/lit/ - Literature

>>16679328
>t. took exactly 1 econ class and stopped thinking about economics after that
behavioral economics blows this myth out of the water --- by any serious measure, markets are highly inefficient. examples of such inefficiencies include:
>mass expiration of coupons and gift cards
>the "bull whip" problem of production & distribution
>the collapse of Sears after they adopted an "internal markets" model
>many of the major stock market bubbles (1999 dotcom, 2008 housing, etc.)
>overfinancialization in first world countries
>reduced birthrates as a result of financial incentives to have fewer children, in spite of the fact that increasing birthrates is the fastest way to grow the overall economy
and these are just the intermediate-level issues

>>10495947
fair point

>>10496027
value nihilism = things don't have objective value
their labor isn't "worth" anything
therefore, they can't be underpaid

it's a simple argument tbdesu

>>10496083
i'll read what you linked later, but the holes in the theory of value have nothing to do with price formation; its a model that self-contradicts even before goods are taken to market. it also lacks the robustness to deal with uncertainty. even if all the holes get plugged, i can still reject it by saying "lol value isn't real," which i do.

>>10496491
>You are . . . treating politics as a subset of economics.
i said the converse. economics is politics performed by non-state actors using finance as the incentive system of choice.

>>10350974
>The classic definition of fascism speaks of totalitarianism, or at least of a degree of control high enough over all strings of government and elements of society that it is totalitarian.
This definition may be "classic," or commonly-used, but that doesn't make it accurate or useful. What PhilTube is describing is specifically the phenomenon that led to totalitarian government in Germany, Italy, and Japan. It's true that there are meaningful differences between these three cases, but they all had an emphasis on family, patriarchy, and preservation of hierarchy. That's why he narrows in on those three things. Totalitarianism is a part of the brew too, and he acknowledges that, but before fascism can become totalitarian, it first has to "catch on," thus the need to attack the more visible elements first.

>And this brings me to my point : by neglecting to mention these elements, and by omitting to clearly use fascism in the common sense of the term and to not explain clearly his own definition of it, he surreptitiously lumps in the what you call "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy" with the horrors of Nazism by using the same word to describe both things, although they are different.
Are they different? If so, I'd hope you'd concede that the first was an important cause of the second. Hitler's rise to power was enabled by his racist/sexist populism, so, if nothing else, quashing racist/sexist populism is a good preventative measure, even if it doesn't make the country 100% fascism-proof.

>Most claims of racism today, I think are either false, or greatly exaggerated.
>This doesn't mean that people's acts are racist, or that a statistically significant portion of them are, or that the majority of people are racist at all, or that only whites are racist, if by that standard they are.
This is another definition problem. PhilTube's basic definition of racism is "stuff that harms minority races disproportionately," so for him, even though there aren't Jim Crow laws on the books or men burning crosses in anyone's back yard, society is still racist because it gives harsher criminal sentences to black men than white men. It's not really an accusation, more of a diagnosis.

>>10351032
>Today, anyone has access to ice and spices, something which back 500 years ago was rare. On top of that, anyone has the internet, kitchen appliances, reliable access to food, heat, etc. All these things make the random New Yorker richer than Richard Lionheart.
I don't know if you can attribute all these things to capitalism —it's more just technological progress. That said, I agree that a less regulated economy is a good thing, and I am a capitalist, so I'm not really gonna push back too much here.

More tidbits about Marx soon.

>>10099509
>Why wouldn't new authors go this route?

Because getting published by an actual outfit guarantees you a small sum of money (the advance), immediately puts a marketing department behind you, and gets your manuscript read by a professional editor, which makes you much less likely to embarrass yourself. Most people who think they can edit themselves, can't edit themselves.

Most importantly, if you fail, you have the ability to rewrite and try again. A book that never gets printed doesn't tarnish your reputation, so there's next to no risk in sending something out to a publisher unless it's repugnant enough to get you blacklisted. A book that you self-publish online, though, will haunt your reputation forever, especially if it sells poorly. Most agents/publishers don't care if you've been rejected by other agents/publishers. If you self-publish crap, though, they won't touch you with a ten-foot pole. The risk is much higher.

There is a downside to traditional publishing — you'll probably make less money per copy sold — but this is mitigated by the marketing you get, and the risk you avoid. And if your writing really does sell millions and millions, you'll get a much better deal on your next book. Probably even better than self-publishing companies will give you.

>tl;dr
Respect + risk mitigation + establishing a career.

>>9596168
The labor theory of value is simplistic and can't handle edge cases like luck.

>>9352553
>>9352559
Ive always wondered how the service industry could be examined through the classical marxist framework exactly because their product its not tangible, very eloquently put, thank you