8 comments on “Tuber unbound

  1. That’s a fairly well written, balanced piece, right up to the conclusion. That part is still coherent, but essentially says ‘something must be done; tax is something; do moar ‘.

    I disagreed with a number of points, and the conclusion, but was moderately surprised by the reasonableness of it all.

    There were a couple of sentences like this:

    “After that there’s monopoly power that goes unchallenged by the state even though it is an abuse.”

    Which seemed dissonant, per previous essays.

    But on the whole, it was well structured and well written.

  2. I am guessing someone proof read it but while not as bad as his standard entry, it’s still like a caveman confronted by an IPad. He simply does not understand basic economics so anything he does get right is like a blind squirrel stumbling across the odd acorn…

  3. ‘But it’s also literally wrong precisely because we are not literal beings. We are instead relative ones and we undertsand [sic] ourselves not just in isolation, as the literal approach implies, but in relation to others who we witness all around us, as the relative appraoch [sic] implies.’

    We are envious beings. Inequality is important because some have more than others, and some of those with less have no respect for the efforts or rights of others. The Murphy’s of the world proffer a CM view that at logical extension approves of killing people with more and taking their stuff. This will degrade to killing people and taking their stuff.

    It is animalistic.

    It is evil. Envy is a deadly sin.

  4. “and some of those with less have no respect for the efforts or rights of others”

    On the contrary, that’s part of the problem. That’s the labour theory of value – that the value of goods is founded on the effort needed to produce them, rather than their utility to the consumers (or more precisely, the balance between the two).

  5. Primacy of labor stuff?

    “You can’t make anything without labor!”

    “I can’t make it without electricity, either. But that doesn’t give the utility a say in my business.”

  6. Here, he’s straining to be in I’m capitalism’s best friend mode. It’s a pose. He’s an extreme socialist, possibly a Stalinist. I think he’d be happy with greater equality and greater poverty than things as they are.

  7. @NiV, December 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    That’s the labour theory of value – that the value of goods is founded on the effort needed to produce them, rather than their utility to the consumers

    +1 Example: BL Alegro, Marina… – lots of labour; little value/utility for consumer.

  8. @Theo “I think he’d be happy with greater equality and greater poverty than things as they are.” – as long as he’s making the decisions.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.