries before that.

The definition of Anarchism is a stateless society. There are no other interpretations according to you.

You are a hypocrite.

[Ludwig von Thatcher]

A capitalist requires a labor force to expropriate. A capitalist pays their workers a portion of what they make based upon what they're doing and they pay their workers a sum of what they procure as capital. LTV prevails because for capitalism to continue to succeed, capitalists need a human labor force to exploit. When capitalists use machines and robotics it hurts laborers and impoverishes the workers. Save for the capitalists who are benefiting from the use of robotics and skyrocketing their profits.

I suggest you do some reading on Marx and find out what the LTV is.

Workers being exploited in capitalism does not mean that the value of an item is based solely on the labour put in to making it.

[Sinister Intents]

I suggest you do some reading on Marx and find out what the LTV is.

Workers being exploited in capitalism does not mean that the value of an item is based solely on the labour put in to making it.

I have read Marx, but I also told you what a capitalist does from my perspective. I'm a business owner and I confirmed Marx.

[Ludwig von Thatcher]

I have read Marx, but I also told you what a capitalist does from my perspective. I'm a business owner and I confirmed Marx.

You evidently don't know what the LTV means.

The LTV means that the value of an item is decided solely by the labour that went in to its production. Nothing you have posted backs that up.

[Sinister Intents]

You evidently don't know what the LTV means.

The LTV means that the value of an item is decided solely by the labour that went in to its production. Nothing you have posted backs that up.

Yes, yes it does. Corporations can set their own prices based on this, while small scale businesses can't set their prices. They have to set price based on competition and other factors such as labor which labor being put into it determines the value and profit. I exploit a worker's labor to procure a profit, and with that worker's labor determines the value of the work, and they don't get to keep the full value of their work. I profit off of fucking people.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The definition of Anarchism is a stateless society. There are no other interpretations according to you.

You are a hypocrite.

Yea, if you read my post I did say that it was stateless, but not every stateless society is anarchy. Let me explain a non sequitur to you:

Every square is a rectangle.
Your computer/iPhone screen is a rectangle
Therefore, your screen is a square.

OR

Every Catholic is a Christian
Mary is a Christian
Therefore, Mary is a Catholic

See? Those are illogical conclusions. Let's apply it to our discussion:

Every Anarchic society is stateless
Feudalism is stateless
Therefore, feudalism is anarchic.

That's what you're saying and it's fallacious. While anarchy is stateless, it does not follow that a stateless society is necessarily anarchic

[Loony Le Fist]

Stop calling people narrow minded. I reported you for this and your use of ableist language.


They aren't worth the trouble. I mean despite whining about dictionary definitions in multiple threads, they don't even have the sense to look at the dictionary and understand what definition of anarchy is being discussed. Not only that, but the definition (at least the Merriam Webster one) is a little inaccurate.


anarchy



absence of government
a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government



absence or denial of any authority or established order
absence of order : disorder

anarchism



I say the closest thing to what we are talking about is 1c. However, it's quite a poor definition, since despite being an anarchist, I certainly wouldn't describe anything as utopian or completely free.

The Oxford Dictionary version might be a little better.



1A. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority

1.1 Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.



Note the conjunction and in 1.1. It's not just the absence of government. It also requires "absolute freedom of the individual regarded as a political ideal." That definition rules out any hierarchies that would act to restrict freedom.

Not that I care much what dictionaries say. We get to define language (especially in the case of English, that doesn't have some central authority) Dictionaries just report on usage.

[Sinister Intents]

This is really, really shitty we're debating definitions with a troll :laugh:

[Loony Le Fist]

This is really, really shitty we're debating definitions with a troll :laugh:

Yea. I stopped talking to them, and kept talking to you and Russian. :grin:

[Redistribute the Rep]

I suggest you do some reading on Marx and find out what the LTV is.

Workers being exploited in capitalism does not mean that the value of an item is based solely on the labour put in to making it.

...so you admit that workers are exploited in capitalism:laugh:

[Sinister Intents]

...so you admit that workers are exploited in capitalism:laugh:

Didn't I answer him lol?

[liberlict]

You understood wrong. The business cycle is not some magical unexplainable natural part of the economy.

Mostly, but there isn't an Austrian alive who didn't seen the housing bust of 2008 coming, because it was their exact business cycle theory playing out in every detail. Their view is that a credit expansion (central banks love creating credit, it makes things look rosy) encourages bank lending and customer borrowing. Then the banks create more loans, increasing the money supply (since that is not just notes and coin, but the amounts in people's bank accounts). Everything booms. The only trouble is, it's a fake boom, like a drug high. To sustain it you would need bigger and bigger doses of easy credit. So eventually it comes to grief and everything is terrible. Hayek says you need to go through that hangover - reassigning capital and people to more productive functions. So the credit binge causes real and lasting damage.

Mises was one of the few people who say the crash in the 1930's coming too.

The only reason Keynesians are so popular is because they advocate government intervention, so governments use them to justify their existence. No state wants to hear about how the are a nuisance. Essentially Austrians are unpopular with the State for the same reason Marxists are---they both oppose the state.

[liberlict]

How much would you say a diamond is worth? The most De Beers can charge for it? The amount of labor required to mine it out of the ground? What makes one measure of value more valid than the other? I'm curious to hear how your logic can solve which value is more accurate.

Don't you understand yet? There is no way of quantifying what a diamond is worth until it's put in a market and consumers decide subjectively what they are willing to pay for it. It's not that complicated.

[RedAnarchist]

Are you really going to try and use a book written by Marx as evidence for Marx's theories?

Never go full retard bro....

Verbal warning for using ableist language.

[Loony Le Fist]

Don't you understand yet? There is no way of quantifying what a diamond is worth until it's put in a market and consumers decide subjectively what they are willing to pay for it. It's not that complicated.

Don't you understand yet? If all value is subjective, there is no way to empirically determine which calculation of value is more accurate. We have no objective criteria to figure this out. That is my whole point. Both LTV and STV are subjective. (Boy I'm going to get flamed for that one :laugh:)

Anyone's guess is as good as anyone elses guess.

[Loony Le Fist]

Mostly, but there isn't an Austrian alive who didn't seen the housing bust of 2008 coming, because it was their exact business cycle theory playing out in every detail...

Austrians love predicting crashes. Too bad they only get attention when they happen to be right. :laugh:

EDIT: Also, if ABCT is true, why do we observe boom and bust cycles in simulated markets with real human participants where the effects of expanding credit and government intervention are non-existent? Look into behavioural economics, if you want some examples.

[liberlict]

Austrians love predicting crashes. Too bad they only get attention when they happen to be right. :laugh:

Yeah they have a funny knack for getting it right a whole lot more often than anyone else.


EDIT: Also, if ABCT is true, why do we observe boom and bust cycles in simulated markets with real human participants where the effects of expanding credit and government intervention are non-existent? Look into behavioural economics, if you want some examples.

You don't understand Austrian theory. Austrians believe that circumstances can never be repeated. So there can be many reasons for a crash, some of which we don't even know about yet because they haven't happened. But they can certainly see when credit expansion is the cause. It's not particularly farsighted of them really. It's pretty darn obvious. I suppose you would agree given that you were one of the rogue Keynsians who foresaw 2008.

[liberlict]

Don't you understand yet? If all value is subjective, there is no way to empirically determine which calculation of value is more accurate. We have no objective criteria to figure this out. That is my whole point. Both LTV and STV are subjective. (Boy I'm going to get flamed for that one :laugh:)

Anyone's guess is as good as anyone elses guess.

STV is not concerned with calculating value. That's what we use a market for ..

[Loony Le Fist]

Yeah they have a funny knack for getting it right a whole lot more often than anyone else.


There isn't enough data points to say really. There haven't been that many boom-bust cycles (you would need a few hundred data points to know), and nearly all of them have been analysed in hindsight.



You don't understand Austrian theory. Austrians believe that circumstances can never be repeated. So there can be many reasons for a crash, some of which we don't even know about yet because they haven't happened.

Perhaps not then. Prediction relies on repetition of circumstances. Therefore that would make ABCT self-refuting. Their guesses are as good as anyone elses.

[Loony Le Fist]

STV is not concerned with calculating value. That's what we use a market for ..

Again, what makes that a accurate determination of value? Because a lot of people say a widget is worth something makes it so? Why that version of value is better than any other, other than meeting yet another subjective human need?

[liberlict]

There isn't enough data points to say really. There haven't been that many boom-bust cycles (you would need a few hundred data points to know), and nearly all of them have been analysed in hindsight.



Perhaps not then. Prediction relies on repetition of circumstances. Therefore that would make ABCT self-refuting. Their guesses are as good as anyone elses.

The thing With Austrians is they are usually pretty reticent about economic forecasting. They know economics is not a science and don't as such. But when they do forecast, they always get it right.


Again, what makes that a accurate determination of value? Because a lot of people say a widget is worth something makes it so? Why that version of value is better than any other, other than meeting yet another subjective human need?

Because it's the only metric we have. Something's value is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

[Loony Le Fist]

The thing With Austrians is they are usually pretty reticent about economic forecasting.


I know lots of libertarians I'd like to introduce you to, who are far from reticent. :laugh:



They know economics is not a science and don't as such.


Most certainly not. More like bollocks.



But when they do forecast, they always get it right.


No. :laugh:



Because it's the only metric we have.


Marxists would disagree. You would argue they are wrong. Therefore, there is no criteria to resolve who is right here.


Something's value is whatever people are willing to pay for it.

According to you.

[liberlict]

I know lots of libertarians I'd like to introduce you to, who are far from reticent. :laugh:



Most certainly not. More like bollocks.



No. :laugh:



Marxists would disagree. You would argue they are wrong. Therefore, there is no criteria to resolve who is right here.



According to you.

Austrians are not the same as Libertarians. Anyway, Austrians have probably been pretty vocal recently because we've just walked blindly into a housing bust that they could see coming miles away. Wouldn't you feel like mouthing off?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at re LTV and STV are both subjective. You seem to be trying to invalidate both theories. Yet you're appealing to STV to do so. I'm very confused :D

[Loony Le Fist]

Austrians are not the same as Libertarians.


I know, but that's not what I'm saying. The Austrian voices I've heard also tend to be libertarian as well. That is all that meant.



Anyway, Austrians have probably been pretty vocal recently because we've just walked blindly into a housing bust that they could see coming miles away. Wouldn't you feel like mouthing off?


The housing bubble is just groupthink. Markets and bubbles are inextricably tied. There is no way to avoid them, unlike what Austrians think. Otherwise, why do they show up when there is nothing but humans interacting with one another?



I'm really not sure what you're getting at re LTV and STV are both subjective. You seem to be trying to invalidate both theories. Yet you're appealing to STV to do so. I'm very confused :D

Well I'm just saying that Austrians have just as little to stand on as the Marxists do, because their concept of value just comes down to groupthink.

I don't subscribe to LTV. I also do not think the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Use value is what matters--the benefit that a given widget or service will provide. While it's true this can be subjective, it captures what something is worth to the end user. This is separate from both the labor that was put into something, and from the amount consumers are willing to pay. That puts me in the minority here.

Bubbles and crashes only happen because value is based on what people are willing to pay, and not the actual value that a commodity or service provides through use. This is the basic problem with having markets determine value.

[liberlict]

The housing bubble is just groupthink. Markets and bubbles are inextricably tied. There is no way to avoid them, unlike what Austrians think. Otherwise, why do they show up when there is nothing but humans interacting with one another?

Austrians don't think that either. Obviously they know how to avoid the ones cause by credit expansion. But there is no way to avoid them altogether. Recessions occur because people, in general, spend more than they save. A general tendency towards consumption over production. Austrians say that recessions are to be embraced, it's a way of rational economy reasserting itself and resources being re-deployed to their most productive areas.




Well I'm just saying that Austrians have just as little to stand on as the Marxists do, because their concept of value just comes down to groupthink.

The Austrian theory of value is the same as everybody elses. Only Marxists and Ricardians (although there is debate over whether Ricardo really had a LTV) diverge.


I don't subscribe to LTV. I also do not think the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Use value is what matters--the benefit that a given widget or service will provide. While it's true this can be subjective, it captures what something is worth to the end user. This is separate from both the labor that was put into something, and from the amount consumers are willing to pay. That puts me in the minority here.

Ahhh ok. I think I see where you're coming from now. But use values are subjective anyway, aren't they? If someone gave me a diamond necklace, I would have no use for it, so I would probably give it to my girlfriend.


Bubbles and crashes only happen because value is based on what people are willing to pay, and not the actual value that a commodity or service provides through use. This is the basic problem with having markets determine value.

You can see that as a problem if you wan't. But there's a whole host of other problems you're going to run into without letting markets determine value. Without them you're dependent on calculation in kind, or central planning, or .. many other bizarre ideas. I'm not really sure what your particular non-market solution is though is?

[Lowtech]

You said they are a normal part of capitalist economies, thus implying that they are somehow inherent to them

there are capitalist oriented economics/economies, or economies social engineered or manipulated by a capitalist class. the phrase "capitalist economy" erroneously implies that capitalism is a form of economics. capitalism cannot be both a science regarding the consumption of resources by a civilization (economics) and social engineering practiced for the benefit of a ruling plutocratic class (ownership, capital, surplus value). those things are incompatible. unless the definition of a civilization only includes the rich.


I don't subscribe to LTV. I also do not think the value of something is what someone will pay for it. Use value is what matters--the benefit that a given widget or service will provide. While it's true this can be subjective, it captures what something is worth to the end user. This is separate from both the labor that was put into something, and from the amount consumers are willing to pay. That puts me in the minority here.

i believe you are looking in the right place but not allowing the idea to fully form or to become more refined. looking at something from the perspective of what people are willing to pay or even it's "use value" is to exclude the item's design and how and why it came to be. items today are designed for exchange value rather than use value, so value cannot be discerned based on behavior among commodities we have now (the uniformity required for such a thing simply doesn't occur in really existing capitalism so the notion is a joke). the conundrum is not what is market value, because markets are a human invention and an example of behavior not economic process. rather the conundrum is: do commodities today actually contain the value they are attributed in a market environment?

modern economics, still in rudimentary form has been entombed within plutocratic social engineering. because of this there are only a few things we know about value

1. value is tangible.
2. value can be measured. (eg-1 gallon of fuel, 1 pair of shoes etc.)
3. value is based on a usable resource or building material (oil, plastics, brick, metals, food, water, etc)
4. value can be analogical of fuel as economics is metabolic. (ie-nothing happens without the required resources and effort required).
5. value has a consistent production cost that coincides with physical resources and effort required to realize the final usable material or item.
6. surplus value/net income/profit only occurs when something is sold above production cost (or when production cost is artificially reduced as with devaluing labor).
7. surplus value/net income/profit is not new or "additional" value.

i believe the answer is that commodities today aren't designed to contain value, rather instead they are designed to contain as little value as possible. to allow as much "value" attributed to them within a market environment to be translated into profit for owners of capital.


You can see that as a problem if you wan't. But there's a whole host of other problems you're going to run into without letting markets determine value. Without them you're dependent on calculation in kind, or central planning, or .. many other bizarre ideas. I'm not really sure what your particular non-market solution is though is?

only markets do not determine value. that's the same as saying prices can change the MPG of your existing vehicle which is ridiculous. "non-market solution" is to imply that markets are a solution. sustaining only 20% of the population in luxury while 80% live on $10 or less a day is not a "solution." any alternative is a better one.


Don't you understand yet? There is no way of quantifying what a diamond is worth until it's put in a market and consumers decide subjectively what they are willing to pay for it. It's not that complicated.

that very easily defines behaviorally attributed value within a market environment. however such a notion of value does not determine the amount of fuel your vehicle requires to get from point A to B nor the amount of steel required in a building or the amount of cement for your basement floor or the amount of water your body needs in a day, the amount of fabric it takes to cover your body, your shoe size, or anything else economically necessary.

subjective theory of value tells us nothing. garbage in garbage out.

[liberlict]

Ludwig von Thatcher: Most hilarious username yet.

[Baseball]

that very easily defines behaviorally attributed value within a market environment. however such a notion of value does not determine the amount of fuel your vehicle requires to get from point A to B nor the amount of steel required in a building or the amount of cement for your basement floor or the amount of water your body needs in a day, the amount of fabric it takes to cover your body, your shoe size, or anything else economically necessary.


Sure it does-- if the amount of steel for a building costs X, then as a consumer I would determine whether those costs are worth the value of the building. Perhaps changes in design are in order.
In any event, the steel workers would decide whether the production of steel is worth it them, (how valuable it really is) based upon the value somebody else gives it. This would be true for MPG in a car, and clothing.

[liberlict]

Lowtech based his username on his mental powers.

[Lowtech]

Sure it does-- if the amount of steel for a building costs X, then as a consumer I would determine whether those costs are worth the value of the building.

you are describing behavoir. behavoir influenced by one's intentions and prices of matierlas within a market environment. no matter what you choose to build, if what is physically built is to be depentent on to stay standing and safely usable by people, it will follow the laws of physics, availability of resources and other tangibles, not the arbitrary price of things. physical laws of nature is not determinant by behavoir of humans so therefore unaffected by price.

measuring value based on the behavoir of people doesnt work. we know that water sustains life. but not all people will choose to drink water when necissary. some will hoard it to themselves to be used as capital. others when given what may be thier last glass may choose to wash thier feet with it rather than drink it. yet in all cases, water has the same value to all people.

subjective value explains value psychologically attributed to "commodities" it is completely useless to understanding and refining the metabolic nature of economics.

simplest defintion of economics is 'we consume'. capitalism is to consume at the expense of others. this is mathematically observable.



Perhaps changes in design are in order.
In any event, the steel workers would decide whether the production of steel is worth it them, (how valuable it really is) based upon the value somebody else gives it. This would be true for MPG in a car, and clothing.

no one's behavoir toward oil will magically change the MPG of your vehicle nor the physical capacity of its fuel tank.

[Baseball]

you are describing behavoir. behavoir influenced by one's intentions and prices of matierlas within a market environment. no matter what you choose to build, if what is physically built is to be depentent on to stay standing and safely usable by people, it will follow the laws of physics, availability of resources and other tangibles, not the arbitrary price of things. physical laws of nature is not determinant by behavoir of humans so therefore unaffected by price.

Of course it is. If one cannot afford the steel and supports for a ten story building, a five story may well be substituted.


measuring value based on the behavoir of people doesnt work. we know that water sustains life. but not all people will choose to drink water when necissary. some will hoard it to themselves to be used as capital. others when given what may be thier last glass may choose to wash thier feet with it rather than drink it. yet in all cases, water has the same value to all people.

Water does not have the same value to all people at all the same time.



no one's behavoir toward oil will magically change the MPG of your vehicle nor the physical capacity of its fuel tank.

Well, you have that car with the MPG and physical capacity of its fuel tank, for a reason. It did not magically appear to you.
Choose a different car.