Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "The Real Karl Marx Was A Cartoon Villain" video.

By far!
12
That's a very wrong read of the situation. All the booms and busts you (essentially) mention are made possible because of market distortions coming from the deeds of the state and cronyism/regulatiory capture. An economy is all about capital allocation and price signaling is the main mechanism that facilitates the efficiency of capital allocation. Regulations, bureaucracy and state interventions are distorting the signals from prices and thus create premises for inefficient capital allocation that can only reach a certain height before crumbling to the ground. A textbook example was the housing crisis of 2008 and the role of the government and its GSEs (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) in it. Unfortunately, movies like "The Big Short" focused on the "greed" of capitalists and not at all on the government's role in creating that ecosystem.
8
Irrelevant rant!
6
@l.w.paradis2108 Not one single argument from you in multiple hostile comments! Try one for a change! I'll give you an assist and do what you want with it: Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (the philosopher of Fascism) both started as Marxists. Any insights as to why their Marxist background ended up landing them the ideas of Fascism?
6
@jenesoleil3922 I've read him and wanted to take my eyes out. My sight was ultimately saved but Marx's propositions are extremely stupid. Starting with his fundamental assumption that capitalists steal the surplus value of their employees' labor which is nonsense!
5
@l.w.paradis2108 nice deflection. You are not here to discuss but to troll. To anyone else: Fascism was conceptualized on the basis of pragmatic observations by both Mussolini and Gentile when in WW1 they looked at the working class and observed that workers were never going to unite on the basis of their economic class (which is fluid throughout someone's life) but under the national banner. Hence, they exorcised Marxism as unobtainable and adhered to ultranationalist collectivism which is Fascism. Hitler's 25 point program was as if it was written by Marxists apart from the racist and ultranationalist elements.
5
@l.w.paradis2108 it took him too long.
4
@l.w.paradis2108 yeah, because you say so!
4
Without watching the clip yet: Marx lost most of his children from preventable causes, he totally messed his household economics, owing to everyone under the sun in his vicinity, exploited the working class by not paying it for goods and services, was racist and a bigot (examples: Lassalle & Proudhon), he even fathered an illegitimate child with his housekeeper (which he "passed" to Engels - even though the kid was his spitting image) whom he never paid for her work, had to sell all their furniture, at some point, under the pressure of debts to local merchants like the butcher and the grocery store. Ans this is the guy that the Left idolizes while never ever hearing about Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Menger, Von Bohm Bawerk, Hazlitt, etc who had sufficiently deconstructed Marx's nonsense. I have personally added another element of deconstruction to his nonsensical theory. Specifically to his views on labor value (if some other theorist has already pointed this out, I'm unaware of it), by stating that the surplus value from labor is only present when there's a good idea behind it, without which no such surplus value could be created. Example: Marx advocates that the capitalist steals a part of the surplus value generated by labor by paying a lesser amount to the laborer and the difference becomes his profit. That's shallow, a gross simplification and ultimately utter nonsense! I could place a million workers digging a hole and another million covering it up without creating no surplus value whatsoever. It's the business idea and the actual product or service that intrinsically possess the potential for the creation of market-based (individual-voted) surplus value, not so much actual labor going into it which is neither special nor (necessarily) rare (to find).
3
@l.w.paradis2108 Many of mine are gone too. It's always YT behind this farce.
3
@l.w.paradis2108 for someone who claims that he thinks for himself you have quite a parroting mouth. Instead of regurgitating things I don't believe you understand like the "Boom and bust (sic - you should have used plural) is inherent in capitalism" (without telling us why while expecting us to accept the axiom) stay with the argument I offered. I know that one of the talents of Marxists is to take the conversation to obscurity, discuss abstract ideas, never adhering to details and specific nuances, and presto, you have "debated" in favor of Marxism! That's of course nonsense under any legitimate form of sound dialectics. So, I'll ask you this (specific) question: What was the main reason of the 2008 housing crisis (the "bust" in your vocabulary)? Elaborate...
3
@l.w.paradis2108 Unfortunately for philosophy there's a huge problem in between theory and real life. They named it "subject-object dichotomy" and I happen to know what's the culprit at the neurological level.
3
@l.w.paradis2108 I have debated Varoufakis and he didn't have an answer for really anything. He's a game theorist with a focus on..."theory". He's not a pragmatist nor authentic. He currently pushes his political career and profits from talks and the selling of books. About the "labor theory of value"... If Marx's conseptualization of value was right (aka the more labour is put into something the more value it has) the only variable to tackle would be labor hours and quality of labor. That's not how it works in the real world. The Austrians acknowledged the subjective qualities of value and they were much more right than Marx ever was. If I had a million workers digging a hole and another million covering it up, according to Marx a whole lot of value would ensue. That's of course not true. The idea behind an endeavor has a lot more intrinsic value than the labor that's put into the idea. The latter isn't unimportant but without the former value is not guaranteed. The rest of the elements were nicely covered by the host of this channel (risk, postponed gratification/consumption in order to achieve a higher purchasing power later, etc). Also keep in mind that without price signaling the market cannot operate efficiently (in terms of capital allocation) and the current system is not helping that at all (Neo-Keynesian, almost Fascistic with great elements of central planning and interventionism).
2
@l.w.paradis2108 This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I might be too dumb to understand what you're saying so I encourage you to write a book about your theories. The language barrier is also present. In the meanwhile I'll stick with the tangible and the self-evident which is the effectiveness of Austrian economics. Do you think that, for example, Bitcoin is based on Marxism or Austrian economics? To me is 100% clear what Nakamoto thinks about economics. Bitcoin is gold on steroids. That's all. BTW, ad hominem is an attack to the character not the argument and my remarks about Varoufakis concern his obvious incentives. You know that he's now a career politician and sells books right? When I exchanged opinions with him we were on a social platform, more than a decade ago. He was wrong then as he is now. He blames "capitalism" without even defining it. He's still a self-proclaimed Marxist which says a lot about what he understands about the real world and economics in general. His office as a Minister of Finance in Greece cost us a lot, including myself (directly off of his actions).
2
@DadSavesAmerica It's not just the "sort by" feature and how it now works. Comments of mine just disappear entirely after a couple of hours. Not just here (which happened for some of my comments) but elsewhere as well, to the point that it makes more sense to be a content creator than attempt a discussion in the comment section with a "hit and miss" chance of wasting your time. It's really an awful reality about YT (and not the only one I might add - like the constant patronizing under any"controversial" topic). P.S. I answered one of this guys' comments above(within this thread) and now I can't see it. YT is messing with the comment section. It becomes a waste of time with participants and that's a huge problem. Maybe they do that to lighten the load of their servers long term or for some other reason but they sure do it.
2
@SaltMinerOU812 lol.
2
@brian78045 From the top of my head, cost of capital is not some fixed, universal number (the same counts for inflation - I don't have the same inflation vulnerability as a dad vs a bachelor, someone who needs to send a kid to college vs someone who doesn't, etc, because inflation hits differently various products and services and my needs could be much different to yours). A high risk company, one, for example, with a dubious future and no current positive cash flow will (all things equal) have a much higher cost of capital (higher interest rates to pay) for debt/ borrowing than, say, Apple corp. with quite a predictable and stable cash flow. The Austrians have very much thought about these. Mises was influenced quite a bit from Wicksell (Knut), a Swedish economist (of the marginalist school) and his work on interest rates, value, capital, rent and political economy. Wicksell introduced the idea of a different "natural interest rate" (for a hypothetical "no money" - hence no central manipulation - economy) and that of the prevailing interest rate of the market. These are very complex and hard to follow ideas but you necessarily end up there when you are dealing with chaotic-like conditions to which you want to apply universal rules.
1
As always Marxists are masters of ambiguity, nonsense and insults but not much else! Which contradiction? Be specific.
1
Socialism and Democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. This is another attempt of the statist Left to usurp power via the Trojian Horse which is, nowadays, Democratic Socialism whose end game is ... modern and bankrupted Greece.
1
Socialism and democracy are mutually exclusive (by definition). Bloody YT deleted my previous comment.
1
@jenesoleil3922 Unlike most ideologically possessed Marxists, I do have a good use for them. They help me with observing reality and deduct useful conclusions, like the fact that Marxism is nonsense both in theory and practice. Any idea why it always fails? Mises has given the answer. Have you read him or any of the Austrians?
1
I'd add Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and many many others in between. Marx became important only because a certain ideologically possessed mob (of intellectuals or not) found an excuse in his nonsense for expressing their envy on the success of others (usually regular working people) and tried to justify their usurping of power by virtue signalling. Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile (the philosopher of Fascism) who were both hard-headed Marxists prior to inventing/implementing Fascism, realized that the working class would rather fight under a national banner vs their economic class identity. This is why I consider Fascism as a branch of Marxism that simply shed the internationalist element of orthodox Marxism and replaced it with its opposite: ultranationalism. It kept its collective and anti-capitalist elements watering down the latter for propaganda and pragmatic purposes. Lenin's NEP was virtually identical economic policy to what Fascists implemented with the main difference being that Italy was a much more industrialized nation than Russia at the time. Marx was dismissed even by his most stout proponents in Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of them butchers who branched out their own versions of socialism/communism and, of course, fascism.
1