>>2481961>i ignore keynes and other retardsyou've never read keynes, so be quiet. and in similar fashion, you'll resist austrian and neoclassical economics without even possessing the context for your disagreement. intellectual dishonesty.
>>2481326i wouldnt have so much input if i wasnt countered at every turn by illiterate cultists. my posting began in the das kapital thread, where i gave my disagreements of marx's commodity money theory, which after a thousand posts, was finally admitted to. so if people accepted the truth to begin with, there would be no need to endlessly insist upon factual matters. my further disputes of "value" as a metaphysical substance is correctly historicised by marx in one respect but not another - he accepts that "value" is largely a modern concept conditioned by wage labour, but also sees that value is an unconditional medium of commodity exchange by retroactivity - whilst also dismissing certain exchanges as possessing a relation of "imaginary" value, without elaboration. its this same metaphysic which also causes marx to dismiss fiat currency, which in light of contemporary theory and practice, is a false starter. marx's historical example of aristotle lacking a theory of value also fails, since aristotle has a theory of value as consumer demand, with a subsequent chartalist theory of money. so its not that marx is outdated, he's just wrong on this topic. he infects engels, who says ridiculous things like this:
>the law of value has prevailed during a period of from five to seven thousand yearshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htmof course, smith has no such conjectural jargon, since he separates value into two modes, utility and exchange, which has its general and particular forms. marx's bad grammar is also present here, where he speaks of "use-value" separate from "value" as such. "use-value" should refer to a "value in use", as smith puts it. anyway, i'll leave it there for now.