Proper rewards, incentives, motivations, labor theory

During the second world war, two thirds of German anti friction bearing industry (mostly ball and roller bearing) were located in Schweinfurt-am-Main. Now, you might think that German stuka fliegers, or sturmgewhers or whatever were the reason Germans managed anything in the war. But reality is, without the ball bearings, German motorized 'mile a minute' rifle-grenadier attacks, mechanized 'schwerpunkt' swarms for breaking through,
and 'blitzkrieg' mass double pincer encirclements would not be possible.
Around four thousand of these bearings would go into the average bomber, two thousands of them into a fighter, just a thousand in the controls of a junker 88, propeller shafts, submarines, locomotives, other machines… none would be possible without the ball bearings.

So during the war, for the first time in the history of industrial war, allied-soviet military organized something called "strategic bombing" on Tuesday, August 17, 1943. Distance from home base was ~500 miles, altitude 2500, speeds more than 2.50 and 414 tons of bombs dropped. And then on October 14th, 573 tons of bombs dropped. 122 German fighters were downed, 60 bombers lost on allied side, 593 men died.

Because of that, German luftwaffe (airforce) couldnt reach Soviet war factories behind the Stalin line during Barbarossa, couldnt maintain air combat patrols over English channel, couldnt maintain air superiority over eastern theater, couldnt produce artillery shells, or tanks, or small arms, or vehicles, or machines that make other machines.
German lines simply melted away and two years later Germany collapsed.

A small group of German, French and British scientists, industrialists and businessmen, and one German Jew who escaped forced labor in a camouflaged factory in the forest of Schweinfurt, they secretly compiled a technical report and gave it to the Royal Air Force and USAF high command. They were properly paid after the war.

My question here is: how do the communists calculate and decide just exactly how much farms or factories or ice creams was this information, or any information for that matter, worth? What does labor theory of value does with information? Market economy knew exactly how much to pay for the above scenario.
I personally dont care about politics all that much, I prefer to read about economy and think economy is what matters to me. So I'd put a red star or a swastika or whatever on my forehead, as long as I benefit from it. I just dont know how do you do economic transactions with the communists? How does work works? What if I have a better idea, do I get rewarded for it? Market economy and free trade answer all these things instantly, its all just supply and demand. But how do you do business with the communists?

Attached: 1361648744206.jpg (335x229, 22.4K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/dgKKPQiRRag
businessinsider.com/why-incentives-dont-actually-make-people-do-better-work-2014-3
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm
youtu.be/ShIg-3NRQj4?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Did it, really? Actually, how does the market know how to calculate anything if not by a primitive "guess-and-check" method? After all one can only speculate how many lives were saved by their feat, so why would a market economy be any better than a planned one in this case?

Fascinating story, by the way.


This is different, as we'd have concrete figures for how much an improvement benefited the production process. Rewards could be doled out accordingly; what type of rewards, I can't say, but it'd likely be a one-time thing a la bonuses in a market economy.


Read Towards a New Socialism. There are two chapters dedicated to trade with capitalist and socialist nations.

Attached: 00e06ec175c79fb05ae8451cfafa9d1bf166e702b2f9fbf3cdf8d4211bedb9cc.jpg (320x213, 28.31K)

Yeah well you have an American army officer during that time, who was influenced by the Italian army officer of the first war that drove a zeppelin, arguing that armies and navies should become obsolete and that monster bombers should take primacy. And also that bombing civilians is extremely efficient way of ending wars. And that it should be done. A lot of it. Bombing civilians with monster bombers, I mean.

Anyway, I find it weird that I have to read a book for just a simple, every day, common example and everyday necessity of just swapping a thing for another thing. Labor theory of value works if we are just manually repeating some slave labor all day everyday I guess, but what I care about more is how does it value information, which is what our post-feudal economies are built for.

Labor theory of value works in feudalism. But how does it reward me for studying complex mathematics, physics and chemistry in order to come up with an engine? Who does all the work of inventing a tractor? And why?

When you have your own property, innovating and setting up labs to improve your productivity makes sense, because it is yours, your productivity, your machines, your property, your business, your stuff.
If stuff isnt yours….. why should you improve it?

Oh and another thing any newfriend can notice about communism is, its optics are outdated. It is seen by outsiders as a factory boss being mean and shouting at factory workers. But all the factories are in China. Almost everyone owns his means of production in the developed world already. Locksmith privately owns his locks, nail polisher owns his salon, lawyer owns his license to practice, and so on. Its mostly 20 year olds without any useful technical skills that get scammed into working for bosses, most of the people I know are self employed.

The cost of information is equal to the cost of its transmission. Anything else is rent.

If you want to stimulate innovation, just introduce a big enough prize system. But there is no justification for intellectual property and its attendant rents.

I appear to have misinterpreted your questions. However, with regards to this, it is important to recognize that individuals are currently not rewarded for how much their innovation benefits people, but rather how profitable it is to the bodies that fund it.

Furthermore it's worth mentioning that innovation is best facilitated when individuals are paid just enough to take the issue of money off the table. The socialist interpretation of this is that people perform their best when their needs are taken care of and they're given freedom in the workplace.


In the most likely case, where you invent a better tractor as part of your job at a design bureau, you and your team would be compensated by the hour just like everyone else.

In the special case, where you make an improvement in your own spare time, rewards are in order.


Quite the contrary, my friend. Under Socialism and Communism, everything that's not a personal belonging would be owned by the people who use them, and that includes your workplace.

I am also certain that there would still be individuals dedicated to streamlining the production process. They would be compensated hourly, just like like workers. The upshot is that the knowledge they produce would be shared across a socialist economy, so one laboratory's discovery could increase production efficiency nationwide.


Lawl, now you're just talking out your ass. This might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of educated professionals (young and old) aren't self-employed. I myself, as a software developer, have never personally encountered a single individual in my trade who is self-employed. And no, contract work doesn't count.

I really don't know how else to attack this ridiculous comment. Are you a Libertarian of some kind? They usually love to shill the self-employment meme.

Attached: 4387779ffdb1d7ce5c33a5e94e7898c29c38a18261dcbd487fd3822f9942e68a.jpg (1024x1024, 101.64K)

If anything, it's neoclassical economics that turns common sense transactions into fucking sorcery, and it fails to even model them in a usable way. The labour theory of value is based on very common-sense thinking, and it was uncontested for over a century as a result. It's only when it became associated with communism because of Marx that porkies started distancing themselves from it.
The reason you have to read a book for all this is because neoclassical economics is so inundated in our education that even our basic understanding of what makes a thing worth more than the sum of its parts is completely warped.

youtu.be/dgKKPQiRRag
Your beliefs aren't based in reality and what science has been showing over and over again. People don't do the type of work you describe for the payday. Reward only works for non-creative routine like that of the factory work you were describing. Even sites like business insider disagree with you businessinsider.com/why-incentives-dont-actually-make-people-do-better-work-2014-3 . If you still don't believe me look at the average pay of a scientific researcher, why do some of the smartest people with PHDs who make all the innovative progress make so little under capitalism? It's also funny how you claim factories and the like are outdated and don't exist anymore and in the same post admit the only reason the west survives is due to outsourcing that slave labor elsewhere. As if everyone moving to Canada from the US to take a shit and then moving back to the US after they're done lets you make the claim that shitting is archaic for the developed world.

Hell, many tech companies these days have the provision that they literally own all your ideas. So if you do come up with something in your spare time, it's their property and you don't get shit.

The marxist labor theory of value is not a method to compensate people based on their work.
Labor theory of vallue is marx's main tool for studying capitalism. In capitalism things are produced to be sold and generate profit. But for something to be sold there must be some form of work applied to it. if people don't buy something it has no value (marxist value). I'm not gonna explain everything to you because it's not trivial and i dont trust myself with doing a good job.

The thing is communism things are produced for use and not for profit so communism opperates aoutside the labor theory of value. In a communist society work will be rewarded as people see fit. How it will happen specifically? i can't tell you people will decide for themselves when the times comes. No one planned exactly how capitalism would work, it is childish to expect a perfect laid out plan on how to build socialism.

sorry for almost unreadable post, in a hurry rn

This. The labour theory of value is an explanation for why a commodity is worth more than the things it is made of. A shoe sells for more than the same bundle of cloth and leather that is not made into a shoe, it has to in order for a profit to be made. In other words, there is an increase in value. How is this explained, if we assume, quite reasonably, that value is not created from nothing? It has to be the only thing that the production of all commodities, from a pile of dirt to a jet fighter, have in common: labour. When we extrapolate this to all of production, we see that all value has to stem from human labour - without labour there is nothing. Now, the reason that making a profit is even possible, then, is if the worker doing the labour is paid less than the value he creates. He is being exploited. This is why you never see bourgeois economists teaching the labour theory of value, because they don't want you to know this.

Some ideas to chew on:

(1.) Great innovators historically tend to belong to the lower leisure class. People who simply don't have to worry about money and can focus on whatever intellectual pursuit fancies them. The ultimate goal of socialism, as laid out by Oscar Wilde in The Soul of Man Under Socialism, is to expand this leisure class to the whole of the population.

(2.) A possible solution I've been sitting on regarding the deployment of innovation within an economy, is to make economic activity far more transparent as it is now. If consumers can see what enterprises are more productive than others, they will immediately demand that the practices of these enterprises get universalized. All we need is to engineer a good platform to view economic activity and communicate between different sectors of the economy. This possibility has been opened up by the internet.

(3.) The economy will be supplied with good engineers through freely available education and compensation for the time and effort these people invest in both their studies and work. Bonuses will be awarded for especially brilliant performance.

Capitalism isn't anything near as brilliant at providing solutions as you seem to think it is.

(4.) First of all, the necessity of intellectual property law is an obvious burden on efficiency. If new technologies were able to be free this would make things a lot simpler.

(5.) Most research today is, in fact, state-funded. The "innovative" enterprises we see pop up in the economy are often one that simply capitalize on public innovations. The internet was largely the child of the US military, and today's richest people are ones that profited off basic applications of this technology. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, were all figures that took a basic application of a new technology (graphical personal computing, only social networking service, online retail service) and established their dominance in the newly available market. They aren't great innovators, they are great exploiters of innovation.

(6.) A narrative of great innovators within capitalism is also maintained by the way the stock market functions. Enterprises that confirm this ideal get way more funding than those that don't. The most blatant example of this is that of Elon Musk.

(7.) Building on this theme, it is easy to imagine how much better these technologies would have been if they were not proprietary. If instead of Windows the average person used Linux. If instead of Facebook, there was a decentralized social networking protocol, and people could pick and choose their algorithms without worrying about being manipulated or spied upon. If instead of Amazon there were an economic communication platform that put the interests of the clients first. We don't get this because of the way capitalism deploys new technologies. It is a fundamental property of the system.

(8.) Capitalism tends to burden communication between sectors of the economy with all sorts of financial interests we'd be better off without. There's a reason why the most efficient knowledge-sharing platform yet (Wikipedia) is completely outside of the logic of capitalism. Under communism these kinds of platforms would proliferate and direct all sectors of the economy.

Those are some quick ideas I thought of. I hope they're useful.

No I mean manual labor is archaic more because of industrial mechanization than 3rd world. So who cares about it, creative work is all that matters now.
Its not like anyone actually works with a hammer, or a sickle.

But arent you simply referring to the design?? The reason a commodity is worth more than its basic raw materials combined, is design.

So, commodity = raw materials, labor and design.

Why should the worker, who only did the labor, also be paid for the design he didnt figure out? Even if we ignore materials of the sake of simplicity, the question of who gets rewarded for design still remains.

Alternatively I could just pay you to labor me a fighter jet. And I could give you all the materials. And you naturally couldnt do it. Because you need like a trillion specialists we call engineers to give you the designs.
And none of these designs are worth the same. And none of them are paid the same. And depending on how shitty or how good you want it to be, you will pay for it accordingly.

Value is socially necessary labor-time. The labor of these specialists takes part in determining the value of the fighter jet. If their labor isn't as efficient as is the socially determined standard, it isn't as valuable.

Creative work is the only thing that exists now so what makes creative work so special? Just pay everyone the same since labor is dead.

we are not asking for people to be paid the same not for people to be paid the full value of what they produce, This is not even possible since marxist value is calculated in hours.
What we want is an eventual abolition of money so people are not being paid in the first place. Obviously this is not immediatly feasible and while we don't get there we can find ways to keep people satisfied with their rewards without making 8 people hold 50% of the wealth.

Except 'design' is a completely immaterial concept, and it is not universal. A miner, who digs some rocks out of the ground, is not following a 'design', but the pile of rocks he creates is still more valuable than the rocks when they're in the ground.
When workers produce a shoe, that shoe has a design, but all it amounts to is a series of simple tasks - cutting a sole of a specific shape, making the laces, etc. - which can be performed by unskilled labour.
To spell it out for you: you can have all the fancy designs you want, but without a worker to actually produce the thing you have nothing.

1 is meaningless. Nothing actionable. Just wishful thinking. Wishing for the best is not useful.

2 is already a thing. It is called prices. If you can produce an apple for 2 dollars consumers already prefer it to the same apple that costs 3 dollars.

3 how? Saying 'x will be rewarded' is utterly meaningless unless you have some supply and demand style math to explain H O W will anyone be rewarded for anything.

4 if the innovator has no reason to innovate, no innovation would happen. Innovator can always make his invention free anyway, but in case he wants money for his innovation, and there's no free alternative, and you dont wanna pay for his work, he simply doesnt work.

5 have fun drawing a flower with a military style command line interface. Luckily you dont have to write a trillion lines of code, Bill Gates created graphical user interface.
You are not paying for a computer. You are paying for the graphical user interface. And Bill is offering you one at a reasonable price. You have all the options in the world not to pay for it.

6 [source needed]
Cant just say stuff and expect everyone to pretend that its true. Stock market is there to provide seed capital. To anyone. If you have a working prototype of something, you too can go to an investment fund, get the money, and expand the prototype into a working business.
But its easier to be unhappy about stock market than having a working prototype so you decide to take the path of least resistance like trillion other no-prototype people who are unhappy with the stock market, that they dont even know what it does, but are just unhappy about it because that's the thing to do I guess.

7
Yeah but you dont have the free shit. That ends the point.

8 [source needed]
Again cant just spout some utterly random buzzwords that carry Z E R O operational or useful information. Like, what even is your alternative? Saying "im unhappy" doesnt fix or solve anything.
"I dont like I have cancer" well boo fucking hoo you have it and it is utterly meaningless to say that you dont like it.
"Communism will fix it, with magic I guess" HOW??

What is a gui? Just a few lines of code. My computer can reproduce that code a million times, for free. It is completely valueless. That "reasonable price" is nothing but rent.

why should the designer be paid for the work the labourer aplies on the shoe? I mean the total hours the epmloyees keep to make the shoes are much more than the time he spent designing it. then we have to analyse how much an hour of each profession's work is worth. I think you can see how this is retarded, but as i said in it's not about some moralism in being paid what you worked it's about changing the fundamental structures of society in the better interst of the working class.

So you replaced 'x' with 'unknown'. How is this helpful?

Doesnt matter if its value, or labor, or socially necessary […] or whatever. I STILL wish to know how to calculate it. How to measure it. How to use it. How to make it meaningful.
Capitalism does it with the supply-demand.


Not all creative work is equal? L O L


How is any of the wishful thinking or buzzwords useful tho? Ok you wish things were better, fine, but who cares? Why is you wishing things were better useful??


Then why is modern economy all about the designs, and all the manual labor gets done with machines then?

Figuring out a better design is a trillion dollar sector of the economy. Research and development is basically the only thing humans do in an average car factory these days. No one manually uses sickles, or hammers.


If you could, why didnt you?
And no, you are wrong, your computer can not copy-paste an original that wasnt even invented yet. If it could, why dont you just copy-paste yourself an operating system from 2050?

...

Why do you even think that the guy who designs stuff is taking anything from the people who make stuff???

Besides, you can always automate the worker out of the equation, and you cant do the same to the designer. What century do you even live with? Are your shoes legit made by hand, and not just a model #123123 from the assembly line, which is fully automated anyway??

Again, this whole labor thing makes sense in feudalism. But not today, when its all about the designs, and retard work is done by powered tools that move around in a repetitive manner.

How do you compute it? Give me an example, such as capitalism's supply and demand. Example with the numbers, or some mathematics somewhere. Replacing one buzzword with another doesnt help me understand anything. But 'Billy has an apple, and supply of apples is just Billy and no one else, and demand for apple is 100$, Billy can trade an apple for 100$ if he wants'.

Instead I get 'ugh.. value is actually labor, and labor is actually socially necessary labor time, and snlt is actually abcd, and abcd is actually […]' and there isnt even any math anywhere.
And you know something is a fraud if there's no math anywhere.

...

I am trying to explain to your dense ass what we want since you proved to have absolutelly no understanding of socialism. I am not wishing anything, implementation of our goals is made via political parties, activism, strikes, book you name it.


You seem to think we live in a fully automated paradise. Newsflash user we don't, factories in the third world are overflowing with underpaid workers.
But then again this is not the problem at hand here.
Are you even reading my posts? This is irrelevant.

You have no idea what socialism is about

wtf is socially determined standard?

Motherfucker comes here to complain about LTV without even knowing what it is, gets an explanation and gets mad when people don't spoonfeed his autism.

How did you compute this?

Pic related. If labour really was automated, capitalism would collapse. Designs don't have any value, they are completely immaterial, and reproducing it is absolutely trivial. Creating a design takes work, but that design can be copied and recopied forever at no cost. There is nothing preventing me from simply getting it for free unless I am made to pay rent through threat of force. If everything is automated, production becomes completely trivial, and there is absolutely no reason why anything would cost anything, besides rent.

Read Towards a New Socialism. Better yet, read Capital.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x374 5.93 MB, 34.63K)

Neither does anyone else. Hence the trillion sects and cults of it.

From what I see, socialism is replacing one buzzword with another. And when you run out of buzzwords, you get .

Well if you think that replacing one buzzword for another is going to create an automation paradise, you must have an engineering degree, and you must be solving practical problems all over the place.


Easily. If you want to buy an apple, you buy the cheapest one. If you want to sell an apple, you sell it to the highest bidder.
How is this complicated to you? Ever went to a store? Ever bought anything?
Buying/selling apples happens everyday, but when it comes to socialism buzzwords, they happen never, and I am the weird one here…

That's not a calculation, fam.

Is anyone else here not getting what we are talking about?
this is what not reading the subjects you debate does to you, learn from this guy don't be him

You're just telling me about price. If you want to buy an apple, you're given a number of prices by the sellers, and likely you pick the lowest one, unless you can't afford even that. But nowhere is there a factum called "demand is 100$", or any way to compute what it would be.

…………
H O W do you obtain the first, non-copied, the original of the design?


Yeah it is. If I have one apple and ten oranges, one apple is worth ten oranges to me.
It is the reason we can trade cars for toasters. And everything else. Easily. All the time. Every day. Everywhere.

While your social theory labor value mutual communal historical necessary [insert buzzword here] exists nowhere, and doesnt even have a single example of itself. Not even theoretical.

Prices only work in a capitalist economy, and are at the root of its problems. They mystify the social relations embedded in commodities. I'm exactly trying to get away from them.

They get directly rewarded in access to goods and services in the community.

All human labor is worth the same. The only calculation we need to do is how much time you spend laboring, and how much effort it takes on your part. The first is incredibly easy to measure, the second is a subjective concern determined by the community.

Where we choose to direct labor and its products in the economy is determined by calculations a la Paul Cockshott, as already explained in this thread.

Have you ever met an innovator? That's nothing like the way they think. The reason innovators don't make their innovations free is because they are hired by someone and can't, or because they aren't, need to eat, and can't make them free either. That's how capitalism works.

Regardless, you're strawmanning me. I'm saying we pay innovators for the time they spend trying to get new things off the ground. Get the issue of money out of the equation for them. Kinda like the model they use at Valve. You just do whatever, as long as it's productive.

You do know about Linux right? The operating system that's completely non-proprietary and got developed anyway. Magic is real I guess. You're living in a fantasy world.

Under socialism we'd PAY people for developing these things. It would be magic + money.

Who are you talking to? That's how the stock market works, yes.

Not to "anyone" though. If you're just some idiot with an idea they're not going to invest in you, obviously.

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying this shit would be of better quality if it weren't dependent on the mechanics of capital accumulation. You're being completely insincere.

I'm in favor of a distributed cybernetic model of socialism. The idea is to abolish the state and have the economy be directed by an economic plan that is imposed on all economic actors by the general population. If you don't tag along, you are excluded. That's the basic principle. It'll all be automated by algorithms that look over the economy.

Read any book on socialism. It isn't magic, you're simply uninformed. I'm ready to answer any questions you have though.

We pay for people to make them. How dense are you?

This is just gibberish. I can't make anything minimally sensible out of it.

Are you OP? OP seemed slightly more intelligent than this, but maybe that was a misjudgment on my part.

Read Marx if you're genuinely interested in engaging with this, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

grafical user interfaces were created by a guy in stanford university, under public funding, and later the idea was stolen by xerox, and then microsoft stole it from them, none of the companies really innovated anything here, they just took the idea from Ivan Sutherland, microsoft and xerox were not innovators, they just took the goverment funded innovation and put a fresh coat of paint on it, which just proves the entire point of the dude you were answering to

for

No it actually isn't. If in society there are a million apples and only 100 oranges, it doesn't matter what you have or how you made them, your apples and oranges will be worth the avarage of society. Your personal subjective evaluation of something does not matter to the price of something, because you do not live in a world on your own.

Someone worked for it, like I said, but does that person redesign the thing every time a copy is made? No. Copying the thing is completely free, you can give it to everyone free of charge. Saying a design has market value, in a world where they can be infinitely reproduced, makes about as much sense as saying the sun has market value.
That is a completely meaningless statement. The funny thing is that you're coming remarkably close to saying something Marx did in Wage Labour and Capital, except since you don't have a concrete basis for value, it sounds like fucking gibberish.

OP here. Can I delete the thread if I didnt pay attention to the password? It says I need a password to delete it.

This discussion is clearly not in good faith, and pointless.
Socialists/communists clearly couldnt pay the people from the OP story anything, which is probably why they sold the document to the allies instead. Communists cant pay for things. They cant pay for plans. For designs. For labor, really.

Because mental labor is all there is today. No one uses a sickle. No one uses a hammer. The only reason anyone uses 3rd worlders is because they are still cheaper than the automation, but the left will agitate them to demand higher wages, and business owners will simply get rid of them and install automation. No one works with a sickle. And no one works with a hammer.
With no private property, there would not even be a barter system. Without trade, society would go back to feudalism. Everyone would just repeat slave labor, and eat the same subsistence farming food, and have the same 30 year old lifespan.

All because people dont understand that wealth inequality comes out of ingenuity inequality. That or venture capitalists will save themselves on helicopter gunships from the rabid feral pitchfork masses that think their poverty is a fault of anyone but them.

Attached: laugingmarx.jpg (412x450, 69.5K)

...

Attached: ideology.jpg (549x354, 216.33K)

We could tell from the OP :^)

Don't see the irony?
The only thing mental here is you, if you seriously think this.

You're right, the discussion is not in good faith.

Attached: stop the capitalist.png (1170x594, 95.37K)

Did you build your house and tailor your clothes with your smooth-ass brain, friend?

it's complete dissociation from reality, this is not just some first worlder, it's probably some firstworlder who does homeoficing orders everytihng via amazon and never sees a human working ever.

Attached: fredo boggins.png (400x399, 213.79K)

I almost feel sorry for him. Is this the power of burger education?

If capitalists wanted to purge the poor and automate everything why don't they just go back to slavery?
I mean what's the point in automating if you are not producing on a mass scale?

That's the coolest way to slide into a boring topic we have every week, OP. Kudos.

Of course not. That patents are regulated to last 20 years and not 15 or 25 is completely arbitrary and not based on any sort of economic efficiency estimate. Innovation is not something any capitalist or communist system can really plan for in detail, it has a big luck factor. In the particular story by OP, there is nothing about the information sharers deciding to do what they did because of the size of the financial incentive. And the USSR and GDR also gave money to western engineers to share information.

Do you believe Einstein was stinking rich? Do you believe that in this society the people working in labs are by and large the same who own the patents? People invent things if they have the time and the machinery etc for testing, they are motivated by the joy of seeing the reaction of friends, family, and colleagues. And they just are curious. They have an itch for that. Large cash prizes don't really incentivize you much if people researching don't have an exact grasp of how close they are to solving a problem, which they simply can't have for big innovations, because a big innovation by definition lies outside experience. Programmers have a very hard time estimating how long it will take them to complete a task unless it is really extremely similar to something they have done before (or they have leeway in defining what completing it means). I'm working on several unsolved math problems and I frankly have not the faintest idea in which order I will crack them, if any.

AHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT

Are you fucking retarded? The market didn't even come into the equation on your own given scenario

See ya in two weeks milk-technocracy man

you're forcing this meme pretty hard. maybe its time to relax.

Attached: 008d1e9abbd445f948a9a0757da803bc1f9bed4f2df6f13c2bf1913f04978869.jpg (480x360, 18.49K)

Your point basically boils down to
I just scrolled down to read some of your comments, Jesus you are retarded

Wow, yeah, you are trolling us epic kikestani style for sure.
End your life

Attached: c9216b47bf4ca8bd32aa70757f8ae66208503c0dd4b210d01367dd1648fe1a83.jpg (255x218, 16.66K)

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm

Commodifying information is just rent extraction. Further, "value" does not mean what you think it means, it Marx's conception of capitalism. Marx is looking at value in order to explains the mechanism by which capitalism works, to describe its laws of motion, and specifically defines what value (or more specifically, exchange-value) is in the context of market economies.

In any event, in the spy example you describe, the price of the information is completely arbitrary, whether you pay in gibmedals or in-kind goods; nor is the economic calculation purely a matter of exchange-value on a free market as with commodities. In this case, the payer is a government anyway.

I could have a more detailed discussion about the topic of information and its value, but you'd have to drop lolbertarian horseshit and stop misunderstanding the Marxist deconstruction of capitalism. Shit, after the Great Depression and WW2, the assumptions of muh free market are basically inoperative, and the capitalism of today only survives with heavy state intervention to prop up consumption and subsidize the shit out of Porky. Burgerbux literally only matter because America insists through military force that the rest of the world has to respect them, and because the ruling class of the world today has no goddamn clue how to actually manage without prayer to the market god.

I don't have time to write up a massive post but I think OP has a bunch of Neoclassical Economic ideology instilled in him and simply hasn't read about other Economic Schools of thought or more generally enough about the History of Economic Thought. If the posters here aren't to your liking and you don't want to read something inundated with Marxist terminology I would suggest reading Capitalism: Competition, Conflict & Crisis by Anwar Shaikh as it covers most Schools of Economic thought from Classical, Keynesian, Neoclassical etc with the objective of outlining a new Economic School of Thought based on empirical evidence based on actually existing Economies that can be derived without many of the assumptions and tools that Orthodox Economics works. If you're the sort of person that has the discipline to study yourself he actually has a full course of lectures designed to be taught to people studying Orthodox Economics as an accompanyment to the book. In order to fully understand the Algebra and Graphs and such in the book you'll need to be relatively famliar with Economics but I'm sure you already are.

I have attached a .PDF of the book and here is the playlist: youtu.be/ShIg-3NRQj4?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go
(sorry for no Hooktube link idk if it works with playlists)

Oh, OP was just another intellectually dishonest sophist who thinks Economics is about being Rational(tm) and the more Rationaler you are the more Economic it is. Guess I should have read the whole thread, Lolberts live in a fucking fairy tail land and are such brainlets that they can't even attempt to understand anything outside of their erroneous worldview without getting triggered.

Attached: 1c8042bf0a4aaf48db6ed6db3f1cc1b6202eaeb35598d58e3deabb67d04b9cec.png (1536x2048, 2.84M)

Excellent posts comrade

I'd say it's a problem of schooling in general that crushes independent thought and instills obedience to whatever ruling order there is. It doesn't feel much better to read someone blindly defending Marxism without actually understanding what Marx said even at a superficial level, just swallowing slogans uncritically.

The so-called knowledge economy is only possible under a regime of forced ignorance and an insane focus on credentialism over reality. That, I'm afraid, is where the world is heading; we're near the point where commodity production and private property are too much of a hindrance, but the next step won't be glorious socialism, but a system where property is held collectively by a class of educated people against the masses of uneducated, and where "merit" and privileges are doled out and decided purely by the interests of the ruling class. So, it's not just a problem with pro-capitalist lolberts - I can easily see the same lolberts justifying a system of so-called "meritocracy" on the basis of forced ignorance, and such ideology will lead us into a fucking mess to say the least. Lolberts are weak people who will support whatever the ruling ideas are at any given time, and their supposed "libertarianism" is just their own cowardice and desire to hide their shame from the world.

It's interesting how well-known Steve Jobs is compared to somebody like say Douglas Engelbart. Everybody "knows" that Jobs was a creative super-genius, but somehow can't name even one invention by him.

your gay

Apple's general modern business strategy since the late 2000's AFAIK

incentives? I beg your pardon? what, are you A NEOLIBERAL??? get your empiricism outta here you poor-hating cuck!

But Apple is an older company than that and Jobs and his philosophy was already there right at the beginning of it. Apple fanboys have a tendency not only to over-hype the good decisions, but they also have amnesia about the bad ones (or they are simply too young). For instance, in the late 90s Apple created a round mouse (like a hockey puck) because
Withing a few minutes of using that, your hand hurts. You have no sense of where up and down is, and on top of that, the mouse chord is short. All of that should be obvious just by taking a glance at a drawing of it. How that thing ever got past prototyping phase is a mystery to me.

A performance-based income bonus is not something Marx was against under any circumstance (see Critique of the Gotha Programme), and it also did exist in the GDR and USSR. Thing is, aside from simple physical tasks, it doesn't really work… Read the thread, especially this post:

see: free software movement, "why" doesn't matter if you're doing it anyway.
next question

You are implying that people only want what capitalists pay. The only reason people right now desire what the capitalists can pay is because of their hegemonic control over the world economy. Their system of trade is currently highly effective in distributing goods, but is extremely inefficient, to the point that the aggregate imbalances that appear in compensation for wages and trade cause huge market crashes, which sometimes leads to war. We have the capacity and theory necessary to make a more efficient cybernetic goods distribution system, courtesy of Paul Cockshott.

Furthermore, your case is not an instance of the usual peacetime trade, but of war plunder. Such a valuation, based on the theft of the information, could be as high as infinite based on the relatively small amount of work-time put in versus the compensation of the individuals plus the total destruction of a hegemonic European power and the winning of the war by the allies, since we still have not tallied all the damages, nor could we, since so many records were destroyed and people killed, leading in the final analysis to a practically subjective valuation. Destruction of information, as well as throwing around your weight in terms of political influence, will always color a valuation, particularly if a party can be coerced.

In fact, it is a pure instance of primitive accumulation based on power. In a convoluted way, not unlike that of the primitive accumulation that Marx outlined in Capital, the enclosure of common lands that the villagers used for subsistence, in the face of having to work in factories, was Capitalism's original sin; since workers had a separate means of subsistence, they could tell the merchants and factory bosses to fuck themselves and just go do their thing until the said merchants and bosses used their influence, violent and otherwise, to deprive the worker-peasants of their means of subsistence, the land itself. Thus we have our situation today, and we can't really go back to an agrarian lifestyle until we can match capitalism's productive capacity. However, we have people working on technology that will allow this, who aren't capitalists and who hate it. We will win, because we can, and we must win because we will die if we won't; we hate your regime, but what is even better, we don't have to kill anyone to escape it, and as more people see what we have, they will want to help, even for free, because it leads to their liberation and security as sovereign individuals also.

Primitive accumulation: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm