/lit/ - Literature

Oh yeah?
How am I awful?

>>14152729
Destroying economies, brainwashing people with authoritarian pseudo-scientific garbage. You're just like the rest of them.

>>14152741
You don't know the first thing about me, Pal.
Look at what happened due to what you did, what your school of economics did, what it led to.
There are communists crying out there. There are free market economies out there now, growing.

>>14152752
*laughing*

>>14152758
You're laughing, global marxism was killed because of what you did.

>>14152761
I know.
How about another joke Karl?

>>14152764
No, I think we've had enough of your jokes.

>>14152770
What do you get?

>>14152777
I don't think so.

>>14152785
When you cross a liberal free market economist with an ECONOMIC THEORY that is atrociously bad, nonsensical, contradictory and socially harmful?

>>14152805
Call the police, Engels.

>>14152810
I'll tell you what you get,

YOU GET WHAT YOU FUCKING DESERVE

kino thread

Kek

Marxist tools don't even know who bawerk is lmao

Menger also rekt marx's theories as well.

*blocks your path*
https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/index.htm

>>14152861
>some crappy pamphlet written by a literally who

The fact that workers won't actually benefit from taking over the means of production because the already receive virtually all of the end product of production under capitalism(consumer goods and services) REALLY makes marxists seethe and they have no response whatsoever to this glaring contradiction in their theories.

good thread

>>14152683
n word

>>14152861
Rudolf Hilferding's weak refutation of Bawerk gets destroyed in the editor's introduction of Bawerk's book.
https://cdn.mises.org/Karl%20Marx%20and%20the%20Close%20of%20His%20System.pdf

>>14152810
best post itt

>>14152912
nobody cares about Austrian kikenomics these days. You're all imbeciles.

>>14152764
was this guy actually on austrian money?

>>14152919
>no argument
keep bootlicking and sucking central banker cock and see where that gets you

>>14152923
before the euro, yes

Why does marxism refute to die after getting btfo so hard?
Why are people so dumb?

>>14152952
They actually believe their gospel is inevitably going to happen despite all of the evidence to the contrary. I can't wait for the automation to happen and they just remain irreverent incorrect losers their entire lives.
Marxism is a religion.

Good thread.

>>14153549
lol cope

>>14152952
It´s the dialectic of our time. When capitalism doesn´t deliver, Marxists take it as an opportunity and capitalism is failing atm. Also China.

dude. the automation is going to come. everything is going to be free because robots and shit.

>>14153549
>automation
You're out of touch with reality.

>>14154647
Yep marxists cope pretty hard.

If they haven't killed themselves by then, the next 50 years is going to be incredibly difficult for them and it's going to be hilarious. They are wasting their lives.

>>14152683
Put me on the screenshot, faggots

>>14154689
This but unironically lmao

>>14154826
no, youre going to be culled by the rich. They don't care about the masses of billions of working poor. As soon as these poors are disposable, they'll be in slums, and indirectly culled. It's much, much easier and cheaper to build an automated economy that serves a very small population than a large one. The poors will be in the way of the owners.You will never benefit from it, you will continue to get poorer, and poorer, unless we, the lower classes, realize this and put a stop to it. People work longer than before, housing is more unaffordable, they have more debt, homeless and suicide numbers are rising,

>>14154696
A marxist claiming others are out of touch with reality is beyond hilarious.

>>14154852
are you really a capitalist optimist? You really think you're about to fucking cash in on the economic engine finally bringing the promised land? If so, you are a fucking moron. Things are getting worse, everything is getting worse.

>>14154846
>no, youre going to be culled by the rich. They don't care about the masses of billions of working poor.
They don't have to care, their greedy actions increase living standards for the working class.
>As soon as these poors are disposable, they'll be in slums, and indirectly culled.
The price of the goods they consume will tactically come down in price and more jobs will become available for them because the cost of capital good comes down as will leaving to a service sector economy. People would be working a lot less too because prices are so low for the things they need relative to their wages.
>It's much, much easier and cheaper to build an automated economy that serves a very small population than a large one.
So what? It's not up to the rich, it's up to the will of the consumer.
>The poors will be in the way of the owners.You will never benefit from it, you will continue to get poorer, and poorer, unless we, the lower classes, realize this and put a stop to it. People work longer than before, housing is more unaffordable, they have more debt, homeless and suicide numbers are rising,
Living standards have stagnated over the part 50 years thanks to total verbal bank power offer the economy, massive government spending and debt, government interventionism etc.
If we had a free market this entire period with deflation, living standards would be a lot higher and this retarded marxist movement would have died of a long time ago.

>>14154860
I'm a libertarian.
Almost all libertarians agree that things HAVE gotten worse in the west, but this is due to government intervention/central banking.
I hope you're prepared for the US dollar to collapse, you retarded gullible piece of shit.
After this happens we will eventually go back to free markets and that's when living standards will rise.

>>14154866
>increase living standards for the working class.
and there it is. The capitalist optimist always thinks things are getting better because his latest digital mind prison is shinier than the last. Does it matter to him that we are spiritually dead, we no longer have children, we are prescribed more and more anti-depressants to even have the will to live, we continue to work longer hours while our cost of living increases and real wages stay stagnant? No.. that wasn't REAL CAPITALISM BRO!!

You are so dumb. So fucking dumb.

Why do marxists enjoy the taste of boots so much?

>>14154879
>Bro, the DOLLAR is going to collapse and THATS going to fix it all. Free markets this time will be good.

nope. It will just start itself over. Like capitalism always does after every single crisis, unless its replaced.

>>14154881
>The capitalist optimist always thinks things are getting better
Things are getting worse you bootlicking retard, see my post above.
I'm saying things will eventually get better when the full effects of automation start kicking in.

I want America and their anti-free market empire to collapse.
Fuck the petrodollar.

>longer hours
It was economic production that reduced working hours in the first place, not the government you fucking idiot.

>>14154892
>MUH CAPITALIST CRISISES
if you weren't a brainwashed ideologue you would understand that these crisis crisises only happened thanks to government intervention in the market
The solution is to free the market, kill the central bank

>>14154881
>most free market period in American history
>greatest increases in living standards for workers
This kills the marxist.

>>14154903
>I want America and their anti-free market empire to collapse.

>he keeps speaking as if "business" and "government" are separate entities.

Liberal governments were invented to enforce property rights, and force people off of common land, and into cities, to be worker-slaves. This is basic industrial revolution historical knowledge. There is no capitalism without the enforcement of private property, there is no capitalism without government. They are one and the same.

Libertarians and An-Caps is the most historically illiterate and contradictory ideology possible.

>>14154881
>most free market period in American history
>greatest decreases in working hours for workers, long before muh unions or government put in any laws
This kills the marxist.

>>14152683
this guy seems cool

For the last time dipshit. Marxists economics say that capitalism inevitably leads to what we have now. We exist in a planned economy. There is some economic freedom, but its heavily constrained within an institution's ruleset. This is the definition of planned. The planners of this are the capitalists, the owners, the rich. They made it like this to enrich themselves at the expense of the workers. That the country becomes less free is a PRODUCT of capitalism, because the capitalists are in control. It is NOT an error.

>>14154926
>>14154907
Don't care, ahistorical economist.

this is pathetic even for lolbert standards

>>14154919
Desu, there is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
Take that boot out of your mouth and listen for a moment.
The only actual examples of anarchism in history have been MARKET based. Medieval Ireland, medieval iceland and the American midwest during the 1800s were essentially ancap.
Property rights were determined by homesteading and active use and enforced through claims associations and polycentric law.

It's the socialists and their relatively new ideology that completely ignored this fact and pretended that democracy(which is an AUTHORITARIAN system) is somehow anarchism because they're fucking retarded.

Only absolute ideological autists are unable to differentiate between free markets and government intervention.
Yes states threw people off their property under feudalism etc but this is an example of government intervention, not the free market.

Stop licking boots.

>>14154935
>actual legitimate data that contradicts my marxist worldview is bad
Okay then, you clearly don't care about the truth.
Continue to cope.

>>14154940
Marxists are SEETHING

>>14154932
Why can't we just have a free market instead?
You people pretend like it's fucking impossible because the capitalists will take over the government yet it actually did exist in history many times.

You're just compulsive ahistoric liars.

Marxism won't exist as an ideology in 100-200 years.

>>14154919
>liberalism and freedom is bad
>I want maoism

Why not kill yourself?
It would be faster and accomplish the same thing.

>when the marxists get btfo so completely that they short circuit and start repeating propaganda that fulfills their emotional needs apropos of nothing in the thread
kekking hard famalam

>>14152683
the late sean f kay

>>14154919
>Libertarians and An-Caps is the most historically illiterate and contradictory ideology possible.

>t. "anarcho" communist

>>14152881
it's a good feeling when you realize your enemies are this fucking retarded that they don't even understand basic concepts of Marxism enough to move beyond their strawman version of it, and their self-congratulatory 'gotcha' shitposting.

>>14154932
Bullshit, the massive increases in government intervention were primarily the result of the failures of democracy.
People voted in these policies thinking it would help them but only ended up harming them.
Capitalists just saw this and took advantage of it.

This is why the only thing to effectively control capitalists is a small government.

>>14155025
It doesn't even exist now.
Just ask two Marxists what Marxism is and you get two wildly different things that are basically mutually exclusive.

Marxism is already nothing but a label, devoid of any meaning.

>>14154932
Yes. Free market capitalism was never tried.

>>14155140
> don't even understand basic concepts of Marxism
You children are so fucking pathetic it's unreal. When backed into a corner and your ideology is directly refuted you cry "read a book" or "you don't actually understand marxism" without actually explaining what you think we are getting wrong.
We don't fucking do this only you do.
Bawerk effectively dismantled marxism and you bootlickers are still REEEEEEEing to this very day.
Taking over the means of production won't actually benefit the workers because they already recurve virtually all of the end product of production(consumer goods).
Taking over the means of production would mean the workers would have to work the same number of hours to consume the same amount of resources they were consuming before.
How do you people not fucking realize this?
Surplus value doesn't actually manifest itself ANYWHERE in the real world. It's nonsense.
The charts I posted show that the greatest increases in worker living standards in America happened when we had the freest markets and no central bank.
Stop licking boots.

>>14155150
I can confirm this.
After debating with marxists online for years, they contradict each other on many things and refuse to respond to even basic critiques of their ideology.

isn't Murray the character who is upholding status quo while the joker is the character who became insane from this status quo and is willing to do anything to change it.
marx literally believes that bloody and violent revolutions will destroy everything to replace it with a new mode of production.
bawerk believes in economic prosperity, growth, stability i.e. upholding status quo to maintain productivity and other non radical docile ideas.
not a Marxist because i don't believe in miracles or linear thinking that bad thing becomes good. just saying this analogy is bad

>>14155166
I'm not a marxist. but you've made some errors.
>Taking over the means of production won't actually benefit the workers because they already recurve virtually all of the end product of production(consumer goods)
youve not factored in autonomy of labour. taking over the means of production means reinstating dignity in ones labour output. labour after industrialisation atomises labour and alienates the worker from what they've made. marxism is concerned with reinstating dignity, not material gains.
>Taking over the means of production would mean the workers would have to work the same number of hours to consume the same amount of resources they were consuming before.
this statement implies that no structural change has occurred after the revolution. you've created a "natural order" of an ideology. namely, capitalism.
>Surplus value doesn't actually manifest itself ANYWHERE in the real world
this is true. but you can say the same thing for exchange value. it has no quantifiable magnitude that underpins it. you can say this about all economics. that's why it isn't a hard science.
>The charts I posted show that the greatest increases in worker living standards in America happened when we had the freest markets and no central bank
no they didnt. they showed a decrease in labour hours in "production jobs". it said nothing about living standards. they were just decontextualised statistics. it said a blanket number, that didn't explain the type of employ the worker was in casual/part time/full time etc.

>>14155236
>isn't Murray the character who is upholding status quo while the joker is the character who became insane from this status quo and is willing to do anything to change it.
Yep
If anything OP is extremely accurate.

Anti free market policies have been the status quo for thousands of years.

>>14155244
Kek this is really bad, give me an hour when I have time and I'll reply

>>14155272
don't bother. no one really cares what you have to say.

Marx actually thought we should create the most authoritarian state in history to socially engineer people to become communists and then the state would "wither away".

How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe this?

Marxism is a religion.

>>14152683
The biggest of keks

>>14155293
Hello retard. Read Marx for once. The complete nationalization of the economy by a central government is only transitory; after that comes the stateless society. Furthermore, Marx never called for a dictatorship or authoritarian state.

>>14155318
>The complete nationalization of the economy by a central government is only transitory; after that comes the stateless society
That seems to be exactly what the guy you responded to said.

The idea that a stateless society is the result of a total state control over the economy seems unbelievably moronic, still.

>>14155376
>>14155318
>>14155293
The lower socialist phase isn’t an all powerful state you autistic pseuds

>>14155318
> The complete nationalization of the economy by a central government is only transitory; after that comes the stateless society.
That's exactly what I fucking said.
Holy shit you are actually defending this retarded theory.

>>14155410
Hahahaha yeah right that's why marx advocated extreme state control and literally had a list of demands that socialist states should abide by.
One of these demands was a central bank
You people are fucking clueless.

>>14152683
literally who?
>Austrian economist
All that shit does is replace the theory of surplus labour and apply it to the state/taxation. Literally marxism for autistic momma's boys.

>>14155287
Except all the seething marxist teens in this thread lole

>>14155437
>One of these demands was a central bank
GASP. that means the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, and the EU are Communist.

>>14155318
> The complete nationalization of the economy by a central government is only transitory; after that comes the stateless society.
Ahhhh, yes allow the government to completely monopolize all production and eliminate all bourgeois thought and then somehow magically the state will wither away.

How low an IQ do you need to have to become a marxist?
What a poisonous and idiotic ideology.

>>14155449
No, they're not free markets if that's what you were implying.
Marx was just another authoritarian shithead, he wasn't anything special.

>>14155410
>The lower socialist phase isn’t an all powerful state you autistic pseuds
Except that it has for more power than even the largest mega Corp today?

Your solution to capitalism is essentially to create the most powerful and least regulated company to ever exist?
LMAO.

>>14155459
Seething
>>14155456
>Ahhhh, yes allow the government to completely monopolize all production and eliminate all bourgeois thought and then somehow magically the state will wither away.
Yes it ain't be needed anymore after that
>How low an IQ do you need to have to become a marxist?
AT LEAST 130

>>14155465
>Yes
You are delusional, how many times in history has a state dissolved itself?

>>14155463
You sound like autistic TPusa children when talking about communism. The state for Marx isn’t a government, it’s made up of a body of the proletariat. It can’t fuck up purely because it’s democratic. It isn’t some all powerful hegemonic republic. You literal mouth breathers have no idea what you’re talking about

>>14155465
>Seething
lel what?
It's not my childish authoritarian ideology that's getting btfo in this thread, it's yours.

>>14155470
>muh USSR
oh lord. here we go again. the USSR was state capitalist and a dictatorship—exactly the opposite of what Marx wanted.

>>14155473
>It can’t fuck up purely because it’s democratic.
L
M
A
O

Yes, we all know how good the proletariat is at making well thought out decisions.
I mean, I can not wait for the far right government the proletariat is voting into power, 1488 communist race war now!

>>14155465
Why wouldn't it be needed?
How would you coordinate economic production without a state OR a market?
Also why do you naively believe the people running the state would voluntarily give up power?

Holy fuck you people are stupid and evil.

>>14155476
>USSR
???
In the USSR the government dissolved itself, nowhere did the USSR become a stateless society, why are you bringing it up?

>>14155473
>The state for Marx isn’t a government, it’s made up of a body of the proletariat.
So what? It's still a state, a monopoly on violence.

>its democratic so it's good
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA because democracy has never failed before and isn't incredibly fucking authoritarian

Imagine not learning this basic civics lesson from the Greeks.
Democracy is authoritarian.

>>14155489
>How would you coordinate economic production without a state OR a market?
Just vote on it brah. Nothing bad has ever been the result of a democratic vote, of course the proletariat has never truly voted in history.

>>14155476
No shit beggar socialism is impossible and will always turn into authoritarianism

Every single fucking time.

This thread just proves marxists are severely lacking in critical thinking skills.
Marxism is a religious doctrine to them.
If we were living a few centuries prior, they would be part of the Catholic church.

>>14155504
You're such an idiot. Marxism Leninism is not the correct interpretation of Marx. I swear, you libertarians are shit eating retards.

>>14155509

>Marx's retention of the third feature of Hegel's philosophic outlook - monism - is really what transformed Marxism into a prophetic religion. We can detect it in the very tone of Lenin's subsequent comments: "The teaching of Marx is all-powerful because it is true. It is complete and symmetrical, offering an integrated view of the world..." This is the tone in which the caliphs used to comment about Muhammad's teachings. Time and again, Western thinkers would strike out at Marx, point out that his entire doctrine is unscientific, that it is essentially dogmatic belief. But Marxism had become a religion against which no intellectual argument could possibly prevail. Hegel had attempted to formulate a philosophy of Time and Eternity, and to him History was the "autobiography of God", but to Marx, the historical process itself was God: Marxism is a religion of Time, exclusively. Its philosophy became transmuted into a potent faith which was destined to have the same power of expansion in the twentieth century as Islam in the seventh.

>>14155516
Leftists are far more likely to be pedophiles than libertarians though lmao.

>>14155514
>Marxism Leninism is not the correct interpretation of Marx.
Like 70% of marxists are also leninists. Most of your marxist friends are also tankies. Don't try to deny it.
ALSO you fucking moron, marx DID advocate an authoritarian state.
12 planks of communism ring a bell?
Every single thing he advocated for was authoritarian.
>you libertarians are shit eating retards.
You're the retard advocating boot licking and actually believe in economic determinism and actually thinks that creating an authoritarian state and socially engineering people will make the state wither away

You're a religious fundie and an authoritarian
Kill yourself.

>>14155473
>It can’t fuck up purely because it’s democratic.
Is it safe to say all communists are 12 year olds or just manchildren?
How can they honestly spew this garbage and take it seriously?

>there are unironic trickle down economics shills itt

>>14155694
"Trickle down economics" is a strawman term used by leftists, no one has ever said this in a serious context, wojaknigger.

>>14155244
>I'm not a marxist.
Doubtful.
youve not factored in autonomy of labour.
This is a completely separate issue. The main motivation marxists have for their revolution
They constantly complain about wage rates and working hours and somehow think that taking over the means of production means they will consume more and work less. It's fucking nonsense.
>taking over the means of production means reinstating dignity in ones labour output.
How? They would have to do the same exact fucking jobs, but also they have even more responsibility and work because they need to manage the means of production.
>marxism is concerned with reinstating dignity, not material gains.
Bullshit lol
>this statement implies that no structural change has occurred after the revolution
What structural change are you referring to?
Workers voluntarily buy products the capitalist provide. Why would the mixture of products somehow change just because socialists are in charge?
>but you can say the same thing for exchange value
You missed my point, I was just saying that the so called value that was extracted from the capitalist can't possibly exist because if the workers actually got this value back, they wouldn't be able to receive any more products than they currently are receiving. Therefore it can't possibly be a real thing.
>no they didnt.
Yes, they legitimately did.
>they showed a decrease in labour hours in "production jobs".
No shit, the vast majority of the economy was production jobs back then.
Not enough for you? Here's some more data pic related.
>it said nothing about living standards
The other chart I posted here did:
>>14154907
Real wages substantially increased for all work done.
This is real, I have more data if you want it.

>>14155514
>Marxism Leninism is not the correct interpretation of Marx
It's objectively the only one that can be applied in reality though.

>>14155694
>there are brainlets that unironically believe trickle down economics is a real thing and not a leftist strawman argument about a thing that never happened

Enjoy your central banks you dumb poverty loving bootlicker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpKvS7S1GY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWCnA7TbNU

>>14155694
fuck trickle down economics, we should just print money and give it to rich people instead
oh wait we already do that thanks to leftists and their precious central banks lmao

>>14155714
>4channel
>serious context
Lmao
Maybe those exact words aren't being used in serious context, but unfortunately, the policies it is refering to do.
Guess some people just like being pissed on

What a crazy reality we live in.
Leftists support policies that enslave them and make them poorer all while thinking they're helping themselves.

They literally support someone like FDR, the man who brought untold poverty and misery to americans for over 10 years.

>>14155746
>the policies it is refering to do.
"Trickle down" or "neoliberal" economic policies were literally never implemented.
You people are fucking brainwashed tools and useful idiots for the neo-keynesian world order we currently live under.

>>14155724
>>14155742
>federal reserve
>public institution
What

>there are people in this thread right now that support central banking and have the balls to call others slaves
The irony.

>>14152741
>can't understand the logic and science behind marxism
>therefore condemning it as pseudo science

let me guess, you're either in high school or have never touched a science subject in your life (and hence have little to no knowledge of what actually constitutes as a science). fucking brainlet.

>>14155765
The gold standard is too unstable idiot.

>>14155764
>he thinks this government created program would somehow be better if it were public instead of private
It's the same government interventionist garbage, you bootlicker.
>>14155766
>>can't understand the logic and science behind marxism
What logic and science?
Marxism has gotten pretty btfo in this threads from countless angles.
Marxism is pretty easy to understand and debunk. Cope harder you slave wannabe.
>>therefore condemning it as pseudo science
lol marxism essentially denies human biological instincts and claims all human action is the result of economics forces
This is fucking pseudoscience.
>you're either in high school
You're projecting kid, everyone knows dumb teenagers go through their socialist phase.

>>14155770
>The gold standard is too unstable idiot.
That's right, you believed statist propaganda like a good slave.
Just ignore the fact the entire massive economic growth of the late 1800s was entirely a gold standard. Just ignore the fact we've had MORE and

>>14155782
>Just ignore the fact we've had MORE and
deeper recessions since we got off the gold standard*

>marxists actually think they are scientific

>>14155766
Bohm Bawerk literally wrote a massive book debunking marx though.
Try reading some critiques of your ideology for once.
https://cdn.mises.org/Karl%20Marx%20and%20the%20Close%20of%20His%20System.pdf

>>14155755
Yes it has been implemented, dumbass. "Neoliberal" refers to a system in which the wealthy use the government to restructure countries to suit their interests, bassicaly using keynessian economics for the exact opposite reason it was created for.
As for laisez fair economics, that has also been aplied, namely in that wonderful period of child labor, 14 hour work days and workplace deaths that eventually lead up to the great depression lmao

>>14155795
this
all economics is pseudo-science, I fucking hate econ majors

>>14155810
>Yes it has been implemented
Where? lol
Reagan spent a fuckton of money and increased regulations.
How is this "trickle down" or "liberal" in any way?
Because he slightly lowered taxes?
Government tax receipts actually INCREASED during reagan, the government took in MORE taxes.
>"Neoliberal" refers to a system in which the wealthy use the government to restructure countries to suit their interests, bassicaly using keynessian economics for the exact opposite reason it was created for.
THAT'S what you're claiming neoliberalism means?
If true then the term is the most deceptive term ever created.
It's the complete opposite of liberalism and economic freedom, yet you manipulative cunts call it "liberal"
Kill yourself.

>As for laisez fair economics, that has also been aplied
Yes, in the late 1800s where living standards for workers dramatically increased the most they had ever increased in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
See:
>>14154907
and pic related

>child labor
Was a fact of life for all of human history until this period of time actually abolished it because parents had enough resources so their kids didn't have to work.

>14 hour work days
lmao this period resulted in a massive decrease in working hours
The 40 hour workweek was created by the massive economic growth of this period. The government only put in their useless and harmful laws AFTER the market had reduced hours.
Sources:
>>14155717
>>14154926


>workplace deaths
Also steadily declining through this period when they were a fact of life before this period.

>great depression
lmao the great depression was the result of a massive artificial boom created by the central banks you love so much and when it popped, the government massively intervened in the economy, causing all economic production to basically grind to a halt. It was the most interventionist period in american history, a "progressive" was in charge. You brainlets should have loved it lol

The gilded age period was the most successful period of economic growth in history and is what CREATED the middle class.
LOL Let's watch you backpedal and cope hard now lmao

>>14155810
>"Neoliberal" refers to a system
No it doesn't, it's a pejorative term used exclusively by academic leftists. There are no self-proclaimed neoliberal authors who write books on "neoliberal theory".

>>14155810
UNIONS: NOT the cause of our 40 hour workweek!

When economists and historians were surveyed, 88% of them either agreed or mostly agreed with the proposition that economic growth – NOT Unions – was to thank for our reduced workweek. In fact, only 5-6% thought that unions were the primary cause. [1] While this - by itself - does not constitute evidence, the following points DO:

• In 1790 about 90% of workers worked in agriculture. [2] They had almost no choice. People didn't have the luxury of ignoring food production. And until recent human history, 40 hours of labor a week generally wasn't productive enough to feed a family, so hours were long and labor was intensive.

• Thankfully, as technology made it possible, fewer farms fed greater populations, and by 1990 the share of the labor force working in agriculture had dropped to only 2.6%. This decline occurred consistently throughout the decades. [2] [3] What's noteworthy is that freedom from these long hours and back-breaking labor didn't arise because someone passed a law mandating that everyone could stop working after only 8 hours and still magically have enough food to feed their families, rather it manifested because increases in productivity allowed people to leave the farm. Two of our sources confirm this was happening, one specifically noting the increase in per capita GDP from 1800 to 1860 [4] and the other noting its increase from 1890 and on. [5]

cont.

>>14155810
• When people moved into manufacturing, they began working fewer hours over the decades. To confirm this, our video heavily relied upon two key sources. As the census explains, “Prior to 1913, except for the data in the Weeks Report and the Aldrich Reports, readily available data are extremely spotty and inadequate.” [6] The Weeks Report was part of the 1883 Census and the Aldrich Report was prepared for the 1893 Senate Committee on Finance. Since these are considered by most professionals to be the best sources from this era, they're what we used in our review. The data, despite well known inaccuracies, still show an undeniable trend. The average workweek declined from approximately 70 hours in 1830 to about 60 hours by 1890. [7] [8] As stated in the Weeks Report, “There having been a marked increase in the 10-hour period, and a marked DECREASE in the 12 to 13 and 13 to 14 hour periods between 1830 and 1880.” (FYI: the number of individuals working 8-9 hour work days was mostly unchanged at this point.) [7]

• This, too, was the result of productivity increases; specifically, the implementation of steam power. As a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded, after observing historical trends in labor productivity, “Controlling for firm size, location, industry, and other establishment characteristics, steam powered establishments had higher labor productivity than establishments using hand or animal power, or water power. ...The diffusion of steam power was an important factor behind the growth of labor productivity, accounting for 22 to 41 percent of that growth between 1850 and 1880..." [9]

• In the 1900's, workweek hours declined again from around 55-60 hours to only 35-40 hours by 1938. This clearly demonstrates that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was essentially unnecessary, at least in regards to establishing a 40 hour workweek as the standard. [10] [11] [12] [13]

• Furthermore, it was found (Whaples 1990a) that high unionization and strike levels reduced hours only to a small degree. [10] In city-level comparisons, for instance, "state maximum hours laws appear to have had little affect on average work hours, once the influences of other factors have been taken into account." "Overall, in cities where wages were one percent higher, hours were about -0.13 to -0.05 percent lower. ...This suggests that during the era of declining hours, workers were willing to use higher wages to 'buy' shorter hours." [10]

cont.

>>14155810
• So despite the data showing a clear decline in work hours all occurring prior to Unions having successfully lobbied Congress to legislate the 40 hour standard, people still mistakenly believe that Unions were to thank for our 8 hour day and 40 hour workweek. Our graph, from the study "Trends in Hours: The U.S. from 1900 to 1950”, shows the decline from 1830 to 1990. We had already reached the 40 hour standard by 1938 WITHOUT the need for legislation. Furthermore, as this study states, the "decline was not even across workers: it benefited mostly low-wage earners who used to work the most in 1900.” [14]

THE REALITY?
Labor unions had been trying for decades to legislate a shorter workweek but their goals simply weren't mathematically feasible until per capita GDP and productivity had first increased. Once they DID increase the demands of Unions were finally possible. This is far different, however, from falsely concluding that their demands were the SOURCE of said advancement. Just as in 1791 when Philadelphia carpenters went on strike seeking a 10 hour work day or in 1835 when different Philadelphia strikers did the same. Just as in 1864, when the Chicago labor movement began demanding an 8 hour work day, similar to the National Labor Union in 1866 who declared it necessary to free people from "capitalist slavery." Just as with the Illinois strike of 1867, or the 8-hour proclamation declared by President Grant in 1869, the central demands of labor organizers in the 1870's, the objectives of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions in 1884, or the American Federation of Labor in 1888, all of whom sought an 8 hour work day, little improvement could have resulted had the economic circumstances not first allowed it. Yes, unions demanded a shorter work day, and yes, unions demanded a shorter workweek, but PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES and ECONOMIC GROWTH gave it to us.

cont.

>>14155810
Citations:

[1]
(note: figures may not add exactly up to 100% due to rounding.)
http://employees.csbsju.edu/jolson/ECON315/Whaples2123771.pdf

[2]
https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm

[3]
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/wp07105.pdf
(also the source of one of the graphs depicted in the video)

[4]
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8007.pdf

[5]
http://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/finklerm/DeLong_Growth_History_Ch5.pdf

[6]
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-06.pdf

[7]
U.S. Department of Interior (1883) Census (a.k.a The Weeks Report)
https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v20-01.pdf

[8]
The Aldrich Report from the 1893 Senate Committee on Finance.
https://archive.org/details/wholesalepricesw03unit

[9]
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11931

[10]
Whaples (1990a)
http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9026669/

[11]
Jones (1963)
https://go *spam filter block* o.gl/GszkyY

[12]
Owen (1976, 1988)
https://go *spam filter block* o.gl/7m0Xws

[13]
(source is cited merely to confirm when the FLSA was passed)
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/national-fair-labor-standards-act-2953.html

[14]
http://citese *spam filter block* erx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.149.8647&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>14155810
>>14155848
>>14155851
>>14155855
>>14155861

>>14155236
>bawerk believed in the status quo
okay this is just incorrect

>>14155848
>>14155851
>>14155855
>>14155861
This is all bullshit, of course. It's gish gallop from corporate shills to prevent any response. However, you leave out important facts: unions kept the issue of work hours alive and the law setting a limit on work hours allowed workers to be paid for overtime. You also, of course, leave out the fact that unions increased real wages significantly. Since you're a corporate cock sucker, you leave out the fact that in the 1930's, thanks to unions rising wages, productivity increased as a result. Real wages began to rise faster than productivity in the 1930's (thanks to unions). I see your constantly going on about productivity in your gish gallop, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention that unions did cause a rise in productivity, bootlicker. Secondly, the ratification of the 40 hour work week into law and overtime payment also helped increase productivity.

>>14155777
> lol marxism essentially denies human biological instincts and claims all human action is the result of economics forces
This is fucking pseudoscience.

This is how I know you never read his books. Why do these brainlets insist on sprouting the same Le humans are naturally greedy to counter Marxism?? Read a fucking book for once you brain dead morons. You clearly have never touched a book and are from pol.

>>14155957
>This is all bullshit, of course.
Really?
You're just going to flat out ignore ALL of this objective data because of your feelings?
What sources are you providing? You have nothing.
You people are the ultimate fucking bootlickers.
You suck both state and corporate cock. Your ideology has resulted in central banks existing and creating trillions of dollars out of thin air, giving it to banks and corporations while our wages and savings lose value.
>gish gallop
What's the problem? Too many actual logical arguments and sources? lol
>to prevent any response.
You have no actual data though
I legit just showed you objective data that working hours substantially decreased for decades in an era of EXTREME free markets and long before unions got any real numbers or political power.
>unions kept the issue of work hours alive and the law setting a limit on work hours allowed workers to be paid for overtime
No shit, this law was actually harmful and didn't benefit workers. It limited the amount of hours they could work if they needed more money.
>unions increased real wages significantly
No they didn't. Increases in economic productivity did that.
Real wages only increase if the amount of stuff to buy in the economy increases you fucking religious fundamentalist retard. You can artificially increase wages all you want but if no new goods are created, all that happens is price increases.
>1930's, thanks to unions rising wages, productivity increased as a result
Productivity increased in the 30s? No it didn't, we had the depression. You're wrong. Even your unsourced graph shows you're wrong.
>Secondly, the ratification of the 40 hour work week into law and overtime payment also helped increase productivity.
LMAO How does putting a burden on businesses increase economic output?
Are you honestly this stupid?

>>14156037
>Read a fucking book
Like fucking clockwork.
How is this not a meme at this point

>READ LE BOOK
>YOU DON'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND MARXISM

You people are legitimately a cult, when people directly counter your bootlicking authoritarian religion you claim we're wrong without actually explaining why? Truth is you can't actually counter our claims because you know you're fucking wrong.
When you strawman our ideology we explain why you're wrong and correct you. When you claim we strawman you, you claim we don't know what we're talking about and don't even refute it, you fucking cowards.
You're the only fucking ideology that does this, holy shit.

You're the SECOND person in this thread to do this.

Please just do the world a favor and kill yourself.

What do we do with poverty creating socialist bootlickers?

They honestly shouldn't be allowed to vote and socialist/social democratic political parties shouldn't be allowed to run in elections.

>>14156067
Typical retard who hasn’t read the book, doesn’t actually understand Marxism trying to argue against it

Fuck off back to pol and spew ur uninformed opinions there. This board is for people who actually read

>>14155473
>It can’t fuck up purely because it’s democratic.
Is this bait?

>>14156097
>Typical retard who hasn’t read the book
HAHAHAHAHAHA
See? I told you, you can't actually respond and explain why you think we're wrong.
You don't have any argument, you're just a fucking robot.
Marx ACTUALLY believed in economic determinism you fucking idiot. Are you saying he didn't? Why? Explain your reasoning and don't tell me to read a book that 95% of marxists have not read.

By your dumb logic, I guess if you haven't read bawerk's destruction of marxism then marxism is totally wrong then, amirite?

>Fuck off back to pol
You're in a fucking cult you retard.
Why don't you question your ideology for once in your life?

>This board is for people who actually read
No shit, that's why marxism isn't welcome here.

>>14156103
>Is this bait?
It's not bait.
It's what marxists ACTUALLY fucking believe, no joke.

Is Marxism the Dunning–Kruger effect in action?

>>14156117
Marv was an intellectual who read and understood more books than most people of his and this time.

>>14156097
>people who actually read
>can't even spell "your"
pathetic desu

>>14152683
This is an ancap board now

>>14156124
Yet he still got it dead wrong and all of his predictions never came to pass.
His modern day followers are low IQ brainlets that pretend to be intellectuals.

>>14156126
Based and redpilled.

>>14156054
>You're just going to flat out ignore ALL of this objective data because of your feelings?
It's gish gallop, not objective data.
>What sources are you providing?
I'm actually knowledgeable on American economic history. I can provide sources, but they're irrelevant because no one checks them.
>Your ideology has resulted in central banks existing and creating trillions of dollars out of thin air
Fiat currency got us off the unstable gold standard; it fluctuates too much and is not feasible in the modern day. Even your own tribe (the Austrians) admit that the gold standard isn't feasible today and that you would need a different metal.
>while our wages and savings lose value
Why do you retards think wages and productivity are separated? Is it because Nixon ended muh precious gold standard? In reality, it has to do with globalization, free trade, deregulation, and the decline of unions.
>What's the problem? Too many actual logical arguments and sources? lol
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Alberto Brandolini
>You have no actual data though
I can open my books on American economic history right now and provide data.
>I legit just showed you objective data that working hours substantially decreased for decades
I'm not even denying that.
>and long before unions got any real numbers or political power.
LOL. Roosevelt's Progressive Party ran on a platform of a 40 hour work week and they almost won the election. Don't bullshit me by saying that the labour movement had no influence and numbers.
>No shit, this law was actually harmful and didn't benefit workers. It limited the amount of hours they could work if they needed more money.
NO. I already explained this in my post, imbecile. The law allows workers to get overtime payments for working past forty hours. That means they get paid extra for working overtime—I doubt you knew that though, because you're a monkey in Brazil with no labour laws.
>No they didn't. Increases in economic productivity did that.
I showed you data in my previous post. Unions had a huge impact in increasing wages, so much so that real wage growth surpassed productivity growth.
>You can artificially increase wages all you want but if no new goods are created, all that happens is price increases.
I'm not talking about nominal wages; I'm talking about real wages for a reason.
>Productivity increased in the 30s? No it didn't, we had the depression. You're wrong.
LOL. Take a look at the graph I just posted.
>LMAO How does putting a burden on businesses increase economic output?
Oy vey, did I upset you Shekelberg? Is it a burden on your business to pay extra to your workers?

>>14156067
Maybe if you didn't spew retarded shit all the time you wouldn't be told to read books.

>>14156111
How the fuck are people meant to argue with what YOUR own interpretation of Marxism is based on pol memes and not his actual work? Cite explicitly where he has said anything related at all about human psychology. Oh wait you can’t because you haven’t actually read or understood anything jfc just piss off u dumb pest.

>>14156137
>Maybe if you didn't spew retarded shit all the time
Fact: My criticisms of marxism are legitimate and you're simply coping at this point because you cannot refute them.
I've debated with countless marxists and I give their arguments a fair shot, that is when they actually make them and don't cry and complain.
Many marxists will respond to the same points I'm making and try to refute them, you however just cry like a bitch.
If I'm strawmanning marx then you should be able to point out where I'm mistaken, no?

Face it, you people have nothing and are desperately trying to save face. So many fucking times you children use the read a book line when you can't counter the endless criticisms and contradictions of the church of marx.

Are you 12 years old?

>>14156162
>Face it, you people have nothing and are desperately trying to save face. So many fucking times you children use the read a book line when you can't counter the endless criticisms and contradictions of the church of marx.

>>14156111
You are literally spinning off random unrelated fluff of what Marxism is supposed to be about which are completely irrelevant and not even mentioned in his book. It is irrelevant because you haven’t read his work and you are asking people to prove that you’re wrong. Do you still not see just how ridiculous you are? Anyways I’m done exchanging yous with you, read a book before you make your low intelligence further transparent.

>>14156136
>I can provide sources, but they're irrelevant because no one checks them

So you have no sources

>Why do you retards think wages and productivity are separated?

He’s referring to purchasing power

>I can open my books on American economic history right now and provide data.

Yet you haven’t

>Don't bullshit me by saying that the labour movement had no influence and numbers

Bad reframing. Before you were saying unions were the sole reason for the change. Now you’re arguing that to some extent it may have had influence

>I showed you data in my previous post. Unions had a huge impact in increasing wages, so much so that real wage growth surpassed productivity growth.

Gish Gallup. Reread his post

>>14156136
>not objective data.
It IS objective data you gigantic fucking moron LOL
Look at you, you're just ignoring actual academic data that proves your point wrong.
Imagine directly ignoring reality like this. You're in a cult.
>I can provide sources
Then do it, you have nothing. Your image is poorly cropped and has no source. It also does not prove that unions were the primary cause of real wages increasing, especially when real wages substantially increased in the 1800s without any government intervention or union power.
>it fluctuates too much and is not feasible in the modern day
No it doesn't.
The gold standard was actually MORE stable than fiat currency.
You're a corporate cocksucker by defending this system, I hope you know that.
>Austrians) admit that the gold standard isn't feasible today
No we don't lol.
>Why do you retards think wages and productivity are separated?
Because they aren't the same thing stupid?
>globalization, free trade
This resulted in an increase in living standards worldwide, it only didn't in the west because of our foolish petrodollar system which allows our government to subvert our economy by spending as much money as it wants
>deregulation,
lol regulations have INCREASED though
decline of unions.
Lol but real wages increased FASTER when unions had less power and numbers in the 1800s
>"The amount of energy necessary
You're just coping. You only need to refute ONE of the sources yet you cannot.
I posted RAW DATA from these time periods lol you are pathetic
>I'm not even denying that.
So you admit real wages and working hours improved without unions? lol
>Roosevelt's Progressive Party
I'm talking about during the "gilded age" you fucking idiot lmao
The progressive era came after. The progressive era was marked with STAGNATION in working hours, look at the fucking chart.
>The law allows workers to get overtime payments for working past forty hours.
Thus massively incentivising firms to cut hours to people that need them.
>I showed you data in my previous post.
Unsourced graph.
All it showed is that productivity increased.
No shit, it did this in spite of unions. If we didn't have unions, productivity would be even higher.
>I'm talking about real wages
All unions do is increase nominal wages though, for them to increase real wages, more stuff needs to be made you fucking moron.
>Take a look at the graph
Imagine thinking GDP is a necessarily a real measure of economic growth. When the government spends money the GDP increases. We had the depression during this time, the actual wealth of workers was declining.
>Is it a burden on your business to pay extra to your workers?
That's not the argument at all, lol.
Answer my question. How does putting a burden on production somehow INCREASE production?

>>14155848
>>14155851
>>14155855
>claims to be for "economic freedom"
>noooooo, you may NOT unite with fellow workers to collectively bargain for a better deal
What did ancraps mean by this?

>>14155841
>angry 19 year old reads rothbard once

>>14156134
>Yet he still got it dead wrong
No, the world got it wrong, but time will correct us and vindicate Marx.

>>14156152
>YOUR own interpretation of Marxism
I honestly can't believe how dumb you are.
Every single person's argument about anything is simply their interpretation of reality.
I try my absolute best to understand marx and marxists and their arguments, that's why I hate when boomers use shitty arguments against them like "muh 100 gorrillian dead" or "the ussr was communist"
You're the only fucking group that can't actually refute people.
When you strawman our ideology, we simply correct you. It's fucking easy, you just can't do it and you're COPING.
Marxism is a religion.
>/pol/ memes
Again, you marxist authoritarian psychopaths aren't welcome on here.
It's actually funny there's more fascists here now than marxists.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Marx's_dialectics
Marx' view of human behavior was economic determinism. He believed there are laws of history based on economic classes that determine human history.
Even marxists claim this.
Are you even a marxist?

>>14156111
Just admit you haven't read marx and fuck off you retarded loser

>>14156170
>How the fuck are people meant to argue with what YOUR own interpretation of Marxism is based on pol memes and not his actual work? Cite explicitly where he has said anything related at all about human psychology. Oh wait you can’t because you haven’t actually read or understood anything jfc just piss off u dumb pest.

>>14156219
This guy keeps calling commies mad but he's obviously fucking seething lmao

Bro, I know that cato institute articles are very important to you but step back and stop being such a clown

>>14156177
This is pathetic.
If I'm strawmanning, explain why and how I'm wrong.
You can't lmao
Why can every fucking ideology do this except for you?
Lets watch as you dig this hole deeper for yourself.

>>14156162
>My criticisms of marxism are legitimate
So what was it?
>marxism essentially denies human biological instincts and claims all human action is the result of economics forces
Alright here comes Marx
> that men must be in a position to live in order to be able to “make history.” But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself.
>In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
Needs lead to production, production to social relations, these relations to an economic system. He doesn't deny humans needs or instincts as you claimed.

>>14156238
>>noooooo, you may NOT unite with fellow workers to collectively bargain for a better deal
You can do this as much as you want brainlet, doesn't mean the business owner has to listen to you.
>>14156240
Why do socialist bootlicking teens project so hard? lmao
>>14156249
The next 50 years of your pathetic life are going to be extremely hard.
You're going to witness the US dollar collapse, the economy restructure and living standards for workers to radically rise as automation takes over as you cluelessly wonder why there's no mass unemployment.

>>14156251
Linking wikipedia articles is just proving that you haven't actually read any of his books despite that you "try my absolute best to understand marx and marxists and their arguments"

The Libertarian thinkers that you idolize have read Marx so that they may refute him. Stop being such a brainlet and actually educate yourself on the opposing side

>>14156255
I've read bits and pieces of his works. I mostly read marxists and their summaries of marx(so do like 90% of marxists) I read of a lot of his critics as well obviously.
Have you actually read marx?
If you did read marx you'd be able to refute me.
Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot here.
Refute my arguments or kill yourself lmao

>>14156288
Hahaha he finally admits it.

/thread

>>14156263
>cato institute
Jesus christ this marxist bootlicker literally has no idea what the austrian school is and thinks we like that chicago school rag
Imagine SEETHING over the fact marxists have gotten btfo this entire thread.

>stop being such a clown
YOU'RE A FUCKING MARXIST HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>14156280
>Linking wikipedia articles is just proving that you haven't actually read any of his books
You don't have to read entire books someone wrote on a subject to be able to critic them you gigantic fucking moron.
I'm providing basic critiques of his actual ideology and you can't even fucking refute it.
You can't even explain why you think I'm strawmanning him.
lmao listen to yourself

>The Libertarian thinkers that you idolize have read Marx so that they may refute him.
This has literally nothing to do with our debate and you're changing the subject because you cannot refute me
Pathetic bootlicker.

>>14156296
I'm not a Marxist, I have also read many Austrian School works. It's just that libertarians like you are why Libertarians are perceived as idiots. Stop being such a child and the maybe we'll actually get some libertarian candidates into Congress.

>>14156306
You're typing on a subsection of an image-board dedicated to literature and you're telling me that finishing a book ins't important?

Anyway I'm not the original guy you were arguing with.

>>14152881
>bro what do you mean the owners are taking away the profits you and your coworkers produced? You can BUY an iPhone bro! Therefore the shareholders and CEOs SHOULD get all the profit for having a slip of paper saying the own the place.

>>14156273
>Alright here comes Marx
Oh look LOL
You're ACTUALLY attempting to refute my argument.
>But life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things.
I've read this bullshit before.
All you're proving is that marx believed in extremely low level instincts, like shitting and eating and that's it.
He denied the complex ones, you know, the ones that actually make up human psychology.
You cannot be an economic determinist and also accept the totality of human instincts at the same time.

>but you claimed he denied human instincts and clearly he believed in some of them hurrr
Young earth creationists that claim to believe in parts of evolution, still deny evolution.

>>14156292
Have you read every piece of libertarian critique? Else, you’re unable to have any say as to the quality of libertarian critique.

>>14156292
I never claimed I read all of Marx' works lmao
90% of marxists have never read capital

You can't even refute any of my criticisms of marx AHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now you're leaving.

>>14156309
>be a marxist
>get btfo
>give up
>try to get under the other anons skin by claiming you were a libertarian the whole time but he was just making bad arguments
eh, at least you tried bro

>>14156316
>You're typing on a subsection of an image-board dedicated to literature and you're telling me that finishing a book ins't important?
Important and necessary are two different things.
Getting a summary of someone's position and critiquing it is just as valid, that is unless of source the summary misinterpreted the author.
It's the responsibility of the person debating with said person to explain how his critiques aren't valid.

So far in this thread marxist bootlickers have done nothing but SEETHE and refuse to respond to anyone argument.

>>14156319
>>bro what do you mean the owners are taking away the profits you and your coworkers produced
First off, they aren't taking away your profits, the worker is only one part of the production process.
Secondly if they DID give you all of these profits you wouldn't be able to buy anything with them because the working class ALREADY under capitalism consumes virtually ALL of the consumer goods.
Taking over the means of production will have no effect on how many goods the workers get.
Marxists cannot refute this lol

>>14156320
I don't get what you are even attempting to say at this point. You said Marx denied human biological instincts, that includes the need to eat, drink, have sex etc... and now you are backpedaling into "complex ones"
You think Marx denied the need for Beauty or Existential contemplation?

>>14156321
This.

Libertarians are 100% correct about EVERYTHING unless you've read all of their books.

Read all of Rothbard's works(which are actually much bigger than Marx's), all of Mises, all of Bastiat etc

If you didn't do this then every single critique of free markets you make is automatically invalid.

:^)

made an edit of this thread since it's a good one regardless of whether you're a marxist or not

>>14156355
>You said Marx denied human biological instincts, that includes the need to eat, drink, have sex etc... and now you are backpedaling into "complex ones"
>backpedaling
Why are you saying things I literally refuted in the post you replied to?
>but you claimed he denied human instincts and clearly he believed in some of them hurrr
Young earth creationists that claim to believe in parts of evolution, still deny evolution.
Even if I'm "backpedaling" Marx still denied complex human instincts and therefore was a massive pseud.

>You think Marx denied the need for Beauty or Existential contemplation?
Even if he didn't, he still believed that economic forces override such things.

>>14156219
>It IS objective data you gigantic fucking moron LOL
>Look at you, you're just ignoring actual academic data that proves your point wrong.
Not even worthy of a reply.
>Then do it, you have nothing
Sources are irrelevant; no one checks sources. If you desperately want me to provide sources, I'm going to need a bit more time.
>It also does not prove that unions were the primary cause of real wages increasing
BUT THE NEW DEAL AND THE END OF MASS IMMIGRATION WAS THE CAUSE.
>especially when real wages substantially increased in the 1800s without any government intervention or union power.
The 20th century was a terrible time to be a worker.
>No it doesn't.
>The gold standard was actually MORE stable than fiat currency.
Not even gonna say anything. Just look at the picture.
>Because they aren't the same thing stupid?
BRUH. Do you not know that wages and productivity are supposed to rise together? And that happened in the Keynesian era thanks to unions, labour laws, and a closed economy (protectionism and limited immigration).
>This resulted in an increase in living standards worldwide
Fucking neoliberal world bank argument. It's obviously false because the closes economy from the 20's to the early 70's had spectacular wage growth.
>lol regulations have INCREASED though
Tax cuts, free trade, more immigration, less anti trust enforcement, bank deregulation; I can go on.
>Lol but real wages increased FASTER when unions had less power and numbers in the 1800s
Untrue. Real wage growth was faster in the Keynesian era.
>You're just coping. You only need to refute ONE of the sources yet you cannot.
>I posted RAW DATA from these time periods lol you are pathetic
I don't check sources on 4chan. It's a waste of time.
>So you admit real wages and working hours improved without unions? lol
You'd have to be an idiot to deny that. What I'm saying is that working hours and real wages improve when unions and labour laws are in effect.
>Thus massively incentivising firms to cut hours to people that need them.
You have no proof of your bullshit assertion. Just like when you say that minimum wage increases unemployment, when in reality it has no effect.
>All unions do is increase nominal wages though
I just showed the exact opposite.
>Imagine thinking GDP is a necessarily a real measure of economic growth.
GDP per hour is a measurement of productivity.
>How does putting a burden on production somehow INCREASE production?
Empirical data shows it, sweaty

>>14156372
Kino.
I should show /tv/

>>14156288
HAHAHAHA YOU'VE NEVER READ MARX

>>14156378
>I don't check sources on 4chan. It's a waste of time.
I'm not the other guy but if you really wanna convince him (or others reading your arguments) you should. Otherwise this debate is literally just convincing yourself.

>>14156374
>Even if he didn't, he still believed that economic forces override such things.
What do you mean by "override"?
Needs are what drive production and production leads to the creation of an economic system. Initially at the starting point of history, production is to fulfill basic needs. In later societies more complex needs starts to arise like the need to learn or the need for culture and this lead to the creation of theaters and of books.
However, and that is close to what you are trying to say, is that he thinks the economy determines the social interactions of humans and their role in production and that this determines the content of their consciousness, their tastes their interests etc...
But he still doesn't "deny biological instincts" as you said.

>>14156378
>Not even worthy of a reply.
Look at you, you're actually getting mad over objective raw data that proves you wrong.
>no one checks sources
plenty of people do
>BUT THE NEW DEAL
Lol dude the new deal was a massive fucking disaster that contributed to the great depression.
We only got out of the depression after the war when we massively cut most of these new deal policies, cut spending, taxes etc, this resulted in the most economically productive year in american history and paved the way for the post war boom.
>The 20th century was a terrible time to be a worker.
No, life before this was far far worse. It was this era that resulted in real wages and living standards dramatically increasing for the first time in history. You idiots foolishly ignore this and claim all of the things this era managed to get rid of were a result of the era and it's policies itself.
>Just look at the picture.
You're just proving me correct. We only had a real gold standard from after the civil war until 1913. The period's before were either central banking or FRB.
>And that happened in the Keynesian era
What keynesian era? This era was the opposite of the keynesian era. There was LOW TAXES, low regulations, LOW government spending.
The ACTUAL keynesian era came when nixon got us off the gold standard in 1970 resulting in massive increases in government spending, regulations and taxes. We did what you people wanted, you won, look at the fucking disaster your policies created.
>neoliberal world bank argument.
It's empirically true though lol pic related
>closes economy from the 20's to the early 70's had spectacular wage growth.
I'm going to assume you mean from after ww2 until the 70s.
Back when were on a semi gold standard and had much less government intervention and taxes.

>>14156384
HAHAHAHA YOU'VE NEVER READ MISES

>>14156409
>What do you mean by "override"?
He believed the economic conditions will result in humans acting in specific ways.
Ways that won't necessarily reflect their instincts.

>However, and that is close to what you are trying to say, is that he thinks the economy determines the social interactions of humans and their role in production and that this determines the content of their consciousness, their tastes their interests etc...
Yes, so, pseudoscience.
You don't actually believe in this do you?

>But he still doesn't "deny biological instincts" as you said.
The dude actually thought you could create a new socialist man and socially engineer people to become communists and the state will wither away.
As if you could just socially engineer away greed.
I know marxists like to pretend that "muh human nature" is a strawman against marx, but god damn it really isnt.

>>14156384
>HAHAHAHA YOU'VE NEVER READ MARX
That's like laughing at someone for having never eaten feces.

>>14156378
>What I'm saying is that working hours and real wages improve when unions and labour laws are in effect.
So these things improve IN SPITE OF labour laws and unions?
Got it.
>You have no proof
It's basic fucking incentives.
The firm would literally LOSE MONEY if they offered overtime, that's why they have an incentive not to.
Have you ever worked at a job?
I was a supervisor and we had to minimize overtime as much as possible.
>I just showed the exact opposite.
lol retard all you showed is that productivity rose while unions existed, you didn't prove that they CAUSED the increase in productivity
your logic doesnt make sense either
>GDP per hour is a measurement of productivity.
Not when the government is literally printing money and giving it to people to do unproductive things, which is exactly what happened in the depression
>Empirical data shows it
It doesn't.
How do we know that productivity wouldn't be even HIGHER without this burden?
Correlation does not equal causation.

>>14154822
>>14153549
If automation killed jobs and left millions unemployable then marxism would just be all the more likely. The entire point of star trek is that society is a kind of socialist state in the future because capitalism only makes sense in a society with extensive scarcity and necessity for laborers. There will never be a world where 1% of the global population can just tell the other 99% "lol ur dead cuz we don't need you". The numerical difference between rulers and ruled means that violent uprisings will be inevitable. This is besides the fact you'd have to be an insane psychopath to create a system where shit makes itself and then say "u gotta pay to live".

>>14154926
>unions didn't exist in the 1800s

Why are people like you retarded? Also

>era in which more than than half the population worked on farms

The "free market" you want cannot physically exist because the working conditions of the time no longer exist.

>>14156439
>You don't actually believe in this do you?
What do you believe in? That every human has fixed needs? That every humans has the same need for beauty? That we are all the same?
We are determined by our environment, by the society we grow in. That seems pretty obvious to me.
>The dude actually thought you could create a new socialist man and socially engineer people to become communists
That is more of a Soviet strawman, but every society shapes the people for certains purposes. Just like today's society shape people in becoming competitive but not monopolistic (supposedly), active, dynamic, entrepreneurial etc... which might be naturally the case for some but not all.

Maximal keks.

>>14156472
>The entire point of star trek is that society is a kind of socialist state in the future because capitalism only makes sense in a society with extensive scarcity and necessity for laborers.
This isn't true at all dipshit.
Capitalism just increases the supply of goods for everyone over time, thus pushing down prices.
The ultimate goal of capitalism is for workers to not have to work because goods are so abundant.
The end result of this isn't socialism, it's post scarcity capitalism.
Star trek is post scarcity capitalism
>There will never be a world where 1% of the global population can just tell the other 99% "lol ur dead cuz we don't need you".
lmao you economic illiterate, this is impossible
the price of capital goods comes down too, a massive service sector industry replaces manufacturing and everything else

>violent uprisings
This will literally never happen and you bootlickers will stay angry your entire pathetic lifes.
I hope you enjoy it.

>>14156477
>Why are people like you retarded? Also
Unions existed but they were a monumentally tiny portion of the economy back then. They also had absolutely zero political power.
It's hilarious that the biggest increases in worker living standard happened when unions were at their smallest and least powerful.
>>era in which more than than half the population worked on farms
This was the industrial revolution you idiot.
This was the era of people moving into factories previously being on farms
>the working conditions of the time no longer exist.
totally irrelevant, economic output increased so workers could consume more
zero reason why this couldnt happen now

>>14156489
>communist and natsoc revolutions have happened before
>"b-but they won't happen again cuz reasons, the based Jews will continue to own literally everything and all you fucking /pol/tards will just have to deal with it!!"

Haha, you're retarded

>>14156483
>That every human has fixed needs?
No. Why would you assume this?
Humans are complex but they have hard wired instincts that cannot be changed through social engineering.
This is biology 101

>We are determined by our environment, by the society we grow in. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Wow, then you're just plain wrong and you admit you deny instincts.
Our beliefs and behaviors are mostly determined by our genetics and instincts. Environment plays a role yes, but it's mostly instincts.
Instinct denial is a massive problem on the left. You people are just dead wrong on this subject.
Read Pinker, faggot.
>That is more of a Soviet strawman
Nah, marx implied it through his writtings.
The end stage of communism is exactly this.
>Just like today's society shape people in becoming competitive but not monopolistic (supposedly), active, dynamic, entrepreneurial etc... which might be naturally the case for some but not all.
People are naturally self interested dude(even if their self interests include people close to them like family and friends), deal with it.

>>14156505
You make a lot of posts crying about why your no-government free market retard fantasy that only existed when the USA was 80% less populous than now can totally work in the modern era. But it doesn't matter because it can't because the economy is literally reliant on government spending to prop up industry and technology. Libertarians are actively a threat to national security as well as being obese parasites, I hope you enjoy your fema camp.

>worker living standards increased the most during a time when the USA was underpopulated and needed workers

In fact living standards increased the most during the 1950s when virtually every job had to provide healthcare benefits to workers because of collective bargaining.

literally all you're doing is proving you do not have a single iota of understanding as to how and why these conditions came about, it's just "FREE MARKET IS FUCKING MAGIC" instead of being a product of supply, demand and collective force.

>>14156509
>>"b-but they won't happen again cuz reasons
The frequency of them happening have radically declined. The likelihood they would happen in the west is incredibly fucking unlikely.
Modern domesticated humans aren't primed for violent revolution.
>the based Jews
I'm the one fighting against central banks, dipshit.

>>14156354
>First off, they aren’t taking away your profits. Workers are only part of the production process.
Yes, they are. Imagine a company. It produces cars. The engineers design the car, the factory workers produce the car, the marketing team market the car, the salesmen sell the car, the managers oversee production, the HR department hire new workers, the analysts and advisors propose business strategies to create maximum profit from the car, the financial team look after the accounts, etc., etc. This is all done by WORKERS, to the last detail. And, sure, CEOs might also add some value to the business too, but nothing that couldn’t have been done by workers, and certainly nothing that merits their ownership, salary, or conduct.
So what exactly do owners do that brings value to the company that can’t be done by workers? Nothing, yet they run away with all the profit.
>but it’d be exactly the same under communism!
No it wouldn’t. Firstly there’s the deontological point of No longer having to work for some boss to get rich, but for you and your community.
Secondly workers will have more control in the workplace. More health and safety, more vacations, higher wages, better public utilities.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the owner class will no longer have hegemonic control over society to push all of their disgusting bullshit.
Fourthly, we will no longer hear of news stories where companies do immoral shit to the detriment of workers and the general society, since wellbeing, community, and happiness, not profit, will be the main motive of society.

>>14156419
>Look at you, you're actually getting mad over objective raw data that proves you wrong.
It can't prove me wrong when I'm right, weebfag.
>Lol dude the new deal was a massive fucking disaster that contributed to the great depression.
The New Deal didn't contribute to the great depression, contrary to your claims, it helped end it by creating employment, raising wages, and raising productivity.
>muh post war boom was caused by le spending cuts
This is a libertarian myth, of course. In reality, spending actually increased because Truman's new welfare, social and military programs. And the economy continued to boom despite the large spending.
>You're just proving me correct. We only had a real gold standard from after the civil war until 1913. The period's before were either central banking or FRB.
What? Jackson ended the bank in the 30's; and even when the bank was active the US was still on the gold standard.
>There was LOW TAXES
Highest taxes ever in the US, IMBECILE
>low regulations
High tariffs, low immigration, anti trust, unions, minimum wage, etc
>LOW government spending.
Just disproved that above.
>The ACTUAL keynesian era came when nixon got us off the gold standard in 1970 resulting in massive increases in government spending, regulations and taxes. We did what you people wanted, you won, look at the fucking disaster your policies created.
Now you're perverting history. The 70's was the beginning of the neoliberal era. Carter and Reagan began massive deregulations. And the only reason the 8 70's was a disaster is because stagflation.
>t's empirically true though lol pic related
Free trade has done nothing good. The only people it benefits are the rich.
>I'm going to assume you mean from after ww2 until the 70s.
Nope, in the 20's the end of mass immigration also caused real wages to rise.
>Back when were on a semi gold standard and had much less government intervention and taxes.
Bullshit.

>>14156526
>when the USA was 80% less populous than now
Completely irrelevant information.
Living standards were increasing AS the population increased. Also the decades following this, the population increased even more and living standards didn't decline.

>the economy is literally reliant on government spending to prop up industry and technology
It doesn't have to be.
We need to destroy the dollar bubble and restructure the economy

>underpopulated and needed workers
lmao this is a pathetic fucking cop out
they only needed workers because their industry was increasing so rapidly thanks to their economically free policies

>In fact living standards increased the most during the 1950s when virtually every job had to provide healthcare benefits to workers because of collective bargaining.
Living standards increased in the 50s because we had LOW TAXES, low spending, low inflation, low regulations.

>literally all you're doing is proving you do not have a single iota of understanding as to how and why these conditions came about
Why are you talking about yourself?

>>14156551
>Living standards increased in the 50s because we had LOW TAXES, low spending, low inflation, low regulations.
The 50's was highly regulated idiot. And there was high spending.

>>14156539
>This is all done by WORKERS,
and they get paid for doing so
Taking profits won't allow them to buy anything more or improve their lives.
The profits are required to reinvest in the firm and to increase productivity in the entire economy
>So what exactly do owners do that brings value to the company that can’t be done by workers?
They're the ones that plan the structure of production. Also they save and invest their money to increase productivity of firms.
>Firstly there’s the deontological point of No longer having to work for some boss to get rich
So? You'd have to work for the collective. I fail to see how this is any better.
>but for you and your community.
You already do that.
>More health and safety, more vacations, higher wages, better public utilities.
I already fucking refuted these things.
How can workers afford more of these things if they're consuming the same amount of goods they were consuming under capitalism
they would have to work just as hard, just as long to produce and consume the same amount of goods as before
You think you're getting something but you're getting nothing
>the owner class will no longer have hegemonic control over society to push all of their disgusting bullshit.
It's literally just your shitty opinion that you don't like their opinions

>>14156555
>The 50's was highly regulated idiot.
Proof?

>And there was high spending.
Empirically false.

>>14156594
>Proof?
Truman's new social programs, welfare programs, and new military programs.

>>14156610
Your image proves me correct HAHAHAHA
Government spending was lower. So does the image I posted that you replied to as well.

>Truman's new social programs, welfare programs, and new military programs.
These were much smaller than in later eras.
Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty basically destroyed the actual free market reductions in poverty that we taking place.

Fuck central banks you anti-worker cumdrinking corporate whore.

>>14156628
>Your image proves me correct HAHAHAHA
>Government spending was lower. So does the image I posted that you replied to as well.
Imbecile. During the Keynesian era government spending remained at all time highs—20-25% of GDP.
>These were much smaller than in later eras.
They contributed to government spending.
>Fuck central banks you anti-worker cumdrinking corporate whore.
Says the free market fanatic.

Libertarian bro here.

I'm going to sleep now.

I'll reply to your bootlicking posts when I wake up if the thread is still up.

I hope you learned a lot about the massive increases in living standards that happened in the era of the freest markets in USA. I hope it angers you.

Remember that workers taking over the means of production won't actually benefit them because they already, under capitalism, consume virtually all consumer goods. What more can you get than virtually everything?
You wouldn't get higher wages because you couldn't buy anything more with them.

Stay mad bootlickers.

>>14156636
>Keynesian era
What keynesian era? I already refuted this.
The real keynesian era happened when nixon got us off the gold standard and said "we're all keynesians now" lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
After ww2 until 1970 was an era of low government spending, low taxes, low regulations, low inflation.
You're just coping that reality doesn't fit your narrative.
>20-25% of GDP.
Your chart literally shows it increasing much higher later lol what the fuck
>Says the free market fanatic.
Yes, I'm against stealing purchasing power from worker's wages and savings and giving it to bankers and corporations.
You somehow think this is okay because you have a corporate cock in your mouth.

I don't care what Rothbard says, this was a based observation by Böhm von Bawerk.

>>14156539
It's really a shame authoritarians like yourself get brainwashed this hard by socialist propaganda.
You really are the true believers of our time, thinking you're doing good when in reality, you're a malevolent sociopath.

>>14156667
>What keynesian era?
"Keynesian economics served as the standard economic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973)"
>The real keynesian era happened when nixon got us off the gold standard and said "we're all keynesians now" lol.
Getting off the gold standard was a good thing and it didn't do anything bad. You don't even have any proof of that. Furthermore, the 70's and beyond is the neoliberal era of deregulation, tax cuts, and free trade.
>After ww2 until 1970 was an era of low government spending, low taxes, low regulations, low inflation.
HOLY SHIT. No it wasn't. Truman literally uses automatic stabilizers.
>Your chart literally shows it increasing much higher later lol what the fuck
You're saying the period boomed because of low spending and I'm saying that it's the highest spending ever in the US, at the time.

>>14156541
>It can't prove me wrong when I'm right, weebfag.

He really made you look like an idiot, though. You clearly weren't prepared for that data.

>>14156541
>Highest taxes ever in the US, IMBECILE
This isn't true at all, most people wrote off taxes and the top tax rate didn't apply until you made a fuckton more adjusted for inflation than people made today.
Government collected the same amount in taxes as a percentage of GDP then as they do today.
Taxes weren't that much different then than they are now.

>>14156703
>"Keynesian economics served as the standard economic model in the developed nations during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973)"
Well I guess if it's a quote from a wikipedia article written by keynesians yet completely ignores what actually happened, it MUST be true.

>>14156541
>Free trade has done nothing good. The only people it benefits are the rich.
*cough*

>>14156726
>Government collected the same amount in taxes as a percentage of GDP then as they do today.
LOL. The trump tax cuts decreased the amount collected in taxes.

>>14156745
You realize that graph is bullshit. And protectionism is much better for developing nations to develop an industry.

>>14156749
Trump barely cut taxes. He's also destroying the economy with high spending and low interest rates so this data is irrelevant.

>>14156760
>it's bullshit because it hurts my feelings
This is literally what you've been saying about every graph and data posted in this thread though.

>And protectionism is much better for developing nations
That's why Africa(protectionist) is flourishing right now and south east asia(much more free trade) is stagnating right?
You absolute fucking retard, literally everything you're saying is the opposite of reality.

>>14156765
High spending is good, imbecile. If he was a true Keynesian he would spend more money on infrastructure and implement universal healthcare.

>>14156775
>This is literally what you've been saying about every graph and data posted in this thread though.
The methodology is fucked up.
>That's why Africa(protectionist) is flourishing right now and south east asia(much more free trade) is stagnating right?
The East Asian Tigers developed because of Keynesian policies, contrary to the World Bank's claims.

>>14156745
https://youtu.be/A6VqV1T4uYs

>>14156775
>That's why Africa(protectionist) is flourishing right now and south east asia(much more free trade) is stagnating right?
>You absolute fucking retard, literally everything you're saying is the opposite of reality.
http://www.personal.ceu.hu/corliss/CDST_Course_Site/Readings_old_2012_files/Ha-Joon%20Chang%20-%20Kicking%20Away%20the%20Ladder-The%20%E2%80%9CReal%E2%80%9D%20History%20of%20Free%20Trade.pdf

>>14156136
>>14156136
Brazil has a shitton of regulations regarding labour, marxist cunt.

Why exactly do both braindead "marxists" and austrians itt believe marxism to be antithetical to free market economics?
Is it because "gommunism is when gubmint does stuff"?

>>14157286
Nice bait.

>>14157363
What bait buddy
In a genuine free market with an NAP in place (so no strike breaking or union busting, sorry capy) and with people acting in their own interest in mind, workers would unionize en mass and would extract wage out of the of the buisinessowners like there is no fucking tomorrow. Fucking lol at people actually believing "ownership" has a higher market value than labour
>n-no no no, i can actually justify getting paid without working because i am RISKING having to start to work
Lmao ok boomer

>>14154879
>I'm a libertarian
OH NO NO NO

>>14152820
based. Put me in the screencap

>>14156489
>i took econ 101
whoa, marx btfo...

>>14156531
i guess it's a good thing "modern domesticated humans" are being systemtically replaced by feral 3rd worlders

huh... i always argued against the whole "mass immigration is a gommie conspiracy" idea, but it actually makes sense now that i think of it... whoa...

>>14157537
Westerners were feral before they were domesticated.
Please provide evidence that it can't be done again

>>14157572
i suppose it could happen again. and again, and again, and again. do you think history has ended?

>>14157416
>n-no no no, i can actually justify getting paid without working because i am RISKING having to start to work
If there's no risk involved in entrepreneurship, why don't you start a business and assume the position of someone who doesn't have to work and can just reap the rewards?

>>14157617
For the same reason why the overwealming majority of workers dont do it, lack of capital

>>14157671
Just because they have capital doesn't mean their business is going to be successful.
Like 80% of businesses fail

>>14157447
>REEEEEEEE STOO BEING BASED

>>14157118
Now compare that to the tariff rate in African nations

>>14157525
Well, cosmology 101 completely destroys Fred Hoyle, so...

You know, sciences develop.

>>14155166
Ah, I will jump in here to clarify something. The workers being able to buy products due to the commodification and exchange of their labor is part of what further alienates them from the value of their labor. I am not advocating for Marxism, but he recently came up in a literary theory course and this was one such thing we discussed. The laborer earns no value for his labor, rather, it bought by industrialists, and they are removed from their labor. Every object/material they buy after that exchange further alienates the laborer. I may be wrong but that was my interpretation and would be interested in hearing others speak on it, as I don't buy it myself

>>14159112
>what further alienates them from the value of their labor
Yet marxists can't explain why this is bad.
This alienation thing is such a dumb argument.

>>14154889
I'd say capitalists like it more, since most of them are wagies.

>>14155117
>t. "anarcho" communist
Anarcho communism is 90 percent of human history.

>>14159494
No, private property caused the agricultural revolution according to recent studies.

>>14159494
>democracy and abolition of market activity is 90% of human history
The absolute state of ahistorical "anarcho"-communist authoritarians.

See:
>>14154952

>>14159485
How are they bootlickers for voluntarily trading with their employer?
If they took over the business their living standards wouldn't improve whatsoever and they would be poorer(as proven in this thread)
Now they're slaves to the state or collective.

>>14159504
Not him and I strongly agree with you but can you link those studies.

>>14159485
So wanting to be able to receive more goods and work less hours makes you a bootlicker?
lol

>>14159548
Came out last month
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-private-property-productivity-precipitated-neolithic.html
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701789

>>14159535
If I give you multiple options, none of which you like, but you're forced to choose one or face starvation and death, how free are you really, how voluntary is your choice?

>>14159555
Fuck, wrong person
>>14159542
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/701789
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-private-property-productivity-precipitated-neolithic.html

>>14159548
Is this a joke? People in capitalist societies spend their whole lives working shit jobs and buying things that are designed to break so that they buy more. Marx's whole idea was to work less so that we can have more time to dedicate to creative pursuits.

>>14154952
>Stop licking boots.
That's rich coming from the capitalist.

>>14159579
>you lick boots for wanting to voluntarily trade labor for higher living standards and lower working hours
>you're not a bootlicker if you want the state to monopolize all production and control every aspect of your life
ok kid

>>14159558
>none of which you like
Humans enter this world with absolutely nothing.
You're acting like the capitalists are gods that have all resources and are simply distributing them to workers as they see fit, when in reality they're just offering a service to mutually benefit and increase economic production.
Taking over their firm will not benefit you or allow you to consume any more resources than you are currently consuming or work less hours etc
>starvation and death
this argument is so dumb and childish
pic related

>>14159572
>People in capitalist societies
Imagine being gullible to unironically use this deceptive term.
According to the brainlets that use this term, the most economically unfree shitholes like africa where market activity is suppressed is exactly the same as economically free countries like switzerland where they are not.
It's like blaming "oxygen" on all of the world's problems because countries that have oxygen have famines. Correlation does not equal causation.

>spend their whole lives working shit jobs
The economy has been stagnating over the past 50 years thanks to central banking and other forms of government interventionism. This is the problem, not the market itself.
Back when we had a free market with no central bank, working hours steadily declined as the workers could buy more goods with their wages.
We need to go back to that.
see the pics:
>>14155717
>>14154926

>Marx's whole idea was to work less
This is what he said but his theories made absolutely no sense and taking over the means of production won't allow workers to work less hours.
Monopolizing production removes any economic calculation as well so the economy would be much less productive, forcing you to work more.

New to Libertarianism?

Here's some books.

>>14156778
Infrastructure has a net-positive return on investment.

Govt. expenditure on healthcare is already insane. I'm not sure increasing spending that would benefit an already inept system, along with being unclear of its ROI.

>>14159728
>Govt. expenditure on healthcare is already insane.
and it's the reason healthcare is so expensive.

>tfw if we had a free market we would only have to work 2 days a week and be able to buy whatever we want

I hate socialists, corporatists, central banks and the state so much bros.

>>14159781
>central banks
"Hello i don't understand basic econ"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

>>14159794
>"Hello i don't understand basic econ"
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837

Just another government created economic distortion. Libertarians have written expensive books on these subjects, you're clueless and lick boots.

>>14159800
was literally caused by the disbandment of a central bank. Granted the Bank of The United States was actually corrupt, but that does NOT refute the fact to avoid economic catastrophe, you need a central bank to control interest rates

>>14152810
>not call the secret police

>>14159781
If you had a perfectly free market you'd have an oligopoly. :3

Saying anything different is being ignorant of basic Game Theory.

>>14159828
Based

>>14159808
>was literally caused by the disbandment of a central bank.
No it was caused BY the central bank's monetary stimulus. It was a necessary correction to correct the economy distortions/malinvestments caused by the central bank.
If we had just kept the bank, there would still have been a crash, it would have happened later and have been much more economically damaging because more malinvestment would have taken place.

After this crash, the economy boomed after the central bank was destroyed.
The cure for economic recessions during the 1800s was to leave the economy alone and let things restructure and doing this was successful. This is the opposite of what we did during the great depression, which is why the great depression lasted so long and was so bad.

>you need a central bank to control interest rates
No you don't. Price controls don't fucking work lol
Central banks destroy economic prosperity.
You want prices to go down so workers can buy more, not go up.

>>14159828
>oligopoly
Why did this literally never happen when we actually had a free market for decades?
Why did living standards for workers dramatically increase?
:3
see:
>>14155717
>>14154926
>>14154907
>>14155841

You've just been told stories your whole life without actually looking at the data, desu.
Central banking and socialism is slavery.

>>14154907
Dude, GDP per capita rose faster in the Keynesian era with the encouragement of unions and labour laws.

>>14159855
1. It did happen, which is why the Sherman antitrust laws exist you fucking moron.

2. It might have something to do with decreased globalization, referring to the increasing rate of living standards until recently. It could be many other factors as well, please consult Malthus and Ricardo. ;3

>>14159838
>when da Economy crash da Economy would just pick up

>price controls and interest rates are the same

Economic Illiterate

>You want prices to go down so workers can buy more, not go up.

I never said or advocated for this.

>>14159872
>Keynesian era
First off lol GDP is a phony measure of economic productivity, whenever the government prints money and spends it, the GDP increases but it doesn't mean workers are better off.
Secondly, the post war era until 1970 was NOT the keynesian era. We were still on a semi gold standard, government spending was limited, taxes were relatively low, regulations were relatively low.

The economy boomed because markets were more free then than they are now.

>unions and labour laws.
Why did actual economic growth(increases in consumption for the working class) increase faster during the gilded age period?

>>14159881
>Sherman antitrust laws
lol imagine actually believing this propaganda the government force fed you in schools
These laws did absolutely nothing to prevent monopolies. They were created by competitors of large firms who were butthurt that they couldn't compete with larger firms. Many companies tried to form cartels during the 1800s but were quickly broken up due to market forces.
Standard oil was never a monopoly and should not have been broken up. 63% market share is not a monopoly.
The government just pretends it's our savior when it does absolutely nothing.

>It might have something to do
Oh, I see, you don't actually know or have a refutation to and entire many decade long period of american economic history that completely refutes your authoritarian garbage.
:3

>>14159889
>>when da Economy crash da Economy would just pick up
True, this is legitimately what actually fucking happened every time, despite the keynesian bootlicker myths.
>>price controls and interest rates are the same
The government dictating interest rates(which is a market process dependent on supply and demand) IS a fucking price control.
>Economic Illiterate
Says the keynesian lol

>>14159930
>Muh education brainwashing
>a few ideologically charged books by some Austrians are the absolute truth on econ

Why do anti-free market types hate the working class so much?
Why do they enjoy their suffering?

based thread. See you all in the screencap

>>14159930
>First off lol GDP is a phony measure of economic productivity
We use GDP per hour for productivity
>whenever the government prints money and spends it, the GDP increases but it doesn't mean workers are better off.
That's why we use GDP per capita.
>Secondly, the post war era until 1970 was NOT the keynesian era.
By definition it was. Keynesian policies such as automatic stabilizers were used.
>We were still on a semi gold standard
Does not invalidate the fact that it was the Keynesian era
>government spending was limited
Government spending was at all time highs in terms of % of GDP
>taxes were relatively low
Tax cuts (during downturns) is a Keynesian policy; secondly, taxes were at all time highs, corporate and wealth.
>regulations were relatively low.
Anti trust enforcement was up and banks were heavily regulated.
>The economy boomed because markets were more free then than they are now.
LOL. Your lie is falling apart.
>Why did actual economic growth(increases in consumption for the working class) increase faster during the gilded age period?
The Keynesian era had the highest period of economic growth in the history of the USA.

Reminder that they literally did nothing wrong and there should be statues of them all over the country.

dunno anything about communism
how much of marx's writings have contributed to modern economics?

>>14159941
>>Muh education brainwashing
Yes, lol you actually think everything you were taught in state run schools is accurate without actually looking at the data?
>>a few ideologically charged books
Maybe, but actual historic data is more truthful than your just-so stories.

>>14159946
SO BASED!! LANDLORDS AND JEFF BEZOS LOVE THE WHITE WORKING MAN LIKE ME!!

>>14159954
>We use GDP per hour for productivity
So it's bullshit then
>That's why we use GDP per capita.
So what? It's still bullshit.
>By definition it was.
By definition it wasn't. The modern era is the neo-keynesian era, we got off the gold standard and freed the central bank, we did everything you wanted.

The rest of your post I already debunked.
You're the same guy I already debunked countless times in this thread who just flat out IGNORES actual data and sources because it hurts your feelings.
There's no point in arguing with you because actual fucking data won't change your dogmatic mind.
You lost, bud.

>>14159959
He’s pretty outdated since the move to speculative capitalism but he influenced people who correctly asses the current financial era

>>14159930
I didn't make a sweeping claim that unrestricted intervention in the free market necessarily results in the best of everything, ever.

Sounds like you are the one buying into propaganda.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0jYppCVjWAC

:3

>>14159969
>LANDLORDS
You mean the people that decrease the cost of rent in spite of the government constantly pushing up housing prices?
>AND JEFF BEZOS
The guy that increased wellbeing of consumers.
Do you think taking all of his money will allow you to buy more things or something?
Don't tell me you're this delusional anon.

>>14159979
>influenced people who correctly asses the current financial era
not really
marx didn't even really consider central banking
The entire world, especially the USA is in a massive central bank created bubble that is going to pop.
Austrians predicted that, not marxists.

>>14159939
I never said i was a keynesian.
With interest rates, they are actually different than price controls (political pandering), as controlling interest rates are to prevent bushiness from collapsing due to deflation

>>14159982
>https://vocaroo.com/i/s0jYppCVjWAC
tl;dl :3

>>14160000
>With interest rates, they are actually different than price controls
top kek no they aren't.
They're literally price controls and have the same effect on the economy as price controls in other industries
>as controlling interest rates are to prevent bushiness from collapsing due to deflation
You're actually propagandized and brainwashed.
The gilded age period had MASSIVE deflation for decades and instead of an economic collapse we had a massive economic boom where workers living standards constantly rose.

A natural deflation is a GOOD THING, it's what allows workers to consume more goods and increases the value of their savings.
People against deflation are bootlickers.

>>14159998
I think a lot of Post-Marxists (pretty vague term admittedly) like Baudrillard Hardt/Negri and Fisher grasp the state of aestheticized and gestural capital well

>>14160026
>I think a lot of Post-Marxists (pretty vague term admittedly) like Baudrillard Hardt/Negri and Fisher grasp the state of aestheticized and gestural capital well
So they're really well read on a cult ideology that has nothing to do with the real world.

>>14160035
Capitalism is fictitious and performative, just like your faux-credibility. Barter theory has been disproven several times

>>14159976
>So it's bullshit then
No it's not; it's the standard measure for productivity
>So what? It's still bullshit.
GDP per capita is a more accurate measurement than GDP. GDP per capita is a fairly accurate measurement of a country's quality of life.
>By definition it wasn't.
I already explained how it was Keynesian.
>The modern era is the neo-keynesian era, we got off the gold standard and freed the central bank, we did everything you wanted.
The modern era isn't Keynesian. The banks on wall street lobbied Congress not to pass any large reforms after the 2007-8 crash.
>The rest of your post I already debunked.
>You're the same guy I already debunked countless times in this thread who just flat out IGNORES actual data and sources because it hurts your feelings.
>There's no point in arguing with you because actual fucking data won't change your dogmatic mind.
>You lost, bud.
This seems like the knee jerk reaction from devout libertarians when someone critiques their theology.

>>14159982
Alright I did listen to you and lol you sound like you just listen to yourself talk and you're just strawmanning hard.

-I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian
-I'm not an anarchist, the state is required to protect life, liberty, property, enforce contracts and do very basic things like roads etc
-Yes the Sherman anti-trust act wasn't necessary and monopolies and cartels aren't possible in a free market. People just think they are because they read some stories in school, without actually looking at the data.
This is a major problem in society, people just take things at face value because everyone else believes them, without actually looking them up
-Milton Friedman was a chicago school piece of shit and hated the free market. He wasn't an austrian. We hate him.

>>14160059
>Capitalism is fictitious
How?
Were the massive increases in worker living standards(which were the result of capitalist economic productivity) fictitious?
>Barter theory has been disproven several times
What? Where?
What do you mean by barter theory?

>>14160018
that's why it all became oligopolies bucko.
which at that point its basically socialism but privately held

>>14160079
Why are you still posting?
You already admitted you don't care about actual objective data and will simply go "NO U" to literally everything we say.
The data already proves you wrong, you can just sit there and cope about it.
I can't change your mind because you literally stated you ignore reality and substitute your own.

>>14160082
>monopolies and cartels aren't possible in a free market.
If you sincerely believe what you just typed, please read this book. Anti trust laws are a necessity. You've literally been brainwashed by corporations. Competition doesn't materialize out of thin air.

>>14160079
How do you deal with the fact the keynesian "multiplier" is mathematical nonsense and historical fiction?

>>14160110
I showed you that unions increased real wages and productivity leading to the 40 hour work week. You still didn't listen to me. Your dogmatic free market ideology doesn't allow room for government intervention, so even if I was right, you still wouldn't admit it.

>>14160107
>that's why it all became oligopolies bucko.
But it didn't.
Where is your proof this happened?
You literally have none.
A massive increase in living standards occurred in this period with no oligopolies.
You're just mad at reality.
>>14160111
>Anti trust laws are a necessity.
No they aren't, they never were.
There were legitimately ZERO monopolies or actual cartels in the gilded age.
You just heard some stories that you take as fact.
Give me 5 examples of this happening during this period, you literally can't.
inb4 muh standard oil

>>14160089
An externalized fiction, yes. MM prime. I don’t know how you’re going to argue in favor of capitalism if you don’t even know it’s entire justification of objective reality

>>14160132
>I showed you that unions increased real wages and productivity leading to the 40 hour work week
dude lmao I already debunked this and you just ignored me
You showed data that unions existed during the post war boom.
No shit, so did water. Did water cause massive increases in real wages?
Of course not.
Correlation does not equal causation and you have yet to prove that unions somehow caused this massive increases in productivity and wages.
Cope harder
>dogmatic free market ideology
lol dude you're projecting hard
I showed you data that during the most free market period of american history with no union power, no central bank and DEFLATION, living standards for workers and working hours constantly improved. You're just ignoring this massive fact that contradicts your bootlicking keynesian dogma.

Why does reality make you so mad?

>>14160082
>-I'm not a republican, I'm a libertarian
Yes and all the sensible conservatives hate you, trust me. :3

>>14160140
>An externalized fiction, yes.
How?
>I don’t know how you’re going to argue in favor of capitalism if you don’t even know it’s entire justification of objective reality
Explain what you are trying to say.
How are the massive increases in worker living standards fictitious?

>>14160160
>Yes and all the sensible conservatives hate you, trust me. :3
Good, fuck them, they're just braindead neo-keynesian social democrats that love mass immigration.
You aren't conserving anything lol

>>14160137
>No they aren't, they never were.
>There were legitimately ZERO monopolies or actual cartels in the gilded age.
Oh dear, please read up on economic history before posting this nonsense. Collusion and cartels were very common in the gilded age.
>You just heard some stories that you take as fact.
>Give me 5 examples of this happening during this period, you literally can't.
Never heard of merger mania in the gilded age?

>>14160173
Well you aren't doing anyone any favors by acting miserable like a worthless human being, even on 4chan. ;3

>>14160173
Libertarianism literally requires open borders. In order to have a true free market, there has to be free movement of labour.
>>14160159
>Correlation does not equal causation and you have yet to prove that unions somehow caused this massive increases in productivity and wages.
Because higher real wages, which unions are responsible for, leads to higher productivity. It's well known.
>DEFLATION
Lmao. I already posted a graph itt debunking the myth of a deflationary gold standard. Secondly, deflation isn't a good thing; it discourages spending. A modest inflation is best.

>>14160195
>please read up on economic history
I DID lol, that's why I know so much about this.
You've done nothing but believe the stories the state told you in school without actually looking it up.
They told you stories just like you were told stories about jesus as a child, yet you still believe them and never questioned them.
Dude you can't even post ONE fucking example.

>Collusion and cartels were very common in the gilded age.
A few companies tried to form cartels but they were destroyed by market competition as competing firms would simply take their marketshare away from them, or one member of the cartel would break away from the cartel and make a killing. Eventually businesses realized this didn't work and essentially stopped trying.
This didn't stop the media and retarded government pretending cartelization was rampant and to created foolish legislation that only punished productive companies at the expense of less productive ones.
Anti trust laws are cronyism.

>>14160211
>Libertarianism literally requires open borders.
No it doesn't.
Every example of it existing in history had closed borders and nationalism.
You just keep repeating this meme because you're an idiot.
>there has to be free movement of labour.
Wrong, there has to be property rights. You can't just have people invade your property, this is illegal. The country is the property of it's citizens.
>which unions are responsible for
lol you STILL haven't proven this.
I have however proven that during the free market period, economic production caused massive increases in real wages.
Cope harder.

> I already posted a graph itt debunking the myth of a deflationary gold standard
Where? lol
You debunked the ENTIRE massive economic growth during the gilded age?
Really? I would love to see this lmao

>it discourages spending
More keynesian bootlicking propaganda.
It encourages savings and eventual spending. Savings is the lifeblood of the economy, you can't produce or consume unless you first underconsume resources.

>>14160211
Imagine actually supporting the government creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and giving it to bankers and corporations while the value of our wages and savings decreases.
All while claiming you're trying to help the working class.

>>14160214
I'm pretty sure most of us read authors and writers on our own time, please do not chalk it up to state education. :3

>>14160251
It really is state education.
There is literally no evidence that actual effective cartels existed during the gilded age.
I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect.
:3

>>14160245
>MUH WORKERS(which implies Marxists wouldn't support your retarded econ philio that would collapse every decade)
stop creating straw men negroid.

I'm just glad we're at a point where a thread can start with a pic of Böhm-Bawerk and get >300 replies.

>>14160214
>I DID lol, that's why I know so much about this
If you did, you would support strong anti trust laws.
>You've done nothing but believe the stories the state told you in school without actually looking it up.
LOL. I've read the literature.
>They told you stories just like you were told stories about jesus as a child, yet you still believe them and never questioned them.
I still attend Church every Sunday.
>Dude you can't even post ONE fucking example.
Morgan? US Steel? The list goes on.
>A few companies tried to form cartels but they were destroyed by market competition as competing firms would simply take their marketshare away from them, or one member of the cartel would break away from the cartel and make a killing.
Rothbard BS. Competition doesn't materialize out of thin air.
>>14160237
>No it doesn't.
>Every example of it existing in history had closed borders and nationalism.
Now you're denying free market dogma. The free movement of labour is not much different than free trade. Just think of comparative advantage, but with people instead.
>Wrong, there has to be property rights. You can't just have people invade your property, this is illegal. The country is the property of it's citizens.
According to libertarian philosophy, anyone can do anything they want on their property. If a business wants to import foreign labour, they have the right to do so.
>lol you STILL haven't proven this.
HIGHER REAL WAGES LEAD TO INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY.
>Where? lol
>>14156378
>More keynesian bootlicking propaganda.
>It encourages savings and eventual spending. Savings is the lifeblood of the economy, you can't produce or consume unless you first underconsume resources.
"MUH SAVINGS."
read Keynes.
>>14160245
I don't support bailouts. I despise banks and wall street.

>>14160269
Based, this is a libertarian board now.

>>14160267
>would collapse every decade
Then why DIDN'T it when it was tried for like 50 years?
Why did it result in a massive increase in living standards?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Reality makes you so fucking upset and you're coping had.

>>14160282
>read Keynes.
Why would he read someone that couldn't even do basic mathematics? lol
see
>>14160122

>>14160282
>I despise banks and wall street.
>literally supports a monopolistic authoritarian state banking cartel that only benefits bankers and the stock market by printing money out of thin air and giving it to them

How does one live with this much cognitive dissonance?

>>14160308
Central banks are created to serve public interest, idiot.

I have become stupider, thanks to this thread

>>14160282
Unions are a much higher percentage of the worldforce now than they were during the gilded age period and have much much more legal power and teeth.

Why have wages stagnated over the past few decades if unions have so much power, if during the gilded age when they had much less power living standards and wages actually grew much more back then?

Could it be perhaps that you're wrong and there's no evidence that unions increase real wages for workers?

>>14160316
>Central banks are created to serve public interest
This is what gullible bootlickers actually fucking believe.
>DESTROYING MY WAGES AND SAVINGS JUST SO THE STOCK MARKET CAN GO UP IS IN MY INTERESTS

>>14160282
>read keynes
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>14160282
>read keynes
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>14160387
Those are all either fabricated or out of context quotes.
>>14160374
>Why have wages stagnated over the past few decades if unions have so much power
Union power has decline over the last 40 years.
>Could it be perhaps that you're wrong and there's no evidence that unions increase real wages for workers?
I'm right because I've done my research.
>>14160379
austrotard outs himself once again

>>14160402
>it's out of context REEEEEE
No not really dude.

>austrotard outs himself once again
No argument.
You literally support stealing purchasing power from workers and giving it to bankers, kill yoursel.

>>14160402
>Union power has decline over the last 40 years.
That wasn't my point dipshit.
Unions are still much more powerful than they were during the gilded age.
If having this high level of unionism is beneficial, why have wages declined when during the gilded age period when they had NO POWER wages and living standards substantially increased?

Do you have ANY explanation for this?

>>14160426
>Do you have ANY explanation for this?
He really doesn't.
He's been coping at data and graphs this whole thread and confuses correlation with causation.

>>14160316
>Central banks are created to serve public interest
Do tell me more.

>>14160417
Seething. Read an economics textbook.
>>14160426
>Unions are still much more powerful than they were during the gilded age.
And???
>If having this high level of unionism is beneficial, why have wages declined when during the gilded age period when they had NO POWER wages and living standards substantially increased?
I already said that they've declined. Very few Americans are unionized these days.

>>14160402
The Keyes quote is real, the Mises one is apocryphal

>>14160436
>Read an economics textbook.
>dude just read an "authoritative" book by the same people that caused the housing bubble
yeah, I'm going to have to pass on that you religious fundie

>>14160442
You have no idea why central banks are necessary. I'm going to sleep now because I have a life and need to get back to wageslaving :^)

>>14160436
>I already said that they've declined.
SO WHAT?
Are you actually too stupid to understand my point?
Peak unionism rate was 35% in the 1950s(wages increased in non-union industries as well during this time, but you'll probably ignore that), now it's around 10%. During the gilded age it was essentially 0.1% and all states were "right to work" states and there was no labor laws.
Even if the the unionism rate declined since the 50s, it's still much higher than it was during the gilded age and we have all of these labor regulations now.
Knowing this, why did real wages substantially increase during the "anti-union" gilded age yet wages have stagnated now when we have a higher unionism rate and all of these "pro-labor" regulations?

Just knowing this fact alone PROVES that there is no connection between real wages/living standards and unionism.

Explain this.

>>14160454
>You have no idea why central banks are necessary.
They clearly aren't if when we had no central bank and massive deflation, living standards for workers dramatically increased.
This fact alone destroys your main argument and you're crying about it lole

>need to get back to wageslaving
Your own damn fault since you support your wages declining in value lol

>>14152820