(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I had a great post about prisoners dilemma lost to the probe, I'll try and rework. working hard to learn how to make a coat that absolutely can never be used as a coat
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Ok, so it has no use value. The makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Utility is not use-value
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Game theory derail. Here are a couple quiz questions. The point is demonstrate most of you probably don't understand western economics as well as you claim. It doesn't mean Marx is wrong. These are roughly intermediate undergraduate level. There are 2 equal prisoners, A and B. They have the same strategies, Rat or Don't Rat. If they both rat, they both get 10 years in jail. If only A rats, B gets 15 years and A is free. If only B rats, A gets 15 years and B is free. If they both don't rat, they both are free. What's the Nash equilibrium? There is a cop and a robber and 2 jewelry stores. Store 1 has $100 in gems, store 2 has $1,000 in gems. What is the cops optimal strategy to guard the store(s)? What is the minimum number of players and strategies required to play a game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:again, how do you make a coat that has no function Halser posted:working hard to learn how to make a coat that absolutely can never be used as a coat dead gay comedy forums posted:Utility is not use-value
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
What if the coat was made by a chud, huh? What's Marx got to say to that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
i reread engels's Principles of Communism recently. he remains wrong about the roles of the first vs. third world in the inception and continuation of the global revolution, but there's a bunch of other interesting subtleties in there that didn't stick out to me on my first couple reads. i kind of want to draw a flowchart mapping all of the different working classes engels lists and how each one's "liberation" will naturally slide them into some other class position (and it's notable that engels draws an arrow from slave to prole and from prole to global communist citizen, while basically every exit from peasantry leaves you in some petit-bourgeois cul-de-sac)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
The solution to the prisoner's dilemma is socialism. I think you'd be surprised at just how deeply people here understand the various shades of suffocating liberalism, it's only confusing if you believe it's good and arcs toward freedom and justice and liberty or whatever. Tough to square outcomes with intentions if you believe the propaganda. If you see the beast for what it is it's a large print children's book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
i'm reminded of that prisoner's dilemma-esque twitter poll in which one option would save only you but be guaranteed to work, and the other option would save everybody but ONLY if 50%+1 people picked that option and otherwise kill everyone who picked it, and a bunch of libs just completely melted down that the "save everybody" option won with a decisive majority
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Game theory derail. Here are a couple quiz questions. The point is demonstrate most of you probably don't understand western economics as well as you claim. It doesn't mean Marx is wrong. both rat, the cop randomly chooses a store with a 1/11 probably of choosing store 1 and 11/12 of choosing store 2, and wait what are you trying to demonstrate here anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
Correct to the robber/cop question. No correct answer to the first question yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:48
|
|
|
Son of Sorrow posted:What if the coat was made by a chud, huh? What's Marx got to say to that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Son of Sorrow posted:What if the coat was made by a chud, huh? What's Marx got to say to that? I forgot who Mike Lindell was lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:The point is demonstrate most of you probably don't understand western economics as well as you claim. Get the gently caress outta here you condescending oval office. Oh yeah, none of us in here have ever experienced liberal economic theory in 2024, we were all born Marxists and haven't heard of your incredible tales like the Prisoners' Dilemma. Please gently caress off forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
For the benefit of our readership in this exciting intellectual exchange: In mainstream economics, which is especially the case if someone underwent econometrics under a student of prestigious John Nash, utility refers to the utility function, which refers to the satisfaction and/or benefit that someone has upon the consumption of a given good or a service - a commodity, in other words. For neoclassical thinking - which is the foundational basis of these ideas - value is best determined from this principle, from the degree of preference that an economic actor has for different commodities. Neoclassical thought assumes that is a given that all actors seek to maximize their utility per the rational choice predicate. This is crucial for dominant economic thought because it creates a supposedly "natural" way of individual frames of supply and demand - how much person A is willing to pay for something can be very different than what person B is, strictly based on their rational assessment and preference. The origins of this are in liberal philosophy, through utilitarianism (ta-dah). It is a quite renowned liberal thinker, called Adam Smith, that actually did the first famous blasts against the utility theory of value. Why water, being quintessential to life, is cheaper than diamonds? Two centuries later, this idea is thoroughly reworked by marginalism, incorporating this idea of utility into the subjective theory of value. Water, although critical to life, is justified to be worth less than diamonds because once a certain amount of water attends to full satisfaction, any further supply has no possible gain, so it's price should be closest to zero. Given the immense abundance of water relative to diamonds, it's much easier to attend the satisfaction for water to any given consumer. (sidenote: the fact that Carl Menger, Walras or Jevons or any other played this poo poo completely straight-faced really is amazing when you come to think of it. These guys should have been left a bit in a really bad flood and then another bit in full drought to maybe realize that material matters aren't a goddamned 24h supply/demand curve calculation) ---- Use-value comes in and says, you are full of complete poo poo. Use-value states clearly that the idea above of utility is full sophistry -- to begin with, things have value to us by their material properties alone. Labor, by the human transformation of natural resources, adds value in realizing a determined purpose, be it want or need. This is important. Without entering the merit of differences between "labor products" and commodities for the sake of expediency, when somebody builds a really cool sandcastle in the beach that is going to be taken away by the tide, does that sandcastle has an use-value? It has in the sense in the sense of being the vessel of leisure labor, its construction is an act of working play; the use-value of it lies in making the maker happy and the others around looking "alright that is a really loving cool sandcastle", kids going wooooow and who knows, a couple of them become unconsciously impressed that drives them to become engineers or architects in the future. Even when the tide takes it away, that act of labor accomplished a purpose and thus has a value of its own. An utility analysis of that sandcastle completely disregards the labor - as if it doesn't exist - and puts it squarely on the idea of "how much would you pay for that castle?", which is a question that completely misses the fundamental point, but neoclassical thinking pushes this poo poo so drat hard that leads into libertarian psychosis. The entire point of the sandcastle is use-value, which is given at least to its maker during the process and the great satisfaction and appreciation they receive after seeing it done
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Game theory derail. Here are a couple quiz questions. The point is demonstrate most of you probably don't understand western economics as well as you claim. It doesn't mean Marx is wrong. Billie, stop being a condescending rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
great writeup. when i first read capital i wasn't sure what the point of using the term "use value" instead of "utility" was but it's actually really important to metabolize the fact that one of liberal economics's load-bearing lies is that use values themselves are quantifiable and fungible Ferrinus has issued a correction as of 20:31 on Mar 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:Get the gently caress outta here you condescending oval office. Oh yeah, none of us in here have ever experienced liberal economic theory in 2024, we were all born Marxists and haven't heard of your incredible tales like the Prisoners' Dilemma. Show some respect! You're talking to the theorist behind the anti-coat and un-condensing gas!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:For the benefit of our readership in this exciting intellectual exchange: I, for one, hope that Bills continues to shitpost here so we can get more of this
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Correct to the robber/cop question. No correct answer to the first question yet. oh is a nash equilibrium the thing where you wouldn't change your answer even if you knew the other person's choice? i'm not googling it but if it's that then there isn't one but that's not what anyone is talking about anyway, you can sit and draw decision plots and determine probabilities all day but that's a parlor game not an insight into human behavior
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Halser posted:I, for one, hope that Bills continues to shitpost here so we can get more of this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:33
|
|
|
me at the grocery store: its time for some game theory
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
ty dgcfDJJIB-DJDCT posted:Show some respect! You're talking to the theorist behind the anti-coat and un-condensing gas! lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
I'll let the game theory be, it hasn't been answered. The hint would be that the second question isn't game theory, because game theory isn't applicable, it's deterministic probability. Incidentally, a number of western economists in practice (I haven't seen a theory or research paper) realized the water vs diamonds analysis was flawed, even by their own standards. Economists from Goldman Sachs (I don't know if they originated this idea) realized that just because water on earth is abundant, does not mean the supply curve must be so in all markets. They've made a huge amount of money exploiting this by promoting extreme commercialization if water in some markets. Its despicable and evil, but fully explainable by capitalism. That's an explicit example of why I'm interested in Marx. I am wanting exploitation like that to be fundamentally flawed, but I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
far out questions can be good, the problem is simply being doubling down into being obnoxious when having negative credit for any claim here, and especially with posters who are engaging purposefully to pull up the level, to which: you are awesome and may your posting bring many bountiful blessings. which is why I emphasize for others to ask things, you are not idiots. Bills isn’t getting poo poo for their questions, it is for the behavior
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:me at the grocery store: its time for some game theory
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
every discussion of game theory has to have an obligatory description of the prisoner's dilemma i think it points to what we might call a prisoner's dilemma dilemma 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
tristeham posted:free croup godammit
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:every discussion of game theory has to have an obligatory description of the prisoner's dilemma this is a legitimately funny joke in meme form which i had not seen before. congratulations
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
I clearly have a lack of understanding of Marxism and difficulty understanding. Your literally are formally trained in Marxism, and have a difficulty understanding modern western economics, despite your claims to the contrary. Reading neo classical economics is at best loosely related to modern western economics. Yes Adam Smith has been built up, but for example, it's not relevant what his personal intent with the invisible hand of the market was. Capitalist today is built off the invisible hand being greed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
billsphoenix you are going to have to do better than basic concepts if you're going to sell anyone on the idea that they don't Get modern academic economics at least break out some differential equations or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
time to raise the probe tax -karl marx
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I clearly have a lack of understanding of Marxism and difficulty understanding. Your literally are formally trained in Marxism, and have a difficulty understanding modern western economics, despite your claims to the contrary. neoclassical is “loosely related” to modern western economics? and you just waltzed in saying “I had econometrics”?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:Your literally are formally trained in Marxism, and have a difficulty understanding modern western economics, despite your claims to the contrary. citations needed
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I clearly have a lack of understanding of Marxism and difficulty understanding. Your literally are formally trained in Marxism, and have a difficulty understanding modern western economics, despite your claims to the contrary. not so! "greed" isn't really important to capitalism. capitalism develops according to very rational incentives, and in fact the most successful capitalists are the least greedy (because they don't hoard or consume their profits but instead practice personal abstinence and austerity for the sake of growing their business instead) goldman sachs's exploitation of the water market isn't "fundamentally flawed" or something. if it was, it wouldn't work. marx's first task is revealing how and why it works in ways that even the capitalists themselves don't fully grasp
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Buddy I'm dumb as gently caress and barely graduated high school. You just gotta let the nonsense that's making you insane go, stop trying to redeem it or keeping it as an analytical lens even as you are saying they arent suited for it and especially because nobody actually doing the grim work of using liberalism to create bloodshed and profits even cares about analysis or coherence. Or keep doing it, whatever, the highest average grade in a class will always be in the one where theres a student that asks 10,000 questions every day even if they personally never really get it
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
BillsPhoenix posted:I clearly have a lack of understanding of Marxism and difficulty understanding. Your literally are formally trained in Marxism, and have a difficulty understanding modern western economics, despite your claims to the contrary. that's where you're wrong buddy I have difficulty understanding everything, not just economics, and never made claims to the contrary
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
i'm about to do some political education with friends and i got the task of writing up and delivering a summary of Principles of Communism. if anyone's interested, here's what i got (i think it's clocked in at shorter than the original text, if not by as much as i'd like). in particular i like how engels defines competition Engels defines communism as “the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat” and then goes on to define a bunch of important, related terms. The Current Working Class First, he discussed a bunch of different kinds of worker, of which the proletariat is just the most recent kind, and also makes notes about what tends to happen to each kind of worker when they’re liberated or exiled from the kind of work they currently do. Proletarians own nothing but their own bodies and must sell their labor day after day to survive. Proletarians haven’t always existed, but were brought into being by the industrial revolution. Due to the conditions of industrial society, their average wages are the minimum required for them to stay alive to keep doing this, over and over. Proletarians are stuck competing with each other for work, and their liberation means the abolition of private property. Slaves also own nothing, but are sold only once, and just treated as things, not people. They’re outside of competition but also de facto outside of society. A slave is liberated by the abolition of slavery, and defaults to being a proletarian when this happens. Serfs actually have some means of production, namely their land, but each is bound to give away a fraction of their products to their lord. Serfs don’t have to compete with each other and in principle have something of their own to live off of whatever else happens. A serf might leave serfdom by going to the city and becoming a handicraftsman, or by paying their lord with money instead of crops and becoming a free tenant, or by overthrowing their lord to become a full landowner themselves. -A handicraftsman isn’t using factory-style methods but instead running a small enough operation that they might get to be a small business owner. They might also just fail and become a proletarian. -A manufacturing worker owns their own means of production, like a spinning wheel or an anvil, and probably lives in the countryside in a patriarchal relationship with some patron or landlord. They’ll become a proletarian sooner or later as big industry outcompetes out their outdated, personal-scale methods of production. In general, Engels puts a big emphasis on the way that new methods of production, themselves, are causing the social changes described above. Because automation and and massive factories can generally churn stuff out faster and cheaper than old-school individual crafting, all the old working and ruling classes get obsoleted until only the bourgeoisie (private property owners) and proletarians (property-less workers) remain. All the old social institutions like trade guilds get swept away until big industry and competition, which Engels says are the same thing, reign. Competition: A state of society in which everyone has the right to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital. Engels writes this effect is spreading rapidly across the world and connecting everything into a world market. In his words, India and China are “semi-barbarian” countries that have been forced out of isolation by capitalism, that their manufacturing workers are being immiserated by the cheap industrially-produced commodities of England. Abolishing Private Property Engels then discusses the immediate and long-term consequences of this social change. In the immediate term, there are cyclical crises of overproduction in which competing capitalists make too much stuff, can’t sell it, crash the market, finally manage to sell their stuff, make too much stuff again, etc. In the long term, Engels says that market competition actually becomes a fetter on production, making it less efficient than it would be if there was association rather than competition between producers. That is, big industry is good because it can make enough commodities to satisfy everybody (unlike previous forms of production), but it’s bad because it causes misery and crisis, and communism will allow us to actually enjoy that productivity without having to deal with all the associated disasters. Engels locates the ultimate resolution to this problem in the abolition of private property. He writes that private property hasn’t always existed, and essentially had to be invented as the steam engine and other forms of automation began to take us out of the middle ages, and that it couldn’t have been abolished at any time earlier than now because the forces of production had never before been developed enough to actually provide for everyone. But now that scarcity is (theoretically) solved, it’s possible to finally get rid of the private property that was previously necessary to solve scarcity. Can private property be abolished peacefully, Engels asks? Well, it’d be nice, but almost certainly not. Engels points out that proletarian organization has been violently suppressed at every stage and says that communists will defend proletarian revolution when it happens. Can private property be abolished at a stroke? Engels says no; he thinks that the proletarian revolution will only finish abolishing private property when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity. He then lists a number of measures he’d expect to taken in the course of a proletarian revolution. Many of these are not as exciting as you’d assume, and involve things like inheritance taxes, expropriating private property owners by outcompeting them with state industries or just plain buying their stuff off them, establishing universal education, etc. There’s also some more hardcore stuff about confiscating the wealth of all rebels and emigrants or establishing universal work obligations and industrial armies. Engels predicts a world in which the distinction between urban and rural is eventually dissolved, and in which people are educated in a variety of flexible skills such that there’s no more lifelong division of labor. Among other things, he predicts that this will obsolete traditional marriage (since there’ll be no individualized dependence of wives on husbands or children on parents) and that the end of private property will also end prostitution. Similarly, existing nationalities and religions are expected to dissolve into each other or fall completely by the wayside, since they’re artifacts of the old world and no longer needed in the new. Engels asks rhetorically if the revolution can take place in one country alone, and says no. He thinks that it’s specifically the quote-civilized-unquote countries, namely England, America, France, and Germany, in which the proletarian revolution can occur, because their capitalism is the most developed and so their bourgeoisie vs. proletariat contradiction is the most decisive (he guesses that England will have the easiest time with this and Germany the hardest). He predicts that the revolution will spread to the rest of the world from there. This is a pretty logical extension of how he talks about India, China, and other colonized countries earlier in the text. Communists vs. Socialists And Other Political Parties Engels goes on to discuss how communists differ from various other kinds of socialists currently on the scene. Reactionary Socialists: These guys hate the effects of capitalism, and so want to go back to the old days before capitalism. The problem here is threefold: first, it’s just impossible, second, the pre-capitalist period was awful in its own way, and third, the reactionary socialists will definitely side with the bourgeoisie if the communists start to win. Bourgeois Socialists: These guys think the problems are very bad, but their causes are very good. They want to preserve capitalism but make it a bit nicer through reforms, and so are the communists’ enemies. Democratic Socialists: These guys are actually willing to instate some or even many of the specific revolutionary steps Engels outlines earlier in the piece, but not as part of a transition to communism and just as permanent solutions in and of themselves. They might be proletarians who haven’t properly understood the problem yet, or members of the petit-bourgeoisie who just don’t want things to go too far. Communists will have to come to an understanding with them insofar as the democratic socialists don’t actually fall in with the bourgeoisie. Finally, Engels discusses which present-day political parties are more or less appropriate for alliance with the communists. He writes that communists have more of an interest in working with any democratic formation “the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for support.” So, he talks up certain working-class and agrarian groups while talking down others. In particular, he builds on his predictions about Germany here, saying that German communists will probably have to ally with the German bourgeoisie against the German monarchy, but be very careful about it because the fight against those same bourgeoisie will begin the same day that the monarchy is abolished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:billsphoenix you are going to have to do better than basic concepts if you're going to sell anyone on the idea that they don't Get modern academic economics No one can even answer the first game theory question, ain't no way we can do diffeq econometric models with incomplete information modeling. Anyhow, I buy the idea that Marx hosed up, one he hosed up, and he tried to force the mistake through, rather than admit fault. What happens if instead of coats, the product is a machine that makes coats. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
loving kill him
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 22:00
|
|