/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2753558
So, no.
Please remain relevant to the thread, thank you.

I have translated 3 Latin texts which concern the topic of money, namely "A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury", by Thomas Aquinas (1262), "De Usuris", by Giles of Lessinus (1278) and "The Method of Minting Coins", by Nicolaus Copernicus (1526). The first is very interesting in light of Aquinas' later writings on usury (t. "Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.77-78", 1274 CE), but also where it concerns contemporary theories of interest, which if we read Irving Fisher (1912-30), he attributes the rate of interest to "time-preference" or "impatience" (what he credits Bohm-Bawerk as seeing in the "undervaluation" of future goods). Aquinas similarly bases interest in the sale of "time" itself, but as an act which he considers as usurious, or incurring an unjust price to loans by creditors. In the Summa, he elaborates that what is sold by interest is a "double payment" for the use of something, and thus, what is sold above value is insubstantial (the letter helps us connect the insubstantial cause to temporality). De Usuris (1278) is said to be the earliest economic treatise on a particular topic (usury), spanning 21 chapters, and what of course, is deemed immoral. Giles similarly connects the surplus of usury to time in chapter 4, showing a continuous conception. In Copernicus' work, we see an early example of both Gresham's Law of monetary debasement, and a quantity theory of money also, which links monetary supply to rates of circulation and productivity. In the end, he sees that the state should fix the value of coin at 20:1 per pound of silver, inflating the contemporary rate of 12:1, but adding that custom will abide by this adjustment, which he also concludes, is an ancient practice. Another manuscript of this century, John Hales' "Discourse" (1551) discusses the value of money - we see later of course, the enthusiasm of commerce into the mid-17th century, following William Potter (1650), for credit money to rapidly circulate at the discount of "usurious" bankers. Aiding this plea comes the creation of central banks (initially theorised by Potter's "land bank" and Child in 1668, who wanted to pledge land as a security for public credit).

>>2753478
>The thread is about political economy
This thread is actually about pseuds jerking off to paragraphs on books and a nitpicking that rivals Jordan Peterson

>>2753596
criticizing someone for inane ramblings is very relevant to the thread, since it has been the main topic ever since he took over by force.

>>2753011
sustained willpower of ignorance is not winning. opponents giving up because you are incapable of learning or understanding is not winning.

>>2753599
Are you translating texts that were previously untranslatedi nto english, or are these just your own personal efforts at translating something for the sake of translating it? did you use AI or learn the language first?

>>2753549
>dont post about alchemy in the chemistry thread
the history of chemistry and the pseudoscience it emerged from from is part of understanding chemistry. also that today's scientific paradigms might be tomorrow's pseudoscience.

>>2753599
interest is just hedging against inflation. the natural rate of interest is the rate of inflation. if you give a guy 8 bucks at 0%, and he gives you 8 bucks back a week later, you lost money, that's cuck behavior. the money literally inflated a little bit in that 1 week. you gotta find out how many cents it inflated and charge him that interest

>>2753232
How does this explain oil getting expensive?

>>2753623
If you don't like citations from the work of political economy, don't enter the thread on political economy. 🤷‍♂️
>>2753749
You are the only person inanely rambling.
Please desist and be relevant. Thank you.

>>2754156
These texts were previously untranslated for public access.
I'm also currently transcribing and translating political texts, such as "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" (1707) and Quesnay's "Despotisme De La China" (1767), since Vincent de Gournay supposedly traces back his popularisation of the term "laissez-faire" from Quesnay's writings on China, with "laissez-faire" being a translation of "Wu-Wei" (the taoist principle of active passivity). I noticed in reading Rousseau's "Discourse on Political Economy" (1755) that he often praises China (particularly for their sales tax), so it must have been a contemporary fascination of the French Enlightenment to look eastwards. In Rousseau's "Social Contract" (1762) he also defines a Republic as being able to consist of a monarchy, so I wonder if Quesnay also justifies the "despotism" of China in a similar manner (which I suppose he will, given his first "maxim", concerning the "unity of authority"). Don't forget also that Lao Tzu promoted state dictatorship; but under the rule of a wise emporer, the people are imagined to rule themselves (this is the same idea which Plato has in his text "statesman", which introduces the "forms" of government we see in ancient political science, from Aristotle, to the "anacyclosis" of Polybius). I'm using google translate to convert them into english, and OCR to extract some texts from PDFs.

>>2754481
> "laissez-faire" being a translation of "Wu-Wei" (the taoist principle of active passivity)
wow, lol
> it must have been a contemporary fascination of the French Enlightenment to look eastwards.
the more things change the more they stay the same, eh?
>I'm using google translate to convert them into english, and OCR to extract some texts from PDFs.
are you worried about things being lost in translation? I have read many translators' prefaces in books, and they can get very touchy about this stuff.

>>2754508
I'm an autodidact, not a scholar, so i bear no ultimate responsibility, especially if I'm the one primarily affected by these readings. In any case, something is better than nothing.
>>2754354
Prices are determined by effective supply and demand (Adam Smith uses the term "effectual" to distinguish existing goods from goods which are on the market, so you can have an existing supply which is ineffective, the same way ineffective demand is desire without available money). So, oil prices are higher because there is less effective supply, or available oil on the market, as it was initially deduced. Supply and demand is a law; even Marx agrees, which is why its criticism is oblivious. But lets say that its all made-up; why cant I sell a chocolate bar for £1,000,000 and become rich? We see then, that in markets, competition decides.
>>2754159
Adam Smith writes that the natural rate of interest is related to market activity, where he sees that the rate of profit and wages is also concurrent with it:
<According, therefore, as the usual market rate of interest varies in any country, we may be assured that the ordinary profits of stock must vary with it, must sink as it sinks, and rise as it rises. The progress of interest, therefore, may lead us to form some notion of the progress of profit […] Since the time of Henry VIII the wealth and revenue of the country have been continually advancing, and, in the course of their progress, their pace seems rather to have been gradually accelerated than retarded. They seem not only to have been going on, but to have been going on faster and faster. The wages of labour have been continually increasing during the same period, and in the greater part of the different branches of trade and manufactures the profits of stock have been diminishing. […] the diminution of profit is the natural effect of [.] prosperity […] As riches, improvement, and population have increased, interest has declined
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm
He compares England against other nations, such as Holland, Scotland and France, seeing that the difference in the market rate tracks the prosperity of the country (the same as Josiah Child saw in Holland, that its rate of interest was lower, and therefore it had more money - but not so much that money was produced beyond its real product). So then, national rates of interest we can relate to economic activity in general. If we compare international rates of interest, we see this:
https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/Real-Interest-Rates-by-Country-in-2025-4920
Which generally tracks real interest rates from poorest to richest countries, but its not an exact science.

As a macroeconimic addendum, we can see Smith base the rate of interest and profit with rates of production, where he attributes lower rates of profit due to higher investment in capital (which theoretically raise the demand for labour). We can then formulate a sum between real capital raising real production, causing a decline in the rate of interest, expanding the money supply. He thus implies that this extra money which circulates enters into the new wages of labour (the cycle he portrays is the same as Marx's; that the demand for labour raises wages, the rise of wages produces more labour, and more labour reduces wages). He thus places the agency of interest (saving/spending) in capital investment (what Marx would characterise as a superior form of saving, where money multiplies itself in an active hoard; M-M'). So then, capital investment is a form of saving, which allows a greater threshold of borrowing, to circulate the real product. As capital intensifies, interest is lowered and money multiplies. We can then understand interest in these Smithian terms, between what is saved by capital and spent by labour.

This can be related to the later Austrian notion of temporal valuation in production from the time of Menger (1871), that capitalisation means investing money into the production of future goods (as opposed to immediate consumption). Thus, all capitalist production is a means of converting present value into future value, which has the same prospectivity as saving, while consumption is a means of spending. So then, in a commonsense manner, wherever money is spent, it cannot be saved so as to be productive. So then, capital investment is a form of saving, which allows for greater spending, as a corresponding effect. If interest balances spending and saving, then more saving requires equal spending, otherwise there will be recession, and this will cause a "paradox of thrift". If we take time-preference as a cause of interest rates, then we see that investment represents a valuation in future goods, while spending is the valuation of present goods, which are balanced, while if spending outpaces production, interest rates will rise due to "bad credit" in the population, as a means to manage money supply.

The Keynesian theory of liquidity-preference is an aspect of time-preference, which assesses the dynamics of saving and spending according to demand for cash at the intersection of the rate of interest. When the rate of interest is high, it gives incentive for saving, but when it is low, the demand for money increases, because it is cheaper. Your remark that "the natural rate of interest is the rate of inflation" is close to this, except that the causation is unstated. To Keynes, the rate of inflation is determined by the rate of interest, which can be controlled by the central bank from the supply of money. Keynes also relates investment to interest, seeing that the "marginal efficiency of capital" (MEC) can be pushed to the rate of interest, which if we follow "Keynes' Law" of the market, leads with demand, which causes an increase in supply. Overstepping this bound can then lead to oversupply, and so Keynes sees the rate of interest (which regulates money supply) as the limit of economic activity - the same as Smith and Child, but by alternative explanations. The rate of interest then, according to many, is a macroeconomic centrality.

>>2754481
>These texts were previously untranslated for public access.
i wonder why? thanks for being chatgpt no one else could have done it!

>>2754640
Many important texts are currently unavailable or untranslated, such as William Potter's "Key of Wealth" (1650), Von Thünen's "Isolated State" (1826) and Gossen's "Laws of Human Relations" (1854). Von Thünen elaborated a marginal theory of "natural wages" (continued into Clark, 1899 - who I have reviewed). Clark contends that "exploitation" exists in Von Thünen's theory, so I would have liked to read it directly, except that it is all in German. Gossen is also credited as the founder of marginal utility theory by Jevons, yet its hard enough to even find the German copy of his work. Free PDF websites are being completely scrubbed from the internet, forcing people to have to buy books rather than read them for free. We know that they're trying to end the internet archive, and even wikipedia is suffering. Copyright and monopoly is killing the net; even Marxists.org is losing pages due to claims from sources like MECW. I have been searching for a page on Marxists.org of Marx discussing Boisguilbert, but even this seems to be deleted, for whatever reason (and this is important, since Marx is the inventor of the neologism "classical political economy", as cited by Keynes, yet future archivists can only rely on secondary sources, the same way Montchretien's "Treatise" is the neologistic foundation of the entire school of thought, yet is relegated to obscurity - its totally inefficient and corrupt). The digital Library of Alexandria is being looted and set alight piece by piece as bandwidth is increasingly privatised. This is the true contradiction of the age, and one which strikes between quality and quantity. But maybe people just don't give a shit about these intellectual traditions; maybe I'm just an autist. Even so, this should make these fields unregulated, not crippled by restriction. The internet is getting worse; it is no longer an opem market.

>>2754692
>Many important texts are currently unavailable or untranslated
wow are you gonna do those too? how do you manage to have the time to post and also translate? your so cool smith-kun!

do you post these anywhere else or just on leftypol? you should share your hard work with all of humanity. in fact people should pay you for it

>>2754692
>Free PDF websites are being completely scrubbed from the internet, forcing people to have to buy books rather than read them for free
ironic since the capitalists already used those same PDFs to provide training data to their large language models. only they are allowed to use free knowledge, it seems. meanwhile most people neither know nor care. they hit you with the vid related reaction if you even bring it up.

>>2754707
In the last thread, I've shown how many pre-modern class societies have been understood as monopolising knowledge (which itself is in some way an esoteric structure of demand). Hindu brahmin for example, were instructed to torture any labourer to death who would happen to read the holy books (like how the Latin Vulgate monopolised Bible reading in the middle ages, and all translators were called heretics, like John Wycliffe - The Catholic Church of course, being The Beast). I relate this ultimately back to James Frazer's anthropology, where he writes that the original kings of men were also priests, with this division of labour beginning with the downfall of magical communities.
>>2754707
I just post here. It suffices.
In terms of archiving, I already perceive Ragnarok; I cannot revive the dead language of these hieroglyphs. I only strive for a selfish satisfaction, to comprehend a canon; to construct a history of thought which has limited utility. What does bother me however are the Marxist pharisees who believe but do not really know; like followers of LaFargue, to whom Marx replied "I am not a Marxist". What then is this Star of Remphan? If one seeks to know, then know - and know how to know. If Marx was so brilliant, and he read all these figures, then why not follow in the footsteps of the great man? So then, I only grow weary of hypocrisy, not ignorance as such.

Cont. from:
>>2754159
>>2754569

To speak further on the natural rate of interest, we may look at comments made in the 17th century. First is the writings of William Potter, who in his "Humble Proposals" (1651) suggests an increase in the circulation of trade by low-interest currency; presenting a demand-side economics by which he asks to "advance trade, employ the poor, diminish interest, improve public revenues; and prevent the cruelty of creditors, and the injustice of debtors." So then, a greater supply of money corresponds to a lesser rate of interest, but in this case, established by law, not by nature. Next is Josiah Child and his "Brief Observations…" (1668) in which he takes the same position, of seeking to set the rate of interest by law rather than by custom, as he writes directly:
<To illustrate this, let us impartially search our Books, and enquire what the State and condition of this Kingdom was, as to Trade and Riches, before any Law concerning Interest of Money was made. The first whereof that I can find, was Ann 1545, and we shall be Informed that the Trade of England then was Inconsiderable, and the Merchants very mean and few: And that afterwards, viz, Anno. 1635 with ten Years after Interest was brought down to eight per cent there was more Merchants to be found upon the Exchange worth each One thousand Pounds and upwards, then were in the former dayes, viz. before the year 1600 to be found worth One hundred Pounds each.
Thus, Child states very directly that under conditions of the free market, trade moves slower than when it is stimulated into action (since credit is more cautious and self-interested), which he gives by empirical example. For context, the rate of interest was legally adjusted from 10 percent to 8 percent in 1623, and from 8 percent to 6 percent in 1660. Child's desire is for the rate to be lowered to 3 percent, since he sees this as a cause of prosperity by an increase in money for trade. In his "Short Addition" (1670) to the work, he adds that Holland's rate of interest is given by laws, not markets, since they have followed England (this is later repeated by Locke in 1691, who still contends that a natural, or market rate of interest exists alongside its legal rate).

Following from this is the supply-side argument, which puts emphasis on a natual rate. First is William Petty (1690) in "Political Arithmetic", Chapter 6:
<But the natural fall of Interest, is the effect of the increase of Money […] Moreover if rented Lands, and Houses, have increased; and if Trade hath increased also, it is certain that money which payeth those Rents, and driveth on Trade, must have increased also.
To provide a basic theory of this is to say that where there is more money, there is more competition between borrowers, and so the rate of interest reaches its natural or competitive rate, at the rate of available spending, which as Petty adds, is determined by real productivity, measured by trade. We can see the same conclusions made by Locke, in his "Considerations…" (1691):
<Interest […] is low in Holland: but it is so, not as an effect of law, or the politic contrivance of the government, to promote trade: but as the consequence of great plenty of ready money, when their interest first fell.
So then, Locke equally sees the supply of money as the cause of the rate of interest, but with the supply of money being caused by real production, in trade, which is a contrary view to Child's demand-side economics.

Moving into the 18th century, we can read from George Berkley (1735) in the "Querist", Part II, Q.12:
<Whether a national bank would not at once secure our properties, put an end to usury, facilitate commerce, supply the want of coin, and produce ready payments in all parts of the kingdom?
This again links the rate of interest (e.g. usury) to the supply of money, where if there is a greater supply, the rate of interest will be lower. Continuing into Joseph Massie and his "Natural Rate of Interest" (1750), we see that he qualifies a "natural rate", not simply by supply, but by demand (pp. 20-21), seeing how an increase in the supply of money at one time by excessive demand can raise the rate of interest. He says therefore that fluctuations in the rate of interest are determined by rate of demand for money, but at a natural rate, supply meets demand. Thus, the natural rate the supply of money in equilibrium with demand. Following from Locke's argument as to interest being a measure of trade capacity, Massie disputes this (pp. 43-44) by comparing historical prices to a proportionate rate of interest, showing that if prices, money supply and rate of interest were all proportional, then the rate of interest ought to be regressively exponential, but this is not the case. Massie then makes his conclusion (pg. 48), that borrowing is for the ends of profit, and so interest must share in the profits of borrowing. Thus, it is the rate of profit which sets the natural rate of interest. This rate of profit he relates to competition amongst traders, of which Holland has most, then England, and so on. He also adds (pg. 54) that profit may be in line with industriousness, which he defines as a capacity to invest in the future (e.g. Menger, 1871). Capital investment then, he defines as prospectivity.

Repeating my earlier citations on interest, we may return to Smith in light of his predecessors, showing that the man did not fabulate theories out of thin air. To begin then, with The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 9:
<According, therefore, as the usual market rate of interest varies in any country, we may be assured that the ordinary profits of stock must vary with it, must sink as it sinks, and rise as it rises. The progress of interest, therefore, may lead us to form some notion of the progress of profit […] The wages of labour have been continually increasing during the same period, and in the greater part of the different branches of trade and manufactures the profits of stock have been diminishing
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch09.htm
Here, Smith relates to Massie's point, that interest and profits are interlinked phenomena, which as time goes on and productivity increases, each are lowered. Smith similarly attributes rates of profit and wages (as inverse proportions) to competition. My added perspective of capital counting as a form of saving should also be considered, since this balances the national account between assets and liabilities. Proof enough is in how spending must be regulated by real production.

So then, what are we to conclude? We must first see that there is a contradiction between natural and legal rates of interest. Child does not deny a natural rate, but only sees that it is ineffectual to the ends of trade. Equally, Potter assumes that an increase in currency will increase productivity. Petty and Locke give primacy to the natural rate, which they see deriving from an increase in productivity, and thus the legal rate simply follows the natural rate. Massie agrees, but qualifies this by the rate of profit and competition as the primary cause. In Smith, we see that the rate of interest is basically identical to the rate of profit, which is determined not simply by competition, but the rate of capital investment, with larger capital stocks lowering interest. Here, capital acts as a form of prospectivity, which links to time-preferential theories by a sense of delayed gratification that adds value by futurity. Here, productivity is basically understood as a capacity to invest in capital, with spending being its counteractivity, through a national accounting of assets and liabilities. Keynes adapts this by identifying the threshold of capital investment (MEC) at the rate of interest, limited to liquidity-preference, or the demand for money. Thus, money (circulating capital) is balanced by fixed capital. This then completes the macroeconomic imago mundi.

For a Marxian addition, we can read from Capital Vol. 3:
<Since we have seen that the rate of profit is inversely proportional to the development of capitalist production, it follows that the higher or lower rate of interest in a country is in the same inverse proportion to the degree of industrial development, at least in so far as the difference in the rate of interest actually expresses the difference in the rates of profit […] In any event the average rate of profit is to be regarded as the ultimate determinant of the maximum limit of interest […] the general rate of profit appears as an empirical, given reality in the average rate of interest
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch22.htm
So then, Marx is in agreement; that the rate of interest is regulated by the rate of profit, which is proportional to the investment of fixed capital (i.e. productivity). He does show concern however, that the rate of interest on credit has a pre-capitalist existence, and so cannot be explained merely on the basis of capitalist relations, even if it inhabits a capitalist character. Marx distinguishes between profit and usury more clearly in Chapter 36, where as a precapitalist form of surplus, it is a drain on production by promoting consumption:
<Usurer's capital employs the method of exploitation characteristic of capital yet without the latter's mode of production.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm
In the same chapter, Marx references Josiah Child, seeing the mid-17th century as pivotal in advancing from usurer's capital to industrial capital. Of course, this is initially performed by legal controls over interest, but later, the market is seen to decide its rate. Marx quotes Gilbart and his History of Banking in this regard:
<In our times, it is the rate of profit which regulates the rate of interest. In those times, it was the rate of interest which regulated the rate of profit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch36.htm
So then, interest is relative to perspective, but in any case, it is symptomatic of exploitative relationships - the lender and the borrower; the creditor and debtor.

>>2754774
everyone on this board except you is more interested in geopolitics or national politics it seems. I come to this thread for the political economy stuff even though it's mostly you blogging. I like it. I don't have time to do the stuff you do. I have a kid.

>>2755315
I have no complaints against disinterest; its only unfounded prejuduce which is irksome. I exist to bore by scholastic erudition upon this dead science - but as I say, do not dress up Marx as a demystifier, as though the work of political economy is best undone. I only seek to know so that I may escape from my duty to know, and move on to better things. Political Economy is a closed concept; its just about formalising it into shapes and numbers, so that it may be left aside. Politics is the same, of course. All ideas are settled.
>The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
<Ecclesiastes 1:9

Materialist explanation for oil getting expensive?

>>2755328
>unfounded prejuduce
if only that were the case
>All ideas are settled.
in your dreams

>>2755338
High demand, Low supply.
>>2755412
>if only that were the case
A prejudgement is a case where a judgement is made of something before the person who judges it is adequately acquainted with its contents, thus creating an error, either by (i) false presumption, or (ii) false conduct. Thus, in the second case, one can be correct in their judgement, but not by knowledge, and so this correctness is accidental - thus, one can be right, but for the wrong reasons, nullifying this achievement. So then, prejudice is always illegitimate, since it always begins in ignorance, even if it ends in accidental truth. In the case of prejudice around political economy in this thread, it is mostly (i) an errroneous presumption or opinion.
>in your dreams
I fail to quite grasp the meaning of this. By identifying ideas, we already enclose them by identification; so ideas are self-evidently settled; its just that the thinker may falsely grasp it. Thus, progress in conception is not a movement of ideas in themselves, it is a movement from ignorance to knowledge. Thus, when we seek to know, we seek to stop thinking, for it is already complete. Marx himself gives this dissertation in the Communist Manifesto, that politics is the dialectic of class struggle, and the end of class struggle is therefore the end of politics. Thus, once a thing is grasped in its completeness, it may be sufficiently objectified as alienated knowledge (i.e. in the form of a book, which as Ibn Khaldun writes, is the appearance of mind).

>>2755909
yes i think a year of your posts qualifies as adequately acquainted. your claims that political economy is a closed concept and ideas being settled is obviously an ideological projection, a wish, an assertion of unfounded dominance where your arrogance matches your ignorance.

>>2755925
>yes i think a year of your posts qualifies as adequately acquainted.
There is a difference between experience and learning.
>your claims that political economy is a closed concept and ideas being settled is obviously an ideological projection
No, its a description of what ideas are. We learn a topic so that we no longer have to learn it. This is the difference between the attributes of Noesis (understanding) and Eikasia (imagination) in practical terms. We can consume fiction or entertainment endlessly, repeating the same songs on loop, but can we read the same book of non-fiction over and over? Can we tolerate the same lectures? No. So then, we learn so that we may know, and in knowing, we cease learning; ideas are complete, while what is incomplete belongs to sensation, and thus it may be indulged (the imagination being a part of sensation). This is also important in considering government; what belongs to necessity must be understood, while what is frivolous is inconsequential - this is true the constitutional basis of markets, for exampe, which begin by the faculties of the mind. If this cannot be accepted, then there can be no division between fact and fiction, since there is no division between imagining and knowing.
>an assertion of unfounded dominance where your arrogance matches your ignorance.
What am I ignorant of? Please educate me so that I may become a better person.

>>2756087
>There is a difference between experience and learning.
if only you could take your own advice

>>2756460
It's not advice, its a fact.
If people who read my content learned from it, they could not be critical of it, since it is true. Proof of this is in the fact that you cannot identify anything I've written as false, and so it is evidently true. But again, if I am ignorant, please educate me as to where I misunderstand.

Gossen's arithmetic in Chapter 1 of his "Laws of Human Relations" (1854) is plainly unintelligible, since variables are (i) inadequately defined and, (ii) equations are internally contradicted. He communicates well with shapes and words, but not numbers.

We may first analyse his pure algebra, as follows:
P = (p¹ + p² + p³ …)
E = (e¹ + e² + p³ …)
a = (p¹/n¹ + p²/n² + p³/n³ …)
w¹ = (P - E)/a
The issue in this formulation is that in the variable (a) is P, already included, which then subtracts from each, leaving w¹ = (E/n). Does this then suffice? No, since E and n are incommensurate; E is exponential and n is a relative magnitude. So, the equation is unintelligible. This is barring any elaboration as to the description of the variables, which only leads into further confusion:
P = relative duration of pleasure
E = absolute duration of pleasure
n = relative intensity of pleasure
a = duration/intensity
(from this, he also defines two contrary values; W¹ and w¹, which are inversely proportional, while E is proportionate with W¹; W¹ being defined as total pleasure. He also defines w¹ as inversely proportional to a, making n the determinate factor of w¹, as intensity)…
W¹ = Total Pleasure
w¹ = Marginal Pleasure (this assignment is conjectural, since Gossen never actually defines what w¹ is).
Gossen further establishes two opposed equations:
(i) W¹ = (P-E)²/a
(ii) w¹ = (P-E)/a
If we proceed from this we are immediately confused, since if E as total duration is the sum of all intervals, then E = P, since P is exponential of (p). Distinguishing between (e) and (p) is fruitless, since Gossen declines to properly clarify. If both are then identical, then one cannot be subtracted from another, without providing zero. Further, if we relativise (p) to marginal duration, it still makes no sense that it could subtract the total. The reverse could work, however: (E-p), but in this case, its further division by (a) is problematic, since (a) = (P/n), cancelling out the remainder, and so again we return to:
(i) W¹ = (E-n)²
(ii) w¹ = (E-n)
If we define the variables, we come to this:
(i) Total Pleasure = (Total Duration/Relative Intensity)²
(ii) Marginal Pleasure = (Total Duration/Relative Intensity)
This is unintelligible, since intensity is relative to relative duration (p), so if we return to (a) = (P/n), and (n) is inversely proportional to (a) by the value of (n), then isnt (w¹) just (n)? To make this clearer, it is written directly by Gossen that the larger that (n) is, the smaller that (a) is, which in turn makes (w¹) larger. So then, (n) and and (w¹) are directly proportional, but are they identical? If we continue with the conjecture that w¹ measures the margin of pleasure and marginality is defined by intensity (relative to duration), then they appear identical (since if n is relative to p, it must diminish at the rate of P, which is equivalent to E). We see this displayed in Table 1.2, where w¹ declines as E and W¹ increase. The only great confusion in the table is where the value of w¹ is given as 10 where E and W¹ = 0. This is pure nonsense and essentially dispells w¹ as marginal utility, so we must remove the variable of w¹ entirely.

If we then return to (a) = (pª/nª…), we have a sequence of values, between duration and intensity (the same measurements which Marx and Jevons attribute to labour). (a) then represents the series itself, which can be measured by the intervals (p) and intensity (n). This then displays a diminishing value of (n) with any increase of (p), e.g. (a) = (p⁶⁰/n³⁰). If we view (p) as additional of a sequence, then (a) must have its limit at one or below; e.g. (p³⁰/n³⁰). The value of (a) can never reach zero, so this cannot be the proper equation to encapsulate the investigation, since by addition of (p) we have increasing value, not a diminishing value, unless we reverse the variables: (a) = (n/p), which then seems to solve the problem, since if (p) increases, (n) must diminish in value if its magnitude is constant.

Thankfully, Gossen provides (E), which is the total duration of a sequence, and of any activity, it must have its temporal limits. In Table 1.2 we again see that where E is at its maximum value, W¹ is at its maximum value, while w¹ is at 0. Since we have lost w¹, we may continue with (a); where if (a) = 1>, E terminates (despite its fractional values still being positive integers). Some part of Gossen's earlier writing attests to this, where he writes that in a state of equilibrium, there is no pleasure received, and if we define equilibrium as self-identity, then the value of 1 may persist, if pleasure is added by multiplication rather than addition. So then, we have resolved some portion of Gossen's writing, that (a) is the sum of marginal utility (see: Marx and Jevons), which as a relative magnitude, regulates absolute values, such as total duration (E) and total pleasure (W¹).

Looking further, Gossen sees that intensity (n) may be augmented by the variable utility of another object (thus, he resolves pleasure, simply as a factor of differentiation, which is a notable concept). Here, he adds that variable consumption raises the value of (n) by an addition of (p). Thus, pleasure is augmented by modal consumption, which extends (E) by an addition of (p) relative to (n). An issue in this assessment is that Gossen is too abstract, by not giving context to the mode of consumption (and its internal limitations), thus theoretically extending (E) ad infinitum. He does address this in later chapters, but his scattered style does not lend itself well to comprehension.

So then, to sum up:
(p) must be relativised to (n), which is sequenced by (a). This allows (E) to express absolute magnitude without inference, and (W¹) can also be proportioned to (E). (a) must be multiplied to (E), not divided from it, so as to achieve termination by a value of 1 or below. If we were to write up a new sum then, it would be:

[W¹ = E*a]

Reading a commentary on Von Thünen's "Isolated State", Part II (1826), Von Thünen articulates "natural wages" as:
<w = √(ap)
Which is a balance between labour and capital (which Von Thünen describes as accumulated labour), conditioned upon the freedom of land in enterprise, and which demonstrates the socialist principle that where revenues are shared, an optimal portion of subsistence and surplus is arrived at. These "natural wages" are the wages of the hypothetical "frontier" or "isolated state". This differs entirely from the capitalist wage, as defined by Clark, in his "Distribution of Wealth" (1899):
<(C+ªL)/ª
Note that this is only possible where land as a resource is no longer subject to free enterprise, and so labour is centrally commanded rather than cooperated with. The insidiousness of Clark is not in his description of labour receiving less per marginal unit of capital, but that in his work, he calls the capitalist wage a "natural wage", which is contrary to Von Thünen's conception. What we can learn from Von Thünen then, is that land is naturally scarce, which competes its land rents against labour.

Gossen in his "Laws of Human Relations", Chapter 23 also sees land as a primary obstacle to freedom, otherwise suggesting the nationalisation of land:
<The abuse could be corrected in the most desirable way if the property rights to all lands were reserved to the community as a whole, which would then lease any parcel of land for productive purposes to the individual who would pay the highest rent.
He further sees that this private rent ought to have public redistribution. So then, the scarcity of land drives ground rent, paired with competition and capital, which diminishes the net value of labour. Rent then, is an impediment to "natural wages" and social progress, without the justice of making rent equitable to all.

>>2756935
>Proof of this is in the fact that you cannot identify anything I've written as false, and so it is evidently true.
well first, its not that i cannot, its that i wont, because i have before hundreds of times, and you know that. and second absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and you cant prove a negative. nice try tho

>>2757297
>well first, its not that i cannot, its that i wont
🤣 You are pathetic.
Please contribute to the thread, be relevant, or leave.

>>2757309
i dont see how your off topic personal questions relate to the thread

>>2757330
Here's the situation:
I am asking you to cite a source of disagreement you have with me on the subject of political economy, the topic of the thread, the only reason anyone should be here; you refuse, thereby clogging up the thread with irrelevant noise and a parasocial gaze, of you supposedly providing prior criticism… literally, whom'st are you, again? You are an anonymous pest, incapable of contribution, filling up digital space with clutter. Why are you here, exactly? You claim to have criticism of my writing, so what is it? Please provide something, - anything.

>>2757341
Here's the situation:
I have repeatedly cited the source of disagreement ywith me on the subject of political economy, and you brush such criticism off and repeat your incorrect points for over a year. You insist on posting false debunked anti-communist propaganda on a communist website and then feign confusion about opposition to your inane rambling, then claim victory when the stamina of your bullshit outpaces people who get tired of engaging with your stupididity… literally, whom'st are you, again? You are an anonymous pest, incapable of contribution, filling up digital space with clutter.

you know only 1-2 people at most read your posts. you would get more engagement with a no-follower twitter. im certainly not one of them, see greek statue and rambling and i just scroll past and insult you because i dont entertain crypto fascist propaganda.

>>2757350
>you brush such criticism off and repeat your incorrect points for over a year.
Give me a single incorrect point I have made.
Please - actually be relevant to discussion.
>debunked anti-communist propaganda
such as?
>literally, whom'st are you, again?
I'm someone you're obsessed with apparently, even referring to me by a pseudonym. Its creepy and reeks of mental illness.
>>2757357
>you know only 1-2 people at most read your posts.
anyone interested in political economy will find my posts valuable, since that is the topic of the thread; therefore, any person who engages in this thread finds my posts valuable, which must include yourself - unless you were in a thread for irrelevant purposes, which causes me to ask; why are you here, exactly?
>im certainly not one of them
You are replying to me right now; youre hopelessly invested in my effort if you have been wasting your life responding for over a year. Do you have any hobbies?
>i dont entertain crypto fascist propaganda.
Neither do I, which is why I can hardly tolerate communists.

smithanon is epstein

>>2757374
idk man maybe you should stop advocating murdering leftists because they vote in ways you dont like

>>2757377
What…? 🥱

>>2757384
oh right its not murder if you dont consider them people. my bad

having trouble with volume 2 of capital. it's much more of a slog than volume 1.

is supply/demand simply a free-market-ideology reframing of production/consumption?

>>2758006
?
>>2758130
If someone produces 100 of commodity (x) yet can only sell 50 of (x), is the value of the commodities determined in what is produced or in what is sold? As Marx writes in the introduction to the Grundrisse and at the conclusion of Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 1, Section 1; production is determined by consumption, which is to say, supply is a property of demand, yet demand also depends on what is supplied. We may read thusly:
<Not only is production immediately consumption and consumption immediately production, not only is production a means for consumption and consumption the aim of production, i.e. each supplies the other with its object (production supplying the external object of consumption, consumption the conceived object of production); but also, each of them, apart from being immediately the other, and apart from mediating the other, in addition to this creates the other in completing itself, and creates itself as the other. […] This last identity […] [is] frequently cited in economics in the relation of demand and supply
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
So then, production has no "real" existence to Marx outside of what is constituted by consumption:
<Consumption produces production in a double way, because a product becomes a real product only by being consumed. For example, a garment becomes a real garment only in the act of being worn; a house where no one lives is in fact not a real house; thus the product, unlike a mere natural object, proves itself to be, becomes, a product only through consumption.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm
So then, as we see, production cannot even count as production where it is not consumed; can the same be said of supply? To those with common sense, a house is a "real" house even if it is abandoned, it just remains ineffectual of demand - so now we enroach upon the Smithian concept of effectual supply and demand:
<Such people may be called the effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand; since it maybe sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the commodity to market. It is different from the absolute demand. A very poor man may be said, in some sense, to have a demand for a coach and six; he might like to have it; but his demand is not an effectual demand, as the commodity can never be brought to market in order to satisfy it. […] When the quantity brought to market is just sufficient to supply the effectual demand, and no more, the market price naturally comes to be either exactly, or as nearly as can be judged of, the same with the natural price. […] The quantity of every commodity brought to market naturally suits itself to the effectual demand.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch07.htm
Thus, we distinguish between (i) effective supply and demand, and (ii) absolute supply and demand. If I desire a diamond yet do not have the means to purchase it, my demand is absolute, but ineffective. The same can be said about the example of producing 100 of commodity (x) yet effective demand being at 50 (x). Thus, "demand" measures the rate of exchange, which in the market, has its capacity by the rate of income (e.g. wages). If people were paid more thus, more could be sold in production (this is called "Keynes' Law" in popular terminology, but which is present as early as William Potter, in 1650).

So then, we see Marx sophistically equate production with supply (in the typical Hegelian agony), while Smith confers that supplied produce may not reach the market, due to ineffective demand, thus constituting the degree of waste in an economy as the difference between absolute production and effective demand. Its perhaps for this reason that Marx only conducts his analysis at equilibrium so as to satisfy a mysterious "law of exchange". So, who is the "ideologist" here, exactly? The Liberal Smith or Communist Marx?

First we may read from Marx (1867):
<In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
This comports to his earlier statements, that the labour-power of the worker is a rented asset, not a sold asset. So then, we can understand Marx's theory of surplus value by this entire relation; the disparity between the period of crediting labour and its compensation.

This consideration is repeated by Hoppe, but reversed into an uncritical capitalist apologia (1993):
<What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. […] The laborer enters the agreement because, given his time preference, he prefers a smaller amount of present goods over a larger future one; and the capitalist enters it because, given his time preference, he has a reverse preference order and ranks a larger future amount of goods more highly than a smaller present one. Their interests are not antagonistic but harmonious.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis
Here we immediately encounter contradiction, since the usufruct of labour by the capitalist is immediate, yet the period of payment is prolonged by a fixed term of salary, stretching from a day, to a week to a month. If the worker was paid daily, we could justify the notion that the worker has a greater time-preference, but if a worker waits a month to be paid, at the same rate as someone who is paid weekly, does this not prove exploitation? An alternative can be easily fashioned, however. Short-term loans apply a greater rate of interest than long-term loans (e.g. mortgages) based on credit, which are also under the influence of time-preference for debtors. If rates of wages are dispensed at the same value but at different intervals, then the temporal difference can be scaled by rates of interest. The monthly wage worker thus contracts a lower rate of interest than the weekly worker. Thus, it is in the direct benefit of the worker to be paid as soon as possible and in the interest of the capitalist to delay payment; but this then makes the worker the creditor and the capitalist the debtor, reversing Hoppe's argument around time-preference.

Further, if we compare earlier arguments on interest to the condition of labour, we see then that as more workers compete for borrowers, the rate of interest on labour declines, lowering the wage and extending the period of payment. Thus we can conclude that labour as a rented asset appears to operate by the rate of interest. Time-preference proves the prospectivity of labour as a factor of production, which converts present value into future value by the delayed gratification of labourers, and if justice in government and revenue is in assigning value to those of lowest time-preference, then Hoppe is crafting the theoretical groundwork for socialism, especially in his arguments around Monarchy, since if responsibility is based on ownership rather than lending, and workers own their productive asset, as opposed to capitalists merely borrowing them, then workers have the greatest imperative to government and property. Hoppe also confers correctness to Marx on class:
https://mises.org/podcasts/human-action-podcast/hans-hermann-hoppe-what-marx-gets-right

>>2758401
>https://mises.org/
lol

>>2758587
Yes, that's where you find the writings of Austrian Economists. Thankfully, the site retains some liberal values by issuing free texts rather than imposing copyright. 👍

EKKKonomiKKKs is fascist.

>>2758397
>If someone produces 100 of commodity (x) yet can only sell 50 of (x), is the value of the commodities determined in what is produced or in what is sold?
Maybe my question was poorly worded. I was analogizing supply to production and consumption to demand. I said it because the guy in that video said "when you hear supply and demand, immediately think production and consumption."

>>2758669
>I was analogizing supply to production and consumption to demand
They are the same thing, just in different modes.
The cause of waste is a disparity between effective demand and absolute supply. If everything which was produced was brought to market, prices would be so low as to destroy profits. Marx makes the same point in the Manifesto:
<In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
It is the same absurdity that there should be more poverty today than in the past, despite more being created. Boisguilbert (1695) writes that cheap food is disastrous to the poor, since the cost of their labour cheapens with it. Thus, more food leads to more starvation, which is an absurdity of the capitalist age.

>>2758669
not a good place to ask your just gonna get shitlib propaganda