TLDR: guy buys into american dream, then dad gets laid off his engineer job, then he gets laid off himself.
This shows even a fairly privileged person (upper middle class, engineer and ofc cis str8 wyte mayul) instinctively understands the LTV and exploitation theory, in his case he ended up becoming freelancer/entrepreneur, but it shows that TONS of normal people are very very close to class consciousness.
I hope so. Ecelebs are the worst petty bourgs of the internet and the masses of retards that suck them off, often literally, are just as bad. Things were much better when there was noprofit in putting things online.
that guy is pretty based, probably the best stem youtuber
You are still not gonna make it lad.
Breadtube is neoliberal bullshit.
Wagies are poor moron
lmao, this guy did not think it through.
No shit m8, but not to the typical person. You tell someone you're an engineer and "poor" is not going to be in their list of words to describe you.
There's nothing really "socialist" about this. He just realized he'd be more comfortable with self-employment for his case.
Breadtube is federal agents trying to make the left look like a bunch of doughy fuccbois who can't read.
Not all leftist fails need be feds. Breadtube is an example of internal liberal attitudes, not infiltration. Basically, more communists need to read Combat Liberalism and uphold its strict standard of cadre discipline.
I think what's truly depressing about this. Is if this poor stem fag can launch and operate his own company you know he wont go the route of a co-operative business.
He didn't say he was a communist. He was saying the guy in the video was, without directly realizing it, understanding the LTV through his own experiences. Is socialism "free gibs" to you? Can you name a socialist country that did that?
No, what he is saying is not equivalent to LTV. Guy in youtube video realized that as dev he has low capital costs and/or can provide his own capital so he doesn't need a boss when he can do shit all himself and start his own businesses.
Labor theory of value says that capital inputs are unnecessary to imbue goods/services with value, which is retarded.
Value =/= Price. It can correlate, but it is not price. Use Value =/= Exchange Value. LTV is theory explaining the underlying mechanisms of capital. It is a tool used for analysis. We already had this discussion
What's the libertarian answer to developing fields like econophysics which pretty much invalidate their preconceptions on the economy?
Digital sharecropping platforms like uber and youtube are not running your own business. The capital cost is the global CDN which you need to reach a global audience, and extract a cut of the value flowing though the system. The audience is tied to youtube, and trying to extricate "your channel" from youtube is impossible in practice.
So this guys journey is not over. After saying he'll never work for porky ever again, there's only one way advertising funded platforms like youtube go, and that's down. Maybe a sudden drop due to an advertiser crisis, maybe a slow deflation and dilution of ad spend.
(I was living exclusively on google adsense income for a while. The rate of profit always fucking falls)
can you link some evidence backed debunking of LTV then?
or even better, can you start reading books and using your brain?
Was just curious, because I don't see how anyone can honestly be a libertarian anymore anyway. Also because there is now discussion about Cockshott.
If you're talking about things like Black-Scholes (which relies on physical brownian motion as an underlying assumption to identify option mispricings) then no, those things do not invalidate Libertarianism.
You don't have to believe that markets are perfectly informationally-efficient to be a Libertarian, you just have to know that markets are more efficient than central planning in most cases.
I know I don't believe in even the weak form of EMH. See: Grossman-Stiglitz paradox
Well if youtubers are smart enough they will join in the collective bargaining effort underway now.
I don't see any enterprises organizing themselves using markets but I do see plenty of centrally planned enterprises. There's probably a reason for this.
can you please give us your sources so we can have an even better laugh? have you ever worked for a company? have you ever had your own business? have you ever had an actual discussion and delivered evidence for your statements? have you ever at least tried to apply basic logics?
Do you have any real-world example for this claim?
Literally every business that ever exists organizes itself based on market information and profit incentive.
How old are you and do you have a job? That's not like any business I know of operates. Not banks, not tech companies, not state owned enterprises, not retailers. The so called market economy is almost entirely internal planning and fixed price deliveries. Markets only really play an role in the FIRE sector.
No foreign investment vs foreign investment. There are so many extraneous variables here. You might be able argue that this supports trade theory but you cannot argue that this is due to planning vs markets.
alrighty. go pray to the invisible hand.
*I don't really see
Are we still arguing libertarianism here or mixed economies which utilize both central planning and markets?
Deng's reform allowed foreign capital to be invested into then backward country, how come "trade with usa" = "free market society"?
libertarianism is a sliding scale. Not all libertarians are ancaps or even minarchists. Perhaps we have different definitions.
Funny that you link PI, I know quite a few people working there. I am watching this talk now but I doubt it's the normative argument you are claiming it is.
If socialism is such a perfect system, why does it need trade with a capitalist country to function and not be "backward"? What happened to muh autarky?
you do not even have the slightest idea of the theoretical backing of whatever delusion you are suffering from
I would also note that Deng's market reforms were a lot more deep, involved and wide-reaching than simply opening up with trade with USA
Please, do explain. The transition and reforms that occurred under Deng, and EXACTLY what it is that conflicts with the generalized idea of socialist production. I'm no apologist for the degenerated socialism that governs China, but to take a step beyond that and insinuate that the presence of Market indices of value are what have contributed, rather than third-positionist policy, to the growth of China then I'd really like to hear about your exact points. Also interesting aside that you're really weighting the development of China entirely upon the post-1976 era, rather than the extremely heavy skew to development in the last 10-15 years. No more dancing language and snide remarks.
Well, institution of policy that effectively implements profit incentive (dual track economy, household responsibility system, reopening of stock exchanges) are some examples of Deng policy that have very little to do with foreign investment/trade but still yielded incredible success in the country.
And yes, China is still a third-positionist (aka fascist nightmare) place but it's a hell of a lot more prosperous than 1949-1978 China. Are you defending pre-Deng China? The cultural revolution, great leap forward and all?
Besides the reality of geographical resources, length of development, and the practical short-term benefits of trade? Of course it would be preferable if every country was socialist, but that isn't and wasn't the reality and so decisions had to be made.
I think when you enter the territory of "we should have controls to stabilize the economy and mixed economies aren't necessarily a bad thing", you exit libertarianism and occupy the realm of post-WW2 liberalism and Social Democracy. Unless libertarianism and markets is simply synonymous for you and every country from China to the US is "libertarian". At that point I think it just loses its intended meaning and framework.
judging of his other posts he has no theoretical framework whatsoever, thus rendering his statements vague and useless.
Perhaps. You can argue for reducing the scope of government and more market solutions while still acknowledging the use of some mixed-economy institutions. Anyone who does that while not giving a fuck about socially conservatism is presumably a small-l libertarian in the USA
still seething i see my reddit-spacing friend
Debatable depending on your metric and your location, but more importantly, this sort of view attempts to negate the reality that China wouldn't even be where it is today materially without the series of plans undertaken by the communist governance during that period, most critically the industrialization of the country and the rebuilding of it post-war. I don't really see how you can remove that from the equation, especially when you factor in it's prior conditions and the context of surrounding them.
I think it would depend on what you mean by scope and what market solutions. If your scope is already that of the national economy and you accept the validity of a mixed economy, even if just to address singular issues, I think you simply fall within the boundaries of the already pre-existing pseudo-liberal/Social Democrat school of thought, maybe even a bit further outside those things. By acknowledging the use of mixed economies you're already placing yourself further past even moderate candidates like Sanders or Cortez, who's targets are really only specific institutions and areas seen to be within the publics interest and have no real interest in "mixed"-economy models.