What Karl Marx got wrong | Steve Keen and Lex Fridman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2022
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Steve Keen: Marxism, C...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Weights & Biases: lexfridman.com/wnb
- Skiff: skiff.org/lex
- Indeed: indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off
GUEST BIO:
Steve Keen is a heterodox economist and author.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
This episode is set in an alternate universe where Michael Caine is Australian and has pursuit a career in economics instead of the arts.
You might be on to something! 😆
You mean that's not Michael Caine?
Marx speaks of value in relation to price mechanisms and thus shows how wages play a factor in worker exploitation when observed through the actual price (or value of a good that gets produced and sold)...that's a completely different concept of value than what a lot of neoclassical capitalists are talking about when they speak of value...a lot of the confusion and reason why both sides end up missing each other's point is because they aren't understanding what the others definition and thus ultimately what they are saying when they speak of value
I think both sides actually tend to understand the labor theory of value. But people who refute the labor theory of value think that working smarter means that one person, armed with a better algorithm, could out compete millions of competitors in a fraction of the time.
And the rebuttal is that 'dead labor' is built on human exploitation.
@@FrancisGo. that isn't a refutation though lol...people who are capable of having better or faster methods of production are capable of undercutting the competition in costs and selling goods for cheaper or for the same price and generating more profit. It literally kind of shows how that works as well...the LTV hasn't really ever been refuted in regards to what Marx intended it to exhibit. It's just been attacked with strawmen and imaginary arguments that have nothing to do with what Marx was pointing out
@@ronrice1931 Marx talks about what I said as being the 'moving contradiction of capital'.
Necessary labor time goes down, meaning that wages go down, over time, because profits go down, as technology becomes cheaper in one particular sector of the economy.
Apple tries to solve this problem through planned obsolescence, and getting rid of right to repair. And sweat shops overseas.
My solution is universal basic income.
The Marxists don't tend to like my solution.
But also, I don't think breakthroughs in math count as dead labor. 🤔
The people who created the Google Algorithm were well compensated. I don't think Marx recognized that possibility.
He would just say it's...I forget the exact term.
The Algorithm literally has use value. It's not just an empty abstraction, but it's not dead labor either. 🤷
@@ronrice1931
Machines are called 'dead labor', so Marx didn't think they were anything more than the congealed essence of exploited people.
The way I understood it, the problem with a class based society is that the ruling class squirrel away surplus value, which is an abstract form of value which un-tethers the decision makers from the actually existing material world, which necessitates exploitation, creates ecological problems, and a cycle of never ending financial crises.
So, if you re read my previous comments you can better understand our difference of opinion.
12:00 - Marx never saw a dialetical tension between exchange value and use value. He explicitly discards this misconception in "Capital". Exchange value is a third moment of the commodity. It exists only when the exchange is realized on the market. The real tension is between VALUE and USE VALUE. Those are the categories that Marx discover to be a dialectical contradiction. Exchange value is not even specific to capitalism, it exists on markets on every mode of production. Value, to the contrary, is specific to a certain degree of development of the productive forces, after an universal generalization of markets
The thesis that machines produces value is odd. Machines produces only USE VALUES which are not specfic to capitalism too. Any mode of production with machines can produce the same use values without this form of production
Steve Keen should actually read Marx again
Value is not just related to labor you put in, it’s related to "socially necessary labor time" to create that commodity. And that changes based on technological developments in machinary. But you might need to put in more labor time if you dont use machinary and that doesn’t change it’s value. Because it’s the avarage of the labor put in a society/market that determines the value. So because you didnt use machines/tools you labord more but you could create the same value, same commodity.
It is also why as you use better machinery, you can produce with less labor, cheaper. Every capitalist needs to get that new machinery to compete. So the avarage socially necessary labor time for producing that commodity decreased. The value of the commodity decreased as well.
If machinery did produced value on its own, with better machines you wouldn’t get a cheaper product. Also value is not a physical property of a commodity but a social relation between commodities. That’s why it might seem to you that machine produces more (yes) but also it’s not a source of value.
It also assumes in a fully automated society, things would still cost something. Not to mention how we would pay for them without selling our labor power, but products would be infinitely cheaper as shown above
Socially necessary labor is a mere factor in transforming a product into a commodity. Not sure what you're on about.
@@jackjak392 It also determines value of the product. Although not the price
@@Zineasisn’t value the natural price?
@@Fane7 it is most commonly not. It only translates into prices if supply and demand were to be in an equilibrium which almost never is the case. So you can only take avarage of the fluctuations of price in a given time interval to estimate value.
I don't understand how anybody could reject the utility theory of value. By definition value is determined by how somebody values something. And how somebody values something is subjective.
Indeed, make everything free!
@@jackjak392 Why don't you go buy something that you don't want and tell me how the labor responsible for creating it gave it its value?
Oh. You mean it doesn't have value to you but to somebody else? You mean to other subjects?
@@ericglock6932 Yeah you're unserious
@@ericglock6932 I don't think this is the own you think it is. Value is still instilled that commodity, the problem is; is that you're still operating off of a radical subjectivist account. This is almost like saying in order for something to be objective we must agree on it.
If I remember the economy classes, they were saying there were fixed assets that were independent of the production, so that would be buildings, machines and so on, and then the variable assets or costs that go with production, like labour. So in that thinking, only the labour would add value, because the machine is there whether it produces or not, less the depreciation and whatever fuel it needs. He might be right about the fuel, but not the machine itself. I don't see where both statements contradict each other to be honest, but it kind of cuts at an unfortunate moment. Obviously if a machine by itself can create immensurable value, there is no need for workers and no need for socialism from the workers, all people would need is one such machine to create whatever wealth, like the Star Trek replicator.
Anyway, I doubt it's the reason his prediction did not happen. My bet is that he did not take into account marketing and market share. You can produce all you want, if there is nobody to buy it, the value is zero, capitalist or not. It's usually where businesses fail, not the value part, and you can't socialize that unless you force people into it, like the Soviets did, which ended up not good.
The example of the steel crane is a good one, but Keen can't see it. By itself, the crane is only iron ore. Then human ingenuity and human labor mine it, smelt it, forge it, design it, shape it, and assemble it. That makes it a crane that can lift 1,000 more than any one man. The genius of capitalism is that at every step of the process from ore to work site and beyond, the people who design and labor to bring it into fruition are better off at the end of the day than if they had stayed home from work. And tomorrow, they'll go to work again.
@@crimony3054 yes, the crane and lift a lot more than humans, but for what purpose?
Well, it was a rhetorical question but I can push it in another direction. The Soviet economy actually produced a vast quantity of goods. You can read Edward Luttwak's "Does the Russian mafia deserve The Nobel Prize for economics" in London Review of Books, 3 August 1995 for the precise producitivity and dysfunction of the Soviet economy. It produced more electricity per capita than Italy, more steel per capita than the USA, more fertiliser than Japan, more cement than France, etc ... But they were all wasted. Cement bags were allocated to sites which then sat in the sun and rain and hardened back into solids. Steel that went into tractors that weren't cared for and rusted out. Vast quantities of materiel went into military production that sat in storage; until the Russian Federation pulled those out and fired at Ukraine.
The assumptions is that a capitalist system will be more efficient because it will only direct resources to productive ends. Not always. See the craze over bitcoin and what not. Those were real energy and electricity that were used up.
@@VT-mw2zb It is the command economies that mis-allocate production, not market economies. That said, market economies don't allocate resources ONLY to productive ends -- there is plenty of waste. But it wastes less than a command economy, and that benefits everyone. Remember a car going 105 miles an hour is only 5% faster than one going 100, but in just an hour will be five miles further ahead.
@@crimony3054 with how the Federal Reserves and others like it runs the banking system, the economies under them are getting closer and closer to being command economies. Markets rely on pricing signals but with interest rates at or close to zero; the Europeans have them at negative, it is difficult to price anything.
@@VT-mw2zb Much agreed. In fact, government spending, Federal, state, and local well exceeds 50% of the economy, while those who pay less in taxes than they receive back is well over Romney's 47% who paid in zero.
As long as not *ALL* work is fully automated by AI, machines will only ever multiply the value produced by labor. Machines have to be put to use by workers, otherwise standing alone they produce nothing. Raw materials, likewise, are used up in the process and simply transfer their value to the new products (depreciation). In other words, a tailor adds value to that value transferred from the materials on which he is working by applying labour through cutting and sewing.
A machine simply increases the productivity of human labour, which allows the effort of the workers to produce more in a given time. However, it is not the machine that creates the new values, but the labour of the workers.
Above all, there is no exchange-value that is contained in commoditie-form, what forms the contradiction in commoditie form is use value and VALUE, not exchange-value, exchange-value is only the quantitative expressions of the simple value-form (again, x commodities A = y commodities B).
Then, according to Prof. Steve Keen, one capitalist can fool another capitalist regarding the difference between a machine use value and a machine exchange value (capable of crea ring NEW value)
I think Sraffa treats this case as a kind of rent.
I caught that "asking for a friend", Lexbot. Lol
What is the role of creativity in the theory of labour? What would Karl and Leonardo say to each other?
He said art is separate from the Labor theory of value as he was trying to explain employment, labor inputs and wage labor and not an artists creative labor
@@vancecookcobain Leonardo wasn't just an artist. He was engineer, architect etc.
This guy is great
Maybe a better way to define it is that the machine is a labor multiplier aka a factor of labor. I mean a tool is a tool. A better one make a decrease time to make something and so on. See, solved it. Easy. And people said economics is hard.
You are right, but you could also say that a machine is transforming energy into a product. With the cost of some entropy.
@@robertpedersen6831not without a human operator, it doesn't.
This is where academia hits the real world. As keen has said humanity is complicated and messy so it's difficult to have economic models that take this into account. Also no matter how many machines we produce there are 7.8 billion humans on this planet and economic models cannot just discard them or the s*** will end up in the fan.
Walmart and Amazon already use economic plans to accurately predict and model the economy. Maybe in the time of Marx it was less feasible, but in our age of high powered computing it is possible.
@@charlesbaicy3295that’s not exactly true. Yes, every business attempts to calculate future market conditions, and big companies do that bigger and better than small companies. However, there is always a gap between the model and reality, often big enough that multi-billion dollar companies can fail within a single financial year, because the predictions were wrong.
@@alst4817correct, no one can predict the future.
Without context the conversation at 5:00 is hilarious
Anyone else click this thinking the thumbnail was karl marx surrounded by the beatles?
Like all people and philosophies, Marx and his ideas are far from perfect. I don't get why people cant get that or why people only care about that. Its kinda a waste of time.
Because trying to apply his ideas to real people results in massive human death and tragedy before it devolves into corrupt tyranny. Not a lot of up sides.
because muricans especially right wingers and libertarians cant stand people criticize their system. Even people talking about public transport in murica are being called communist (cough cough pageru). Thats why.
@@ggh_-ts6pn interesting insult to throw out there. Not.
@@johnnycampbell3422 lol insult? thats the truth. Every critics to make the system better labeled as communist by them. Thats why healthcare and public transport in America sucks. Western european countries are capitalist but they can build better public transport and healthcare system because they have no libertarians calling these things communist ideas and attack against personal freedom and capitalism (cough cough again pager f*cking U )
'not perfect' is not remotely accurate, f ing terrible is accurate. marx was evil.
I'll save you a watch, EVERYTHING
this is a good discussion. i wish it went on longer as i'm not sure if i agree with the speaker or not. i need to hear more of his theory. but as i understand it, i dont see the contradiction in marx's argument.
ProfSteveKeen th-cam.com/video/rTgpR6SIqdw/w-d-xo.html
Comments are full of regards
machines are tools that require a human operator. Unless they evolve to be autonomous and self replicating, humans are the ones creating the value.
If they are self replicating, they'll produce soo much stuff that the stuff produced would be free or extremly cheap.
Having been blessed with a reasonable education I'm proud to think that I understand most of this. At the same time I think nit-picking historical economic theories lacks value. Determination of value depends on human cultural values. So what if it took 1000 men 1000 days to mine, refine and cast 1000g of gold? What is the gold useful for? Economics isn't rational, it's statistical. People weave between objective and subjective value and that weave can be measured and predicted, more or less.
Gold doesn't decay, so as a store of value it's great. It's also scarce
@@lechavs Maybe, but something being scarce doesn't give it value beyond novelty. But saying it stores value doesn't respond to the question; why does it have value? Saying it has value because it has value intrinsically doesn't work in this conversation
@@lechavs the point is that it's scarcity and value is something that we have attributed to it. It is our desire that gives it value, it is not inherently valuable. Hence hypothetically a 1000 years from now now gold may fall out fashion and not be valuable.
Also the scarcity of precious metals and stones is something the jewel mafia controls. Apparent diamonds are not scarce at all. DeBeers just hoards diamonds to create a sense of rarity.
You just steelmanned bitcoin.
It seems counterintuitive to say that because over time there will be more machinery, there will be a falling rate of profit…unless he means that people will have less wages to spend on the goods? Imo once machinery spreads and becomes advanced enough to produce large quantities of a good or goods, then that good should just be given away as a new standard of living….depending on what the good is, I suppose. Not everyone needs plastic toy cars, but everyone could use a cooking pan.
Marx wasn't able to imagine a world where people would get more and more into dept to pay for what they produce themselves. So there's a hole there. But yes, when everything is automated the value of the item falls dramatically, because you can produce them very cheaply.
I have listened to a few clips with Mr. (Dr.?) Keen, but my question is, what did Marx get right?
he convinced all governments to give money to his followers and aprendices.
Marx provided decent preliminary models to assess how Adam Smith and David Ricardo's economics (capitalism, essentially) both effectively and ineffectively remedied the problems of Feudalism. On a small-scale, Marx's models provided some solutions - like Aneurin Bevan using Marx's theory of value to construct crucial parts of Britain's NHS. But mostly, Marx's value is in his description or diagnostic utility - not really his remedies or alternatives.
Value = Benefit at Cost
Objective value is, in effect, a statistical representation of an aggregate of individual subjective evaluations: hence why there are price spreads and moving price signals. Most prices advertised are the "ask". Bids are usually not displayed for most transactions.
The issue is late stage capitalism with as little market regulations as the U.S. allows companies in the same sector to create a sort of “oligopoly” with little/no competition or artificial competition. This means those companies can set the prices however they’d like. The idea that consumers control the market is not applicable to sectors that are dominated by a handful of companies. Which is quickly becoming every sector in the U.S.
@@ditkovichpaysmyrent They can set the "ask", but liquidity can dry up; sometimes overnight.
I would say machine labor has more value than human labor. Machines don't get tired, sick or need off days. Plus they can work continuously without breaks or complaining
Marx would call machine labor 'dead labor'.
But he treats technology like it's simply the distilled essence of the alienated labor that went into its construction.
He honestly wouldn't know what to make of the fact that an algorithm, which a few people spent a relatively small amount of time working on, could do more work in less time than the combined effort of millions of people.
Marxists are so tied to 19th Century materialism they don't really understand the power of information.
To them information is just a smokescreen obscuring social relations, similar to their own opaque rhetoric.
Here's their rebuttal: Steve Jobs. Sweatshops.
So I could say that that isn't really an argument. I could say Maxwell's equations lifted millions out of poverty, but as long as poverty exists in a world dominated by capitalism, there will always be a way to tie poverty back to capitalism.
Even in the Soviet Union. They'll say the Soviet Union wasn't really communist because it had to compete with the U.S.
They even had Hollywood rewrite history on Venezuela. They adapted a Jack Ryan novel for TV, and made it look like populism destroyed Venezuela's economy, and only social justice could restore it.
Marxists at least want to end poverty and exploitation, so that's good. I just don't believe in their 19th century materialism, nor do I condone their tendency to gaslight people about even recent history.
this is not a question of who is more valuable, but rather, who gets the surplus value created by the laborer. Sure, a machine is more productive than a worker, but who makes the machine? and if the machine replaces the worker once the machine becomes more profitable, then who keeps the surplus value created by the machine? Lets say McDonalds decides that digital ordering machines can replace the need for human cashiers. (which is already the case) and this leads over 5000 workers being laid off and without an income. The question becomes, why couldn’t McDonalds just keep all the workers for the same salary while reducing everyones hours. In other words, keep the 5000 workers, and reduce everyones hours to 6 hours a day. they get to keep the same pay and everyone works less. This would never happen because it is more profitable to the employers and shareholders to fire people, than to let that technology reduce the amount of work people need to do.
Think about this.
If it were possible to create a supply chain of machines such that every single product was harvested, designed, processed, and shipped, by machines that required no human observation or maintenance, then why shouldn't the government buy a few of these machines and give every single product away for free? And if it would be right for the products made by these machines to be available for free, then the machine must not create value because the cost to compensate loss of value to create a product is the labor value of the product.
@@mania.archive i don't see how any economy can work if the surplus value created by a labourer does go to the person who contracts out the labourer
There should be a video about what he didn’t get wrong. What he got wrong is too large of a list.
Ego is the enemy.
Marxism, especially now that our is intersectional, is worship of the ego. The earlier version was just utterly vulnerable to it. Now it is baked in.
Without the ego we are throughtless beings like zombies. The ego is the most magical thing in the universe. You have been misconstrued. It's about who/what controls ones ego.
@@indigomarine91 you're confusing it for the self, no? The ego is the mind's reflection of the self i should think.
Value is neither objective nor subjective, but r-e-l-a-t-i-o-n-a-l. How much is 10$ worth? It is worth something that it is not itself, which can be conceived as having a quality and a quantity ( x quantity of commoditie A = y quantity of commoditie B).
It is really not that difficult.
@@novinceinhosic3531 well It Just makes my point stronger
Asking for a friend
The issue isn't socialism. The issue is Authoritarianism. We have plenty of socialist systems which work, are more efficient, and which are beneficial. The issue comes when any system becomes ridged in its dogma rather than grounded in truth.
We don’t have any socialist systems that work, socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Our “social systems” have nothing to do with socialism.
So true.
Well said
Genuine socialism comes as the expense of some individuals personal freedoms. This can only be carried out or enforced through some level of Authoritarianism. Voluntary Socialism, such as people living in an Amish community, is perfectly fine. People object to Socialism when it is enforced by the State, at the expense of individual choices.
Wrong
3:15 human labour is the only thing that matters *from man's point of view*. The reason Marx attributes this magical transformative property to human labor is Marx himself is a human.
Labor isn't magic though lol
The existence of the Google Algorithm, what Marx might have conceptualized as 'dead labor', proves that not all man hours are created equally by the fact that it out competed all previous efforts in that domain.
But I'm still open to all possibilities.
My brain hurts
So to break this down he's saying that Disney ruined Star wars.
underrated comment
A lot and nothing was said during the make of this video.
Marx was wrong with his theory of value!
In his value formula W = c + v + s, Marx adds the surplus value to the costs c + v.
Marx applied this formula to the production side of commodity society, since the market had no meaning for him, but this is how he had to formulate that surplus value would be produced.
But on the production side of the commodity society there is still no surplus value. An entrepreneur can only estimate what surplus value he can obtain in the current market conditions.
Since surplus value is part of value, value cannot exist until it is clear whether surplus value is paid and, if so, to what extent. On the production side of commodity society there can only be expected surplus value and expected value. The value formula needs to be specified for the production side:
W|expected = c|cost factor, replacement expected + v|cost factor, replacement expected + s|expected.
The surplus value is not produced, but paid by buyers on the market, but not necessarily! In order for there to be surplus value, a buyer must fully replace the costs of the product and pay even more, the surplus value, i.e. the surplus value is paid to the replacement of the costs. This is what happens in the market. The value formula must also be specified for the market too:
W|real = c|cost replacing + v|cost replacing + s|real.
Consequently, value is formed on the market - as a relationship, Marx calls it a social relationship, between buyer and seller.
Buyers and sellers create the value there and assign it to both the exchange good and the value equivalent in the same amount.
You can only produce the prerequisites for value relationships, surplus value and values, but not these directly.
Marx's value formula, although not exact, can be used to show how value must be formed in the products of labor if production is to continue, improve, and expand.
Marx does not recognize the fundamental function of the market - it is the place where value is formed. The market thus shows what is important to people in an economic sense under the given social (economic, technological, scientific, cultural, religious, historical, foreign economic) and natural conditions.
Important in an economic sense means that, for example, very little value is assigned to a glass of water in a private household, namely the proportional costs for the provider, for the fittings, etc. - nothing more is necessary. In a restaurant, you assign a significantly higher value to a glass of water because the environment requires additional costs that you accept - additional rooms, services, furniture, additional hygiene measures based on legal requirements, etc. A person dying of thirst in the desert will assign a glass of water an even higher value.
Since Marx did not recognize the process of value formation, he also came to a wrong conclusion regarding the workforce. He only recognizes the supposedly value-creating function of human workers. But in reality, no type of labor (human, machine, and part of nature employed as labor) can “create value.” All types of workers can only create conditions for value relationships and therefore values.
Without question, this presentation is very brief. More details below
th-cam.com/video/k0ROLxkBUzA/w-d-xo.html
There are also more videos on this topic there.
Hey! He's an Aussie😁 Don't tell me you are here Lex, cos I'm going to stalk you hard 😉😋🐨❤️❤️❤️
this guy sounds like hes never read Marx. for anyone that actually wants to learn, watch Lex’s video with richard wolff
Watched it. Richard Wolff, like most admirers of Marx, isn’t able to think logically or coherently. He is unable to provide actual solutions, only able to whine and complain about an imperfect world. No feasible paths to building a stable society. Just like his hero: Marx. Marx’s ideas are shit and every time they are tried they fail. And yes, I’ve read plenty of Marx. Enough to know that reading any more is a waste of time.
Chat-GPT: Look at me, I'm the worker now.
Marx:
3:14 That is not entirely accurate. Marx saw all commodities, including capital goods like machines, as depositories of labor (value). Therefore, as machines made other commodities and in turn depreciated , the depreciated value (labor) of the machine became deposited into the new commodity it created ! It's quite a beautiful concept: the conservation of value.
Exactly
Is lex high… Jesus this is painful to watch - it’s clear he’s an engineer in this clip
Wow Karl Marx makes people angry! He's such an influential thinker I'm always happy to hear people discuss him.
He was a flop and started a cult
Marx doesn't make people as angry as whatever Phil DiFranco last covered on his channel. Or whatever he'll cover next.
@@reimer0015Lmfao it never fails to amuse me how, if you read Marx’s writing, he is very tame and talks very analytically (mostly). Then when I see his critics attack him they use incredibly angry and emotional language. You guys don’t know what you’re talking about or the first thing about Marx
The Labor Theory of Value is not very useful in predicting the behavior of people in an economy. How much people value things (e.g. how much they are willing to pay) really is subjective. Why is it that airlines can make the most money by continually increasing their ticket prices until the time of the flight? LTV doesn't have a good answer for that. The effort put into making that seat available doesn't change, yet people are willing to pay more.
There's thousands of counter-examples to LTV, and more importantly companies make a lot money understanding how subjective value is within human behavior. LVT would say marketing and branding are almost useless, when of course they are anything but.
The point is it doesn't matter how subjective the final product of labor is, labor is still what creates it to be valued subjectively. The airline can rise and charge more because they have a labor force of pilots, flight attendants, etc.. on call to secure the product they are selling. What if the day of the flight all the labor walk off. Then what. It doesn't matter how subjectively valued the by-product of labor is, if labor the foundation is not valued correctly it all falls apart. For example, looking at the current debacle happening at airports and flights because there are not enough workers. Once you understand that labor is the foundation of capital you also understand why capitalism came directly after slavery.
@@TheYaadManShow I was going to ask you about 'dead labor'.
I was going to ask you about what we'll do when the system needs relatively few actual human beings to maintain itself, but I think at that point, the political map will be rewritten.
At that point, UBI will be considered the only conservative option.
@@FrancisGo. Yes UBI will most likely be the system at play then. This is why Marx makes the argument that the end of capitalism will most likely bring about Socialism/communism. The world is human-centric. The economy serves us, humans. Human labor is producing stuff for humans. So when we reach full automation, unless robots become sentient and become the most important consciousness on the planet reducing we humans to second-class citizens. I expect any automation will be to the benefit of humans. We could eliminate poverty, homelessness, etc..
@@FrancisGo. Nah, the process of replacing labor with machines has been going on for several centuries now, and yet the problem facing most of the developed world is a shortage of labor. Any theory has to square with that reality.
The better way to think is that automation increases productivity, and there is no finite limit to the number of jobs in an economy.
I think on the LTV this is just fraud. People are being tricked into thinking an object has higher value than it actually does.
I know people who have recently rented a hotel. They didn't even realize the rate went up the closer they got to the day of travel.
Not seen Steve since i gave up watching Max Bitcoin Keiser. At least he knows what he is talking about!
horse power
What did he get right?
How dare you! -Greta
@@trystdodge6177 😂😂
I know....:)
What is your solution?
@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 capitalism built the best, most fair, most free, most equitable, and most philanthropic country the world has ever seen. Every communist country that has ever been devised constantly has to keep citizens from fleeing (to capitalist countries) by threatening death or worse.
The easier question to answer would be, "did he get anything right?"
Alot of what marx said what logical, cogent and pragmatic. McCarthyism and red scare propagnda is so deeply engrained in western culture.
Extreme Capitalism, he got that right.
Tell me two things he got wrong.
Ferris, I read through the replies, no answer yet.
He assumes all workers are unhappy
Everything. There, I just saved you 17 minutes.
🤣🤣🤣
Yes.
Agreed!
Looks like someone didn’t watch the clip before this
Lazy
I’ll save you 17 minutes: Almost nothing
It’s doesn’t matter how Marx, this guy or anyone defines “value”. The market determines value quicker and more accurately than any economist or central planning committee ever could. The problem is the human need to control things they can’t possibly control.
Via the market definition of value there is neither such a thing as profit or fraud.
The writings of Karl Marx aren't an exposition on how to plan an economy.
Imagine if stoics founded economics…
The labor theory of value is evidently wrong or partial, yet it safeguards producers from being cut off from the profit. Which is what occurs in any pure market system, including a global economy making State-run economies operate as enterprises.
Keen here is wrong. Objective value theories are inferior, rooted as they are in a basic fallacy introduced 2,000 years ago by Aristotle. Plus, Keen is wrong when---in quasi-Marxist fashion---he attempts to ground value theory, in part, in the emotional experience of a worker (which is quite unsound as far as economic theory goes, but this is a different subject).
_A sound economic deliberation must never forget these two fundamental principles of the theory of value: First, valuing that results in action always means preferring and setting aside; it never means equivalence. Second, there is no means of comparing the valuations of different individuals or the valuations of the same individuals at different instants other than by estabiishing whether or not they arrange the alternatives in question in the same order of preference._
source: Mises, _Human Action,_ Scholar's Edition (1998), p. 351
In other words, to value something is to prefer A to B. For instance, Joe prefers the apple to the $1 it costs him to purchase it. Likewise, the apple vendor prefers the $1 to the apple. Exchange happens upon this fact of inverse valuations by the two actors. Notice, no cardinal numbers are mentally envisioned or assigned by either. Notice, too, that value originates in the mind of each individual, as he surveys and compares the goods at offer in a potential exchange. Valuation, in other words, is, literally and simply, preferring one good to another. (Note: in this example, a unit of money is an economic good.)
By contrast, objective value theories presume that exchange is based on cardinal value equivalents. The value of the apple is $1, therefore Joe and the apple vendor will trade. Or, similarly, Joe values the apple at $1 worth of satisfaction, and vice versa for the apple vendor. Notice here, however, that strictly speaking, each actor in this particular scenario is actually indifferent to trading, and thus won't bother to trouble.
This equivalence of exchange fallacy was introduced by (of all people) Aristotle. And as you can see, it still holds sway over the minds of many---even educated---economists who ought to know better.
Aside: Knowing someone's value theory commitments is an EXCELLENT litmus test to see how much he actually understands about economics, and thus whether his larger analysis is likely to be correct or no. Keen, in this regard, alas, fails to understand the inner workings of (what is demonstrably) correct economic theory. No wonder he is enamored of Marx, and no wonder he is enamored of MMT.
Yes. For example you can tell right away that someone doesn't think about issues for very long if he is a supporter of the self-dealing circular logic of von Mises, who creates an explanation of WHAT IS IT ABOUT TWO PRODUCTS THAT MAKES PEOPLE WANT THEM DIFFERENTLY with the superb non observation "The fact that people want the two objects differently is what makes people want them differently."
@@nicholascarter9158 (1) _self-dealing...Mises_
From Austria, Mises fled the Nazis, as a Jew, and made it to America where, despite his world-class intellect and pro-market economics, couldn't get an academic position anywhere. He was financially supported by various friends, until he found gainful employment. Being a free market economist isn't a very lucrative career move.
(2) _WHAT IS IT ABOUT TWO PRODUCTS THAT MAKES PEOPLE WANT THEM DIFFERENTLY_
Here, however, you misapprehend what economic theory properly investigates, and what it does not. To remain scientific, economics cannot pretend to understand the CONTENT of men's desires. Instead, it must be satisfied to analyze the consequences of the FACT of men's desires.
@@seankennedy4284 "Self dealing" is not here meant as a critique of his professional character but the intellectual incestuousness of his claims. Von Mises' contribution to the field of economics is not believing that economics should be studied, and packing that idea in a form so verbose that politicians sometimes fall for it. The dismality of the science is sourced in part in the loud contingent of middle brow educators who react to the mysteries of their field with malicious indifference.
We have built an economy that doesn't care why we want things, and the more it satisfies our desires the more unhappy it makes us.
@@nicholascarter9158 (1) _"Self dealing" is not here meant as a critique of his professional character but the intellectual incestuousness of his claims"_
As if his economics pays no heed whatever to a great range of thinkers? Yet, anyone familiar with Mises knows this isn't true---he was VERY steeped in the history of economic thought, and in contemporary thought.
Sounds to me like Mises rejects your favorite ideas/ thinker(s). But, instead of pointing out where you believe Mises is incorrect, you instead resort to what is, essentially, name-calling.
(2) _"Von Mises' contribution to the field of economics is not believing that economics should be studied."_
Mises rejects all manner of fallacious economics ideas. No crime in pointing out the errors of reasoning. Clearly, your favorite ideas/theorist(s) are among those Mises finds to be in error.
(3) _"The dismality of the science is sourced in part in the loud contingent of middle brow educators who react to the mysteries of their field with malicious indifference."_
Mises is among the most systematic of thinkers---in any field. Clearly you haven't read any of his theoretical writings.
"dismality" and "malicious indifference". Gotta give you a gold star for the $100 words.
(4) _"We have built an economy that doesn't care why we want things, and the more it satisfies our desires the more unhappy it makes us."_
Are your desires satisfied? Don't you, too, have a long list of things you want to have and do?
Is your list to take precedence over the list of someone else?
Free markets are the only mechanism that allows people the freedom---and wealth---to pursue their lists, in a world pervaded by resource scarcity.
Lolbertarian! The holder of the gold coin retreats and out waits the producer of perishable goods (the apple grower). The producer desperately lowers prices to acquire the coin, which doesn't rust or degrade. The Lolbertarian holder of the gold coin is effectively taking usury on the producer. Usury is a power relation and is normed out of LoL doctrine on purpose to confuse the sheeple with BS like human action.
last
Sleepy Steve
He missed the most basic of human instinct... Greed or just the simple desire for more than you have at any given moment. Add in that there will always be groups who are willing to do anything to take more than their fellows and the idea that everyone will be thrilled with some level playing field is not only absurd, but also juvenile and naive.
Tell everyone you didn’t listen to the video without telling anyone you didn’t listen to the video.
@@chriscurry2496 The title posed a question, I answered it. I don't need to listen to the video to have an opinion or give an answer. If Lex and his guest answered in kind, fine. If they had something different to say, that's fine too. Marx was a fool and completely missed the most basic elements of human nature, amongst many other things Another pinhead. His work should be banished from all educational resources. It serves no purpose. So there. it's the internet dude, nobody gives a f about anyone's opinion anyway. It's all just gibberish.
I think the LTV actually does address greed. But it does so in the lens that greed is a complex kind of laziness.
Why do you crave wealth? For comfort or for power.
Power is making other people do things.
Comfort is not having to endure things.
"I want other people to do things for me and to not have to endure things" is laziness.
@George K Is it? Is it really the most basic human instinct? Greed? How to account for everyone else that is not?
I watched the entire podcast, this guy got every definition he was asked wrong.
What was his most significant misdefining? Curious for a blatant example, if you will. I do not know enough to spot one myself.
@@BuddyLee23 His definition assets and liabilities, and money. You can listen to his answer, then look the definition up.
N8, he was eloquent and easy to listen to, however he seemed very circular in his reasoning. My basic takeaway was nothing works and everyone is wrong. My other takeaway was, don't listen to economist.
@@nomehdrider, how is someone that misdefines everything eloquent and easy to listen to? He’s either intentionally misleading people (a liar) or an idiot.
@@nomehdrider Why Steve Keen has got a voice is beyond me, the fact that he is so confident is hilariously dangerous. The guy couldn't think himself out of a t-shirt.
Marx was the original “um achkchyly..” blue haired college socialist
Yeah except he knew what he was talking about and spent 30 years writing a masterpiece describing market exchange.
This is so cringe and chronically online brained
I never read Marx. And after listening to the podcast, I’ll definitely wouldn't. If you need to read philosophy to explain your thoughts around money and the economy, there is something wrong.
Money and the economy are philosophy.
bad take
I’m not ascribing anything to you, but that’s a fundamentally anti-intellectual opinion.
You don’t need to read philosophy to explain your thoughts, but you should read philosophy to reinforce your thoughts.
Marx critics continue to not be able to comprehend him lol. I’ve never seen a single thinker who’s greatest enemies know literally nothing about what he believed or wrote
Marx had God wrong as well as foresight into the possibility of a tech revolution.
The random TH-cam comment telling everyone “Marx got God wrong.”
The random TH-cam comment telling everyone “Marx got God wrong.”
The random TH-cam comment telling everyone “Marx got God wrong.”
The random TH-cam comment telling everyone “Marx got God wrong.”
The random TH-cam comment telling everyone “Marx got God wrong.”
What Karl got wrong: all of economics for one. On the positive side, he did have cool hair!
Not sure about the hair, but I would like to know what the genius got right.
Everything about Marx's perspective on people and value just screams "Jewish" (which he was). It's insanely materialistic, devoid of any aspect of culture or spirit or emotion. He reduces human beings to soulless producers.
Actually, just the opposite. Not the Jewish part. Marx's most powerful idea was worker alienation. The cobbler who makes a pair of shoes each day in feudalism is in capitalism reduced to a machine operator who makes shoe lace tips by the thousand each hour. Capitalism alienates workers from their product, according to Marx. And anyone who hates their job thinks that Marx is a genius. Marx tapped into a big crowd of unhappy folks.
Lumpenprole moment
Sounds like a bunch of twaddle.
No wonder it never worked. Ever.
Max got everything wrong