I may be stupid, but I'm not an AnCap.
I just can't get into this economic theory stuff.
Don't worry, you'll soon be a part of Zhwazi's collective whether you want to be or not. Cause he'll use the Labor Theory of Value to convince you. Sort of like the mind-numbed Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project people.
That's it, give us more evidence that you are motivated by moral indignance and pride, throw more inaccurate insults and demonstrate more ignorance and unwillingness to know than anyone else and you too can achieve positive self-image via negative images of others.
Your lack of hesitation to attack also shows how scared you are of how well I do understand your political thought process. The more you fight, the more you lose.
Listen, he may not understand the ins and outs of economic policy or may just find it boring (who could, really? but to each his own). The point is, he doesn't even need to be see the nuanced flaws of LTV to see the problems with collectivist thought in general.
I just want to be clear, I was replying to Brooklyn Red Leg, not Blackie. Blackie can keep doing what he's doing, nothing he's doing is bothering me. He showed that my guess as to why he didn't get through the second paragraph was correct also.
In retort to Brooklyn Red Leg's (who never commented on economic policy, didn't read my post and is just being an asstart) accusations, I'm not a collectivist (hence the "inaccurate" mentioned in my reply to him). LTV is not inherently collectivist. An idea being useful to collectivists doesn't make it collectivistic if it's also useful to individualists.
I don't understand the ins and outs of economic policy either. But I'm willing to learn and don't think anything is beyond my ability to know, so I'll learn as needed.
granted, but LTV is logically collective. The final conclusion seems to view all but the most basic property rights (i.e. I baked bread, so the bread is mine) as state-granted monopolies. The right of exclusion is one of the most basic tenets of property rights and ultimately freedom. LTV proponents, especially maurice Dobbs, view this right as a toll-booth, appropriating the fruits of other people's labor. This is an inconsistent view of property. If I build (or buy) a machine of production, am I morally obligated to allow anyone who wants it free access to my machine? After all, their labor is what's important. My capital (machine) is insignificant. Ultimately, labor is simply a cost of production, which affects the supply curve, which brings us to marginalism. LTV proponents try to argue that labor is somehow unique because it is required for the production of all
goods, but that is just another version of the Water-Diamonds Paradox (water
is the most useful thing but has a low price, while diamonds are not
very useful but have a high price). The flaw in the Water-Diamonds
Paradox is that it considers only water in a general sense and
diamonds in a general sense. But nobody buys "all the water in the
world" or "all the diamonds in the world." They only buy individual
units. And it's the *marginal* utility of those units that determines
the value of the good in the market. The theory of marginal utility
solves the Water-Diamonds Paradox, and it refutes this Marxist
nonsense that labor is somehow the ultimate input just because it
happens to be necessary. Water is necessary for human life, but that
doesn't give any particular unit of water a high value or high price.
Labor may be necessary for every production process, but that doesn't
give any particular unit of labor a high value or high price. In
fact, in many production processes capital equipment costs much more
than labor. The reason is straightforward: the supply of machines is
lower than the supply of unskilled labor. So what determines the
supply curve for the final product? All inputs, including but not
limited to labor--and labor is not even necessarily the most important
input.
.