• 10 Posts
  • 55 Comments
Joined 6M ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 18, 2021

help-circle
rss

Advertising on a communism community your marketing company? lol I hope you find your way or something…


Oh wow. J.K. Rowling reveals that you, the reader, was smoking toad venom all along.



When I tried coffee for the first time I was in the middle of a park. Here’s the thing about coffee: it makes you wanna shit. So I had to drop a deuce next to a wooden bridge.


I think this is a great idea!


It’s fast, it’s easy, and it’s cheap.


A bit of nostalgia (even though I didn’t live it); it feels more like a bunch if hobby projects on display, or a conversation among friends, rather than an optimized attention-grabbing machine.

But also, the internet was ugly af back then, so…


Here’s my take

Just like any capitalist enterprise before, workers have to create more value than what they earn. So in that sense, it’s exploitation. Also, the average wealth increases. Just like capitalism, workers will gravitate towards higher-earning jobs. And just like in capitalism, there will always be a socially-negotiated distribution of surplus. This surplus, however, has a large chunk of it that has to go to investors; otherwise you wouldn’t have capitalism. So there’s an inherent limit to how much of the surplus goes to workers

So, inherently exploitation (because surplus doesn’t go to workers, and because workers can only get so much of it), but there are also inherent opportunities (like wealth creation and the negotiation of surplus).

Having said that, I think the gig economy can make it harder for people to unionize and tilt the odds to their favor. So it lays the foundation for even more exploitation. People push back, of course, but mobilization has to happen higher up, at the level of industries or the State, rather than at the company.


I read it out loud every morning as I lather my armpits with deodorant.


Hence my begrudging admission of guilt. lol


Sure. I updated the original comment to include page numbers. I also suggest watching the video lectures. He covers this topic in his 10th lecture on the course based on the book.

I’m still thinking about this, now that I revisited the topic, but I think it’s fair to say that prices of commodities are ‘composed’, on average, of 85% labor costs. The reason I’m not entirely sure is because it’s different to say that something deviates by an amount, and that one quantity is 85% of another. However, statements from his book like the following make me think it’s fair to use the ‘composed of’ meaning: “In this metric the distance between market prices and direct prices is about 15%, that between prices of production at the observed rate of profit and integrated labor times is about 13%, while that between market prices and production prices at the observed rate of profit is once again about 15%.” (Shaikh 2016, 439)


What debate? Whether people should be informed in their medical choices or not. Fucking ass holes.

I’m sure you wrote this with the intention to make a point about the need for free speech to achieve informed consent. Yet, based on your wording, you’re also making the opposite case (the case in which people make medical choices with informed consent, without the interference of mass disinformation or science denialism).

lol


Yeah, the calculation can get impractically hard to do.

This gets harder to calculate because of integrated costs of production (e.g., the work that went into the machine that another worker used to create your commodity, as well as the work that went into creating that machine, etc.).

However, we’re in luck because the price of commodities is more closely correlated with labor costs than with profits (or ‘markups’); variations between prices and labor costs are, on average, 15%, meaning there’s a very high correlation between both (Shaikh’s Capitalism book, p.21 for a quick summary, a couple graphs of the data in p.396-7, more diverse sources of evidence and theoretical contextualization in p.433-442). This means how much you pay for something can serve as a quick-and-dirty proxy of the integrated labor-cost necessary to produce a commodity, give or take 12-15%. What remains, then, is to estimate a wage (or wages, in the integrated version). In the end, only with prices and estimated wages, I think the question in this post can be reasonably well answered.

Calculating it is both harder and easier than it seems.

Edit: Clarity and page numbers.



PewDiePie by far. I just have a good laugh with him, and I enjoy all the games I can’t play because I don’t have the necessary hardware.

I want to be abundantly clear that every time he does something awful or vaguely shitty I call my bf so that, next weekend, right after we finish our hearty veggie-filled Sunday burritos, he spanks me until I manage to flawlessly recite the Declaration of Human Rights to the tune of A Las Barricadas. Needless to say, PewDiePie is a guilty pleasure. Sorry, world.




When I got triple vaccinated, everything I did gave me double XP. I recommend it if you want to level up quickly. Just last night I got up to level 40, just by browsing Lemmy. Good shit.

My experience is, of course, representative of broader trends. But I refuse to look at statistics and rather use my single case to spread my point of view. I don’t care if most people don’t have the XP multiplier. I will still tell people about my experience so that they think the vaccine will do the same for them.

Who knows? Do you know? Do doctors know? Can you disprove what I’m saying? Can you deny that you could get the multiplier? After all, it’s my experience and you can’t invalidate that. Right?

Alright, time to go fight neighborhood cats and rats for that sweet XP.



As opposed to what? To being idealistic? Then it wouldn’t be a science, would it? It’d be a doctrine, a set of principles.

But to properly answer, I’d say you’d first have to define what strand of economics you’re talking about.

Neoclassical economics (the dominant strand) historically has not remained close to the evidence. Even today, at its fundamentals, it doesn’t. Just look at the controversies surrounding the evidence for marginalism as opposed to the labor theory of value. Or look at the controversies surrounding marginal cost curves in the theory of the firm, or the differences (and not the equality) of profit rates for companies in the same industry due to, for example, differences in equipment. The evidence tells a story, but neoclassical economics insists on telling the same (non-empirical) story.

At the same time, neoclassical economics tries to solve its lack of empiricism by relying on behavioral economics, which at the very least tries to account for a cognitive and cultural context that was previously ignored.

Neo-keynesian economics tries to account for problems in neoclassical economics by looking for a different set of evidence (demand-side policies, for example), and by framing issues differently (profits being the result of imperfect competition). They have gotten closer to solving some problems, such as having a less wonky marginal cost curve in the theory of the firm. But they have also gotten into problems, such as explaining worker agency in the broader framework of their theory.

Finally, classical economics is the strand that keeps as close as possible to the evidence. Every single controversy previously mentioned (theories of value, theory-of-the-firm curve shapes, differences in profit rates, cultural contextualization, policy effects, and framework validity) is, in my eyes, satisfactorily dealt with in classical economics. You can be a judge of this by looking at the classical theory and the criticism it levies against neoclassical and post-keynesian theories in Anwar Shaikh’s Capitalism book.

If your worry is that economics is forgetting its political implications (‘the purpose of science is not just to understand the world, but to change it’), each economic strand has your back. Neoclassical economics legitimizes and justifies capitalism. Post-keynesian economics legitimizes and justifies monopoly break-ups and demand-side policies. Classical economics legitimizes and justifies worker demands and socialism.

Tools are never created in a vacuum. They can be repurposed, but it’s naive to say an AR-15 is a toy meant for long-distance tic-tac-toe.

Hence the danger of classical economics: if people were to stick close to the evidence, they’d realize, for example, that value comes from human work and not by magical markups, or that the wage ratio (how much of the surplus goes towards profits or wages) is socially ‘negotiated’.

But all of this is assuming you are contrasting empiricism with idealism. I could be wrong. What did you have in mind when you wrote “excessively”? For you, what would “too much” be? Would that be problematic?


Hell yeah. Thanks for the historical context. Without it the meaning of the concept is much less clear.


DISCLAIMER: This was published centuries ago, when Omicron wasn’t even a thing. Therefore the symptom clusters may be the same or slightly different in the best case, or totally inapplicable in the worst case. I still linked it here because this particular link, as illuminating as it may be, wasn’tj…


IMAP email setup in Android: Better to use phone-wide accounts for OAuth or to use one-time passwords?

What considerations should privacy-minded people take into account to make this decision? …


How is China's internet regarding net neutrality, privacy, and anonimity? Are some websites slowed down? Can I browse with Tor, chat with E2EE, and use other measures to achieve privacy and anonimity?

Given that the NSA and that surveillance capitalism is everywhere, and given that I really dislike that, would it make sense to seek what I like about the internet (the potential for openess, anonimity, and privacy) in China without worrying about technical or political pushback of any kind?..




54


Request: FLOSS, simple, and 'safe' ranked-choice voting

Y’all may make my day. …