Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Unlearning Economics" channel.

Nice syntax Yoda
1
Real quick what creates desire Oh is it labour, it's labour is it
1
@whitescar2 My point is: Nothing becomes desirable before work is put into it
1
@whitescar2 Things created by natural processes, that's true. Trees are more valuable than saplings, and they do all the work themselves. AI does contain labour however, and this is where you make a common mistake. The AI was trained on the work of millions of images created by hundreds of thousands of artists, who collectively pour tens of millions of hours into their work. The AI is also curated by human beings that 'train' it, this takes time too. And it isn't so different for robots - who makes the metal? Who processes the semiconductors? Who maintains the power station that produces the electricity? You can externalise the human labour that goes into something, but you can't remove it.
1
@whitescar2 "The fact plants will continue to make food, fruit and berries and nuts, is inconsequential." Oh, okay. You brought that up for no reason then? That's fine, moving on. "Yes, it is an absurd notion" Correct, it is. That's why I'm not engaging with it. Stick to reality. "People don't just start making bicycles because they thought it would be a good effort to put some of their excess labor into. They start making bicycles, because there is a desire for transportation." And did putting the labour into the bicycle parts make them more desirable, less desirable, or equally desirable? This is my point. Desire for the various components increased after labour was put into them. "That we only desire something once some other, unthinking and unfeeling, human has put some work into it." This is odd projection on your part.
1
@whitescar2 "I've demonstrated that human desire for food exists outside any labor put into food creation. You ignore it." And why wouldn't I? It has nothing to do with what I said. "I've demonstrated human desire for air and water exist outside human labor put into creating either. You ignore it." This is a lie, you do not believe it. I already acknowledged natural labour and you called it inconsequential. If it's inconsequential, should we ignore it or not? I'm very confused here. "Yes, most things we use to satisfy our desires stems from human labor." So we're actually in agreement then, love to see it. "If your model were correct, the reason would be that since people no longer made film cameras, that meant that people no longer desired to buy film cameras." Desire for film cameras has dropped, yes. So you're just telling me I'm right again. "And the only reason people desire to buy digital cameras is because people make digital cameras" I'm sorry, was there a huge demand for digital cameras before the invention of digital cameras? Am I missing something? "people will not desire something simply because labor was put into its creation." But people do desire things that have labour put into their creation, and these things become more valuable after the labour is put into them. You already acknowledge all of this to be true, you just don't want to acknowledge the ramifications.
1
@whitescar2 I think the fact you've started to pretend I said something else entirely is an implicit concession, you definitely have nothing to add here. Glad you agree though
1
@whitescar2 "If your theory assumes people would not desire food simply because it was not made my labor" Right, but this is a lie. It's something you made up. And by doing so, you have implicitly conceded.
1
@whitescar2 "So labor does not intrinsically make something desirable" But I've never claimed otherwise, and nor does LTV. Again, you are lying because you cannot engage with what is actually being claimed.
1
@hagoryopi2101 "makes no sense when there are thousands of job opportunities to switch to" You don't believe the words you are saying. "When have private entities actually been stronger than the state" Countries all over South America and Africa, where do you think the term 'banana republic' comes from?
1
@hagoryopi2101 "banana republics are the responsibility of the governments of these nations" Oh right, so today actually IS the first time you heard of the concept. "The police and military choose to enforce those standards" Wow why do you think that is "Can you help me understand how the guys with the monopoly on violence aren't the most powerful entity in their given area" Clearly they didn't have a monopoly on violence, that's how. " telling me I don't believe what I'm saying is lazy. " You come in here saying things like like "hoobeedoo just quit your job if you don't like the conditions" and expect to be taken seriously? No, like..fuck off lmao
1
Yeah that's what free means Something somebody else paid for
1
They list what sites they use to provide them with analysis on their website, and lets just say there's a lot of right-wing orgs being put down as left-wing One of the sites even put bloomberg down as leftwing lol
1
Random question but how is the Peterson fanbase taking his recent meltdown over finding out about masectomies?
1
I mean, my taxes keep increasing despite a reduction in public services sooo
1
@loturzelrestaurant I'm blocking this channel specifically because you're spamming it everywhere
1
@loturzelrestaurant You're copying and pasting the same comment regardless of relevance. That's spam. If a channel needs spammers to get attention, problably not worth my time. Blocking it. Nice job.
1
@loturzelrestaurant Blocking spam for being spam has worked very well for me so far.
1
@anteeko They increase demand by decreasing supply. Landlords are only in favour of developments they can profit from. Which is why they work to prevent housing from being built.
1
@anteeko "Not landlord" Yes, landlord. Who do you think is trying to put a stop to housing developments? "Sure, who would spend many hundreds of thousand of $ and then give the house they bought for free?" You realise you are admitting that landlords have no reason to support housing that they haven't invested in, right? "It is all very normal, just like you work to get an income, landlord do the same." The difference I produce things when I work. Landlords do not. "It is actually home owner that lobby to reduce supply" And landlords own homes. Glad we came to an agreement.
1
"they don't seem to be able to give an account of why labor should be valued" Because all value is a product of labour (except for trees and shit). So if you value value, you necessarily value labour. And if you don't think value has value, I can't help you. "However, they do an unconscious slip from arguing for labor as the grounds for value onto arguing for labor as the grounds of ownership" Genuinely: Why do you think this is unconscious? Marx himself wrote "seize the means", and he meant it literally. "how is it that they presume workers create more value" Because if my boss doesn't show up for work, nobody even notices. If disappear for even a couple of hours, the company loses more than I earn in a month. It's clear who is creating value here. "So it is obvious from these examples that breadtubers, and self-proclaimed lefties in general don't actually understand what they're talking about" My brother in christ: You simply cannot say this before you have done the reading
1
Exact same thing happened to the NHS, the Tories are attempting to kill as many people as possible to break the NHS to make privatisation seem good.
1
This is the curse of economics for me: I can have a question, read about the answer...but promptly forget it, and just tell people "I'm certain its in the reading somewhere!"
1
This guy talking about scarcity when we're currently overproducing lmao It's like whining that one day the sun will burn out - like okay but that's a problem for us in the year 5B, not...now.
1
"A policy which would want to put a price stamp on that and basically turn it into a market interaction seems vile to me." Okay, now apply this to things like rent or food or healthcare. Isn't it equally vile that the market decides who can and cannot have those things? And what form those things can take? For example, the market has decided that ethical farming is so expensive that most of us could never afford it. The market has determined that most people under 30 will never have the dignity of their own home. And the odd pain I have in my body right now - thanks to the market, if that turns out to be something serious like cancer...I'm already dead, because I cannot obtain the medical attention it requires until I am actually dying.
1
@deponensvogel7261 Are resources that scarce? Because we've had a surplus of food for a while, and yet food insecurity is getting worse. The market is the only thing stopping these problems from being solved. "given everybody gets a solid education – anybody can, in principle, do anything" Yes and no, society is wholly dependent on people doing the kind of work that pays little. A few people can get a better job, but only if the rest stay where they are. "I don't believe in the market's fault for a lack of medical attention. Medicinal resources are scarce" That is absolutely not the case. Industrial chemistry and new manufacturing processes mean that resources have never been less scarce. Insulin doesn't cost thousands of dollars because it is scarce, it costs thousands of dollars because the market rewards price gouging. Compare the price of medicine in the USA to the price of medicine in Europe. The price sometimes varies by a factor of a thousand. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but there's something wrong with a society that demands compassion but refuses to provide any.
1
@deponensvogel7261 "Oh come on. We live in one of the most compassionate cultures in history" I don't know where you're from but if this is your first language - your culture is steeped in the blood of genocide, past and present. Nowhere in the anglosphere is this not true. "Could we do better? Sure, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with liberal society." So does this mean you don't believe any of what I've said in previous posts? Or do you mean to suggest that denying people basic necessities isn't wrong if the market doesn't provide for them? Because you have to pick one of those options. Either I'm lying, or the negative consequences that result from giving private profit the highest priority aren't 'wrong'. "In fact, concerning human societies, it's an outstandingly pleasant one." Your leaders just got done slaughtering millions of people in a wholly preventable pandemic because saving their lives would have been expensive. I can't help but feel your judgement is the result of a small dataset, you aren't familiar with enough human societies to make this judgement.
1
The debate format is terrible and has never furthered human understanding in any field There's a reason we abandoned it in serious fields
1
I shit you not, it used to be common for university applicants to be denied entry to some universities because of their accent. Recently, too. So it is actually pretty common for some students to change how they speak when going to university
1
It's not that communism is always what we mean It's just that Communism is the only thing that will survive I'd have settled for mild social democratic reform, my life is going okay and that's all I was going to ask for But even that, even the smallest positive change is treated like unspeakable blasphemy by the right And those who advocated for it were sent to hospital And even if we got it? For the rest of my life the right-wing would have tried to destroy it. So there's only one way left, you people refuse to compromise.
1
Is he still simping for white supremacy?
1