Chilean activist destroys student debt papers worth $500m

[Fake Boris]

The weird thing is Oncle started another thread about how the scarcity of resources is going to cause a collapse or something.

Overexploitation and inequality you mean. There's stuff for everyone, just not the way it's being distributed.

[Fake Boris]

What does that graph have to do with anything? Are you trying to suggest that scarcity is not a real thing?

Yes

[Kidlicious]

The weird thing is Oncle started another thread about how the scarcity of resources is going to cause a collapse or something.

That causes decentralization, which in turn causes depopulation. Bingo. No scarcity. Except for scarcity in human beings.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes

Do you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

[Fake Boris]

LOL I've read the first chapter of an econ manual that takes scarcity for granted I must be smarter than you

[AAAAAAAAH!]

That causes decentralization, which in turn causes depopulation. Bingo. No scarcity. Except for scarcity in human beings.

I'm not following. Decentralization of what?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Overexploitation and inequality you mean. There's stuff for everyone, just not the way it's being distributed.

If distribution matters how is it not scarce? Air for breathing isn't scarce... because everyone can breathe as much as they like and no one is going to suffocate. But if the rich consume as much as they like other people won't have enough to survive.

[Sava]

how does destroying debt papers make one be an activist for chile?

[Kidlicious]

I'm not following. Decentralization of what?

I wasn't serious, but dentralization means organizing in small groups.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

I wasn't serious,

Let's just leave it at that.

[molly bloom]

the labor theory of value predates Marx. It was Adam Smith who first articulated it. Maybe if you'd googled a little harder you would have discovered that.

Yes, I'm so sure you were referring to Adam Smith in your post. Who discredited the theory then '150 years ago' ?

Where was this refutation published and when ?

As I said, a know nothing arsehole- you're just a little sewage outlet for right wing economic patent nostrums.

[Fake Boris]

Value is a construct and can't be "refuted" in the traditional sense that a scientific theory can be refuted.

[regexcellent]

Yes, I'm so sure you were referring to Adam Smith in your post. Who discredited the theory then '150 years ago' ?

Where was this refutation published and when ?

As I said, a know nothing arsehole- you're just a little sewage outlet for right wing economic patent nostrums.

You don't even know what I'm talking about do you? Marginalism isn't "right wing" economics, it's what every modern economist believes. It's not "right wing" any more than evolutionary biology is left-wing.

Value is a construct and can't be "refuted" in the traditional sense that a scientific theory can be refuted.

No it isn't, and yes it can. If value were intrinsic nobody would trade and therefore the labor of theory of value, which is intrinsic, must be wrong. Marx, as well as all classical economists who used some variant of what Marx articulated as the labor theory of value (it was usually the land-labor theory in classical doctrine), were unable to explain, for example:
- why diamonds are more valuable than water (the diamond-water paradox)
- why you can't just put stuff on a train and drive it in circles to make it more valuable
- why digging holes in the ground and filling them up again is not a valuable activity

among other things. The reason is because they were using a notion of value that is flat out wrong. Value is extrinsic and depends only on supply and demand. This is the fundamental basis of all modern economics and denying it is worse than denying evolution. Marx died before he could publish a critique of marginalism, probably because he couldn't come up with one. That hasn't stopped loads of people from trying to come up with a Marxist critique of it, but none have succeeded.

If you want specific economists who worked on the marginal revolution, you should start with Carl Menger. He has this particularly biting criticism of Marx:

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

THIS is the specific thing that Marxists deny, and the specific thing that makes all Marxists pseudo-scientific crackpots worthy of the same bucket as creationists and perpetual motion people.

[Sava]

denying it is worse than denying evolution.

[regexcellent]

People who deny evolution can at least hide behind the whole "well you can't PROVE that God doesn't exist and therefore you can't PROVE that He didn't just go around making the world LOOK like Evolution is a real thing." You can't even do that with Marxism.