/edu/ - Education

Currently reading this book and I need some help understanding some of this since it’s not clicking. First of all I need help in layman’s terms what all this means specifically:

We need, to start with, a few terms which will be defined precisely later. In a given state of technique, resources and costs, the employment of a given volume of labour by an entrepreneur involves him in two kinds of expense: first of all, the amounts which he pays out to the factors of production (exclusive of other entrepreneurs) for their current services, which we shall call the factor cost of the employment in question; and secondly, the amounts which he pays out to other entrepreneurs for what he has to purchase from them together with the sacrifice which he incurs by employing the equipment instead of leaving it idle, which we shall call the user cost of the employment in question. The excess of the value of the resulting output over the sum of its factor cost and its user cost is the profit or, as we shall call it, the income of the entrepreneur. The factor cost is, of course, the same thing, looked at from the point of view of the entrepreneur, as what the factors of production regard as their income. Thus the factor cost and the entrepreneur's profit make up, between them, what we shall define as the total income resulting from the employment given by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur's profit thus defined is, as it should be, the quantity which he endeavours to maximise when he is deciding what amount of employment to offer. It is sometimes convenient, when we are looking at it from the entrepreneur's standpoint, to call the aggregate income (i.e. factor cost plus profit) resulting from a given amount of employment the proceeds of that employment. On the other hand, the aggregate supply price of the output of a given amount of employment is the expectation of proceeds which will just make it worth the while of the entrepreneurs to give that employment.
It follows that in a given situation of technique, resources and factor cost per unit of employment, the amount of employment, both in each individual firm and industry and in the aggregate, depends on the amount of the proceeds which the entrepreneurs expect to receive from the corresponding output. For entrepreneurs will endeavour to fix the amount of employment at the level which they expect to maximise the excess of the proceeds over the factor cost.

Was it proto-Christcom?

Someone quoted this book on the main board and I started reading it. Maybe others are interested to read it as well and discuss its content.
Has anyone read this already? In that case, what's your opinion on it?

Hey /siberia/

I always wondered why does Geography get looked down on by engineers and programmers

Like it's only let's say half a social science

But the other half concerning landscapes, resources, weather, etc. including maps (believe it or not measuring physical stuff is not the domain of social sciences) is 100% a natural science

To be honest even outside STEMbros I've noticed regular PMC and petty-bourgeoisie types being disdainful towards anyone with even a passing interest in Geography, god forbid studying it

Why is this the case?

What are the best books that provide an introduction to economics and economic theories/concepts?
These books don’t necessarily have to be socialist/communist.

I hate G.E. Moore so much. His entire career was built off of declaring unfounded assumptions as true because, just, like, come on man. Trust me.

Look at his argument against hedonism. Henry Sidgwick says that "good" only exists as an objective property in one context: within conscious experience. He argues that beautiful objects cannot have any value in the external world, and that only the images of beautiful things within a mind are beautiful. In other words, he argues that things are only beautiful when they are perceived. G.E. Moore says this isn't true, because he imagines a world that he thinks looks nice, and then another world that he thinks doesn't, and says it's just intuitively obvious that the first is objectively better than the second! But you're still just comparing things in your mind, not things in the real world! The only thing you've demonstrated is that it's better for you to think about the first world than the second, not that the first world contains any objective quality that makes it better than the second! Someone else with opposite aesthetic tastes to your own could think about both worlds, and come to the opposite "intuitive" conclusion! You haven't provided any evidence for your assertions at all! It's madness! And they let this guy into Cambridge?

G. E. Moore's dogmatic adherence to intuition will forever live in infamy in one of the worst arguments in philosophical history, dwarfing his already quite stupid argument in favor of objective beauty. He claims to prove that we can be certain about the existence of the external world and that all skeptical hypotheses are false, because… the external world exists and all skeptical hypotheses are false. He just declares it, and so therefore it must be true. No epistemology needed. Damn. Why didn't Descartes think of that? Just think really hard that something is true, and then it must be true.

Ray Monk called him "the most revered philosopher of his era." Kill yourself Ray Monk. Fuck G. E. Moore and fuck intuitionism.

I read this article and it claimed that leaders of the anti-gov protesters were acting entirely in self interest and that majority of casualties were soldiers of the PLA who were murdered by the protesters when they tried to solve things peacefully.

Is this true? I don't trust western propaganda one bit but this is the tiananmen square massacre!? I don't want to jump to conclusions right away. What are your thoughts on this?

I also tried to check the sources and I got a 403/404.

website:
https://www.liberationschool.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/

pdf:
http://76i2c3hn55fcj5nut3tqlboqqbbh23zvphv7lefk3vftpx6wketlanyd.onion/leftypol/src/1682222954384-0.pdf

What are the best historical examples of ousting concillatory/bourgeois leaders from the trade unions? A few specific events and detailed context would be incredibly helpful as compared to the profound but broad insight that Lenin's works have. I don't expect people to write essays here, just topic to look into since just searching up "change" or "resign" along with unions comes up dry on material to study.

It was a dress rehearsal, without which the final victory of the proletariat in October 1917 would have been impossible. (Lenin)

The revolution of 1905 came as a surprise to everyone, although Russia had been going to it for a long time. For example, the American historian Richard Pipes considers it a prologue to the student unrest of 1899. The Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Izvolsky believed that the tsarist regime began to collapse even under Alexander III, and the publicist Mark Vishnyak counted the end of the autocracy from the mid-1870s, when Alexander II stopped the Great Reforms and decided to" freeze " the country. Russia and the ruling dynasty could only be saved from revolution by the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. But the last Romanovs, in an effort to preserve the unshakable autocratic foundations of their power, eventually lost everything and led the country to the catastrophe of 1917.

Interactive map of the 1905 revolution
https://libcom.org/history/interactive-map-1905-revolution

So as it turns out, I actually know very little about imperial Japan, aside from very surface level things such as attempting to become a new colonial power. The only thing I know is that it didn't have a concrete racial science like Germany had developed under the nazis, although I could be completely wrong about that since I learned about that from a reddit post. I'm actually still unsure if it had a concrete ideology or rather a mishmash of idealogies but I have no idea if that's correct either.

If I got any of the above wrong feel free to correct me, and I'm also wondering if there are any good sources for learning something about this.