|
|
On October 23 2012 14:26 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 14:16 sunprince wrote:On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists. No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question. edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no. In either case... The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V) No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it. I don't believe that's what the quote was implying. The quote is saying that the true cost of something is what you must expend to aquire it, and that the true value of something you already own is the utility that it has to others. Ummm, that's exactly what I said. The value of something owned is the utility that it has to others. And therefore, a company or group of laborers who own a non-running vehicle have an item of little utility to others, and therefore of little value regardless of the labor expended to produce it.
I misinterpreted your response. Thanks for the clarification.
|
oh man I am gonna love learnin' y'all about the labor theory of value - JD you are talking about Adam Smith's labor theory :D Marx is a critique of that ridiculous position!
|
Romney said what he had to say. He agreed with Obama on most issues so that the Obama campaign has nothing to vilify him for in the press. I think he purposefully didn't grill the president on the Libya scandal to look presidential, rather than petty. Everyone knows the Obama administration has shuffled on the issue, so it was wiser for Romney to just let the chips continue to fall instead of getting into another small ball argument on the semantics of the Rose Garden speech.
But most importantly, he tied the FP issues back to the failings of the US economy, which is what matters most to voters and ultimately why Romney will win.
|
Labor is essentially irrelevant as a measure of value. People will buy Britney Spear's chewed gun or William Shatner's urine off eBay for ridiculous sums of money. The value of anything is determined by what people will pay for it, exchange value ftw.
|
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdf
No idea about the reliability of the source. It's one of the top posts on reddit though and if we take the results inside at face value which, considering the ease of doublechecking/verifying the results seems fair, it's rather alarming to me as a canadian that there's no secondary independent verification method of electronic voting machines.
Back in February 2012 during the South Carolina primaries, a keen observer noted that Republican
candidate Mitt Romney had an unusual gain of votes in larger precincts. Analysts noted this effect
violated expected statistics. Specifically, the percentage of votes in each precinct strangely increased as
a function of precinct size (vote tally). The vote gain is correlated to precinct size, not the precinct
location, be it in cities or rural areas. This anomaly is not apparent in other elections that don’t include
Republican candidates. In 2008, Mitt Romney had the benefit of this anomaly and then the gain
switched to John McCain once Romney exited the campaign. The Democrat Party elections we looked
at don’t show this problem.
The reproduction method near the bottom is pretty straightforward but it's pretty scary that it's even possible for something like this to occur. Before posting, I'd hope that you'd read through the first 17 pages of the pdf (~5-8 minutes of reading, max, you can skip the methodology if you'd like)
Edit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11wryn/the_greatest_case_of_election_fraud_ever_to_occur/
The reddit link. The second post as a poster that summarized it pretty well
+ Show Spoiler +They studied the precinct reports on vote distribution and discovered that the larger the precinct (block of voters) the larger the percentage Romney was receiving during the primaries in this election cycle and the last. They show very nicely that this is unusual, does not happen on it's own, and is very specific (in candidate) and very broad (in where it crops up)
Without getting in to the depth of why this is not explained by anything other than fraud (that's a lot of the paper) let me just simply say this:
This anomaly was only seen with one republican at a time.
It was only seen with Romney in 2008 until McCain got the Republican nomination, and then it switched to him.
It only shows up with precincts with electronic voting or centralized tabulating machines.
It appears extremely well behaved and predictable mathematically, ie a software program.
The evidence points towards some entity flipping a portion of the votes cast or tabulated electronically towards a chosen candidate.
My opinion is that the republicans have done enough this election cycle that's been in the legal grey area as far as election fraud is concerned. There's no telling how widespread it is on a larger scale though.
|
Well Obama "won" the last 2 debates I think but Willard won the debates overall. This election will be closer than i thought it would be.
|
On October 23 2012 15:55 Lmui wrote:http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.51.pdfNo idea about the reliability of the source. It's one of the top posts on reddit though and if we take the results inside at face value which, considering the ease of doublechecking/verifying the results seems fair, it's rather alarming to me as a canadian that there's no secondary independent verification method of electronic voting machines. Show nested quote +Back in February 2012 during the South Carolina primaries, a keen observer noted that Republican
candidate Mitt Romney had an unusual gain of votes in larger precincts. Analysts noted this effect
violated expected statistics. Specifically, the percentage of votes in each precinct strangely increased as
a function of precinct size (vote tally). The vote gain is correlated to precinct size, not the precinct
location, be it in cities or rural areas. This anomaly is not apparent in other elections that don’t include
Republican candidates. In 2008, Mitt Romney had the benefit of this anomaly and then the gain
switched to John McCain once Romney exited the campaign. The Democrat Party elections we looked
at don’t show this problem. The reproduction method near the bottom is pretty straightforward but it's pretty scary that it's even possible for something like this to occur. Before posting, I'd hope that you'd read through the first 17 pages of the pdf (~5-8 minutes of reading, max, you can skip the methodology if you'd like) Edit: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11wryn/the_greatest_case_of_election_fraud_ever_to_occur/The reddit link. The second post as a poster that summarized it pretty well + Show Spoiler +They studied the precinct reports on vote distribution and discovered that the larger the precinct (block of voters) the larger the percentage Romney was receiving during the primaries in this election cycle and the last. They show very nicely that this is unusual, does not happen on it's own, and is very specific (in candidate) and very broad (in where it crops up)
Without getting in to the depth of why this is not explained by anything other than fraud (that's a lot of the paper) let me just simply say this:
This anomaly was only seen with one republican at a time.
It was only seen with Romney in 2008 until McCain got the Republican nomination, and then it switched to him.
It only shows up with precincts with electronic voting or centralized tabulating machines.
It appears extremely well behaved and predictable mathematically, ie a software program.
The evidence points towards some entity flipping a portion of the votes cast or tabulated electronically towards a chosen candidate. My opinion is that the republicans have done enough this election cycle that's been in the legal grey area as far as election fraud is concerned. There's no telling how widespread it is on a larger scale though.
If I'm not mistaken, the way they graph out the data can actually greatly impact the way the chart looks in the first place by simply moving some data around on the chart.
|
Romney basically agreed with Obama on all the foreign policy issues. He wants to do what Obama is doing, just with more huffing and tough-guy talk.
He couldn't even really criticize Obama's foreign policy. It was a weaksauce performance. A half-arsed argument. Since he had to agree on everything, his only attack was a bunch of random statements about Iran being 4 years closer to a nuke (compared to what?), there are still extremists in the Middle East, al-Qaeda isn't dead yet, bad things still happen in the Middle East etc, essentially that Obama hasn't fixed the Middle East in his 4 years in office. Well, perhaps we should notice that no one has fixed the Middle East in the last 40 or 400 years.
He offered no alternative, because he agreed with mostly everything.
And then there's that comment about horses and bayonets from Obama. LOL.
|
On October 23 2012 12:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Orwell really was a prophet. It's amazing how people can accept previously abhorrent concepts if only you give them different names. Theft ceases to be theft if you merely call it taxation. You can hold a boot to someone's face and call it "social contract." "If you don't like it, move to Somalia!" Quite the compelling argument.
Just accept that it is theft, and then argue that in some cases theft can be justified. That's the sensible route. Telling people that the forcible taking of their property by other people is not theft is not sensible at all. And it's a little disturbing to me in that previously mentioned Orwellian fashion.
I'm sure you are aware Orwell was a harcore leftist? You would classify him as a anarcho-communist. I think he would have spit on your ridiculous rethoric comparing taxes and theft.
You know what means being a citizen? It's having right and duties. And among these duties, you pay a bit of what you earn to the community so that your country can function. If that's theft for you, i don't think there is anything to discuss anymore.
|
Doug Stanhope retweeted this and I thought it was funny
"It's like listening to two serial killers arguing about what kind of van to buy #debate"
|
On October 23 2012 13:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 13:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 23 2012 13:37 sam!zdat wrote:
Mental labor is unequivocally considered to be "labor" under Marx's theory.
edit: never run into anybody who would argue otherwise, though maybe somebody has And yet Marxists always assume that the managers, executives, and "speculators" could simply be done away with and the proletariat would be better off for it. I'm not saying this is what you are advocating, but you have to admit this is the popular contention among Marxists. No, managers and capitalists are different rôles, even if they are sometimes carried out by the same person. Some ignorant soi-disant Marxists don't understand this, I'm sure. Management is labor, without question. edit: no serious Marxist would contend that management was not labor. Children, maybe. Actual marxists, no. In either case... Show nested quote +The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V) No matter how much labor goes into manufacturing a vehicle, for example, if the vehicle is incapable of running, it is worthless. Therefore, the value of an item cannot be judged according to the labor which was required to produce it.
I dont know about this.
There are sort of 2 values an item has.(this can not be aplied to uniqe items like art)
1 is the value an item has in trade.
2 is the cost to reproduce the item,wich could be considered a value as well.
Thoose 2 values are not the same.
In the end and reality thoose 2 values will be near the same (with a small profit for the manufactorer) since people have a virtually unlimited demand for nearly everything
If the cost to produce would be much higher then the value in trade, the item will (and should) simply stop existing/beeing produced
It does make some sense to in the end take the production costs as the true value, as it is an objective value wich is not influenced by all the mechanics that destort the market price.
For example:temporarely shortage or over production, market manipulation,trendy items loosing popularity to make place for new trendy items.
|
|
|
romney:Our airforce is smaller and older then ever since 1917.
He cant be serious with this.
The airforce has all the high tech fancy stuff, how can he say its old?
Its definatly more new then the planes they used in 1917, its more advanced then anny other airforce atm.
Think i know what he means but he realy should have made his point in a different way.
He does not look great in this fragment unfortunatly.
|
On October 23 2012 18:50 Rassy wrote:
romney:Our airforce is smaller and older then ever since 1917.
He cant be serious with this.
The airforce has all the high tech fancy stuff, how can he say its old?
Its definatly more new then the planes they used in 1917, its more advanced then anny other airforce atm.
Think i know what he means but he realy should have made his point in a different way.
He does not look great in this fragment unfortunatly.
The US' military dominance is staggering. I'm pretty sure the amount of stealth bombers and drones outside of the US military can be counted on ... derp ... zero fingers.
|
That was pretty damn good. He almost goes too far but manages to deliver it without sounding too smug, and most importantly without smiling. He doesn't have this "now I'm winning the debate" look that many politicians fall for when they attempt something like that, he looks genuinely sad that someone can make such an idiotic point.
|
That's pretty crazy. I thought he won it, but just really similar to that he won 2nd debate(suppose since it's foreign policies I might not be close to USA person's POV). But that's still great, find it funny how many zingers Obama is throwing in, I thought Romney had been practicing them for a month before the debates! 
|
what I want are some numbers! just how many horses and bayonets do we have now and before
|
Obama stomped the debate and looked powerful and presidential. Though nobody cares about foreign policy.
I still have no idea how Romneys going to balance the budget without triggering a recession.
|
On October 23 2012 21:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama stomped the debate and looked powerful and presidential. Though nobody cares about foreign policy.
I still have no idea how Romneys going to balance the budget without triggering a recession.
Foreign policies of the 1980, social policies of the 1950, economic policies of the 1920...
That hurts.
|
On October 23 2012 21:40 DoubleReed wrote:
Obama stomped the debate and looked powerful and presidential. Though nobody cares about foreign policy.
I still have no idea how Romneys going to balance the budget without triggering a recession.
Not even hitting the fiscal cliff will balance the budget.
Conservatives need to realize, balancing the budget in the short term is a terrible, terrible idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
