ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2016
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
RSS: www.philosophiz...
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂 Today we talk about various classic critiques of Marx's economics made by the Austrian School of Economics. I really wanted to call this episode "X Marx the Spot", but it didn't make enough sense and wasn't very search friendly.
www.patreon.com/philosophizethis
www.philosophizethis.org
Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Hoppe's lecture on "What Marx Gets Right" is incredible
Marx drew a distinction between Use Value and Exchange Value, but these concepts are conflated here
I found you today when trying to find a summary of the fall by camus and you became my favorite podcast lol
"Don't lies eventually lead to the truth? And don't all my stories, true or false, tend toward the same conclusion? Don't they all have the same meaning?
So what does it matter whether they are true or false if, in both cases, they are significant of what I have been and what I am?
Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object." -The Fall, Camus
A wonderful sample of your craft and art, Mr West! Clear, funny, serious, relevant, encompassing, concise, Thank you!
nice podcast! A friend of mind recommended your podcasts and now I'm hooked.
Austrians don't ever refute Marx's labor theory of value and neglect the use value, exchange value, and value and socially nesissary labor time for commodity production. For example, we look at the island example. Marx would say that the water has a subjective use value so you want it more but the value (which is socially nesissary labor time) of the diamond is higher. Risk is also obfuscated for the employees. The employees take a risk by moving to a place and depending on an income etc. Even if you take a risk it doesn't mean the act is moral
Bohm Bawerk refuted Marx's labor theory of value in Marx & The Close of His System.
There is no mystical value in labor. Austrians recognized that value is a product of a mind evaluating reality. They misnamed it subjective.
From Las Vegas, NV and can confirm that we will pay $7+ for a bottle of water
This is one of the few good videos on Austrian econ from a none Austrian person, Good job!
Love your discord, very informative.
I wish I met you when I lived in Seattle.....
Steve you should have a 5-10 second hardcore rap outro for your videos
Good video, though I would like to make a few corrections. You set up this episode as if the Austrians were responding to Marx specifically, but actually it could be best said that the Austeians are mainly a response to the classical economists (E.g Adam Smith and Friedrich Bastiat) Menger was an economic journalist who noticed inconsistencies within how the Classical economists spoke about economics and his 'principles of economics'.
And I don't think you really gave the Austrians critique of Marx a fair shake. In Böhm-Bawerk's book 'Karl Marx and the close of his system' he goes after Aristotle's theory of exchange which was the precursor to Adam Smith's labour theory of value and Marx's take on the labour theory. you left that part out
Also, you seemed to have left out one of the biggest aspects of the Austrian school, which is Praxeology, which I guess the early Austrians had a type of proto-Praxeology but was really codified Von Mises and diverge from the more Empirically based theories of today's economists.
Empiricists hide their theories, as Mises noted. Mises has problems but he also starts in the common human economic experiences of action, purpose, action accross time, priorities, etc. He predicted the Great Depression because the increasing tech of the 1920s should have lowered prices. He inferred that the Fed was conterfeiting and that this would fragment markets.
It is interesting to hear the hypothetical austrian argument. I, myself, subscribe to the austrian school postulates and my argument would be a tad different.
I would say: "Workers are to be paid the exact subjective value they produce for their employers." (So far the same).
But it is not necessarily because of the logistical implications the employer had to go through, but rather because of contractual considerations.
For workers to be paid the exact value of what they produce, they wouldn't be workers in the first place, they would be producers without intermediaries. They would produce directly for the consumer not for the employer.
The producer (employer in this case) however, is in fact paid by the consumer the exact subjective value of what they produce.
I presume these matters are more easily explained by legal considerations rather than purely economic ones. I know they aren't completely distinct from one another. But if you were to say:
What is a contract?, What is the definition of a party in a contract?, What makes contracts valid in the first place?,
I think the answers to these questions are perhaps more relevant in determining who gets paid how much and why.
Just an opinion, it was still very interesting to listen about these considerations from a different perspective.
First time looking into Philosophy this. I’m really intrigued with these ideas and I wonder if he’s expanded on his thoughts for profit being theft. Does he acknowledge opportunity for experience/time spent working as part of the equation? For example one might get paid less than their work is worth but is the number on your paystub the only piece of data he accounts for? Would love to know if he talks about this at anytime!
Hi=)...Love your stuff. You ever thought to record video of you droppin these gems?? I think you have a great sound and the ppl would just Love....to actually meet you. Do it for your BOO.
So THAT'S the Austrian school theory! I never knew .... Thx for explaining.
Solid
A thing is worth how much someone is willing to actually pay for it. Within that there is a great deal of leeway that allows bad actors to take advantage. That is where the real harm is. Labor and material cost of the item and a 30% markup was the cost at the start of capitalism before people learned ways to screw the system. That system is remarkably robust when inflation is nearly zero. When people are good actors, this system drives a form of capitalism where everyone wins. Now that we're into the late stages of capitalism, the bad actors have figured out ways to cheat the system. Late stage capitalism is marked by scams, and the means to cheat the system. That bad actor behavior undermines capitalism itself. When people have plenty of money and the means to sit around and think about new ways to make money, they get creative in ways that don't help anyone but themselves. At this point finance is so powerful, it passed some Supreme Court decisions the Citizens United ruling, that equated to a silent coup d'etat. They also went so far as to make banks immune to civil suits. Finance and the banking system is above the law. This is not a good thing, and harkens back to a period of time where the anger was so great that heads rolled.
Finance is figuratively eating capitalism and literally killing business in the process. Then you get into corporate bailouts and, "my profits, our losses." Any bailout is the equivalent of the redistribution of wealth directly into the hands of the corporate elites. If you take two pie charts, the first represents the percentage of wealth owned by each private individual (including businesses), the 2nd represents the public good (the summation of taxes). Corporations are reaching into the public good, taking out a slice of the pie, and injecting that slice of the pie into the privately owned pie chart. What happens to everyone's piece of the pie, a concept known as buying power, when that injection is limited to a select few? Their piece of that pie expands, and everyone else's shrinks. You have to start thinking about wealth in terms of percentages of the whole. So every corporate bail out robs the consumers at the bottom of their buying power. The best part is when those at the top claim that Covid is the cause of inflation when the problem of inflation has been accumulating since the earliest bailout. No, it was just a good scapegoat for their own incompetence and greed.
One of the things that ran the Roman Empire into the ground was the debasing of the currency. Then the German Empire did it with the printing press just prior to World War 2. Sabotage the faith of the common man in the value of the currency and the whole system falls apart. I'm hoping the people at the top are finally coming to the realization that they have shaken the boat so severely with raging incompetence and skullduggery that wide swaths of the US have lost faith in their own government's ability to faithfully execute their jobs.
When economists pay the equivocation game and say things like, "There's so many variables that we can't really say anything about capitalism in any objective way," they're being very obtuse to the fact there are people on Wall Street who have literally moneyballed capitalism and know its every in and out, and have written computer programs known as algorithms that trade 3,000,000 stocks in 0.2 seconds or less. You can't have a system like that without having a very accurate accounting of capitalism. There was a TED talk about weird market behavior where multiple algorithms compete against each other and produce measurable things in the graphs of value of an item over a period of time. One of them had a distinctly knife shape. This is also why the stock market has nearly crashed several times in the blink of an eye. The moment they get into a sell off, all value plummets to zero in the blink of an eye. Then there was the Wallstreetbets debacle where a ridiculously powerful hedge fund tried to short a stock, GME, and nearly crashed the economy with a meme. Just this week a poor schmuck in India lost 80 billion trying to do the exact same thing as the hedge funds. Like I said earlier late state capitalism is marked by never ending scams and schemes designed to defraud the system in ways that are so new there are no laws to prevent them.
Another problem is when a country like China says that one unit of their currency and one unit of US currency are equal. This means the US currency is actually worth the average of the two currencies. That brings up the value of China's currency, and lowers our value considerably. It's done to do nothing but screw over the competing country's economy. It's literally a form of state sanctioned economic warfare. Luckily the US finally got its shit together and is fighting back.
If you look at total world wealth, by 2035 the US will finally fall behind the rest of the developing world. At that point our economy will recover, and wealth can start to flow back. So, twelve more years of economic nightmare. Oh, and when the World economic forum makes the claim that they are in control, they're not. Can God create a fire that God cannot put out? Apparently the answer is yes, and we will watch humanity eat the Earth in the process. There are people in Denmark talking about Doughnut economics. They're going to try and force that on the world and fail, because of that lack of control. We're going to have a front row seat to watching our planet die. That combined with AI running the economy into the ground may lead to the need to use Universal Basic Income just to prevent homelessness and hopelessness from tearing the country apart. It's going to be a wild ride, strap in.
Just a tini tiny correction: it is not being in the desert or next to the tub wich determins the marginal value of an aditional glass of water, but the fact of how much water has been consumed before it. I mean, logically you might asume that in the middle of the dessert you havent drunk much water, but that is not necesarily de case. The point im trying to make is the following: the way you put it, lets say being "close or far" from the tub, is still a suply demand issue. BUT the point marginalist make is that if you have drunk a lot of water, wether having or not a tub nearby, you will give little to no value to an extra glass... this has nothing to do with suply demand: if you just ended playing a soccer match, that first glass of water will have A SUPERB MARGINAL VALUE. Only then suply demand "game" take place, and of course, you wont pay as much for water than for a diamond in the city: that has nothing to do with the marginal value of that first glass of water, wich would be (acording to autrian marginalist) still rocket high.
I hope you were joking when you claimed to be a marxist - I had such respect for your intelligence... Not so sure anymore.
This is great
MATE YOU F---ING ROCK GOD OF THE PHILOSO
I like this episode too
Philosophize This is kidding about being a Marxist and does a fabulous job making the case for the Austrian School.
very funny arthritis joke, great podcast as usual homie
Never heard the term subjective theory of value. I always thought it was referred to as marginal utility
And isn’t marginal utility more or less directly related to supply and demand
@@joshuabyram7485 it is termed subjective value because it is due to individuals acting on the margin of their own utility which is subjective
@@joshuabyram7485 supply and demand can be derived from marginal utility
I shared
What happened to episodes upto #82? 🤔
They r still on spotify tho
"profits are theft" is not actually marx.
Cheers to you for accurately representing the Austrian arguments on value all the way through. So, did/will you make a follow up to this podcast about the refutations of these? I'd be very interested in it.
To anyone who's looking to take a deep dive into Austrian (aka "praxeological") economics, I highly recommend Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (available for free on the website of the Mises Institute). It is the most comprehensive economics-based defense of free markets ever written.
Great podcast. Appreciate your ability to speak on topics in an unbiased manner. I’m hooked. Kudos for admiring you’re a Marxist. I know you have limited time, but I would think the Austrian more precise argument against marx is the failure of central planning. I mean, think about das capital and then immediately think of the Gulag archipelago. Entrepreneurs tend to do a much better job at getting the consumer a better product also making the consumer the ultimate controller of what and how things should be valued.
Entrepreneurs are the controllers. Consumers merely respond to what has been created. Consumers as such are not part of economics. Consumers must first produce to consume. (Theft is not eeconomics)
you are the the thing you are talking about at the moment, at any moment. thus ...
Hey there!
I’ve been looking for the old videos on the channel, the oldest video I found is Episode #63 or something, so I guess I missed tens of eps... What should I do to watch the old ones?
PS: DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!
spotify has them all for free in the podcast section
On their website they have all the episodes from No.1
It's on Spotify, Deezer and Itunes
austrian economics
Ah, a true foil to Marx... i'll remember it as a tin foil theory :)
Are there any good books on Austrian economics?
There are some good youtube videos
th-cam.com/play/PLALopHfWkFlHwjYbtRJLmhTIN7lFFyAi4.html
Dipzerz anything from Mises or Rothbard. Pretty though reads though as was marx. Man economy state is the standard also you can just check out Mises media on TH-cam. Just find any topic that catches your eye and watch it.
Marx is not an economist. He is a fairytale writer.
have you read das kapital?
@@shaneburke4826 Have you read _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ by Ayn Rand?
A social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children stamping their foot and shrieking: “I want it now!”-is through.
-Ayn Rand
@@TeaParty1776 okay? this isn't even an argument it's just an insult lmao. Read Capitalism Realism
@@shaneburke4826 You evade Rands identification of the IDEA of subjectvism in Hegel, Marx and the people influenced by subjectivism.
>Capitalism Realism
For subjectivists, realism is relative to subjectivity, eg, a drug addict being "realistic" about getting more drugs or Marxists being realistic about mass murder. Favorable Amazon reviews of _Capitalist Realism_ condemn prosperity (from capitalism?!) and the individual's desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Schools are condemned without recognizing that Progressive education (which dominates US schools) is a valid application of the same Kantian attack on mans independent mind that Marx used. No clear alternative to capitalism is identified. This is nihilism, ie, destruction for the sake of destruction.
Marxism is emotionalism w/intellectual pretensions. Marxism is the hatred of the focused mind. Marxism is a pseudo-scientific restatement of the mystical Garden Of Eden and as realistic. Marxism is altruism of the immediate moment ,w/no past or future. Marxism is for bugs on a sidewalk. As Marianne Faithfull sang about modern culture. "We've been trying to get high without having to pay."
@@TeaParty1776 The reason what no clear alternative to capitalism is identified is because it has now become impossible for any alternative to be realised. This is the entire point of the book. Capitalism has subsumed all radical theory, all media, all possibilities and the powers of human negation so that anything other than itself is seen as utopian. Marxism is none of the things you described. It is an intellectual theory of the progresssion of human society and how such a society can develop further; favoring human progress over economic progress. Of course this type of society is unimaginable, but that is precisely the point. I'm sure capitalism seemed utopian to the feudal serf. Also you clearly don't understand what he means when he writes about realism. I'd recommend reading Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man". It has a very similar feeling to "Capitalism Realism" but much more technical.
Yay, hes a marxist!
Hahahaha what are you saying?
@@nacho007 well I am not a marxists cause I've never read any marx so I dont know lol
Marxist philosophers of the world, unite! Let’s interpret the world and change it!
You are quite well spoken but your ideas have little substance. When the Soviet Union collapsed the Austrians won the argument. Case closed!
If one communist country collapses, communism is bad, case closed? Then, if a capitalist country collapses, capitalism is bad, case closed?
Much substance your comment is lacking
@Johan Strydom
Well, according to Steve Woods' logic, if one country fails then the system is a failure. Capitalist countries have failed. So capitalism must be a failure, if Steve Woods is correct
@Johan Strydom
(He's not correct though, his logic is flawed, hopefully I demonstrated that by applying it to the real world)
Stevey, the Austrians weren't arguing against "The Soviet Union will never collapse", they were arguing against Marxist critiques of capitalism.
Austrian economics: when you presuppose the beliefs in your socio-economic system are natural and argue from there
wow, that sounds stupid, it's almost like that's not what the Austrians are doing
Mainstream economics-when your beliefs are not based in nature but from mystical symbols pretending to math.
Isnt this interesting, karl have to be journalist, seeing for himself the horror of capitalism, meanwhile rich people conjuring up bullshit like this from the comfort of their sofa.