Episode

[@AbhishekSingh-gk9gh]

I found you today when trying to find a summary of the fall by camus and you became my favorite podcast lol

[@_PanchoVilla]

"Don't lies eventually lead to the truth? And don't all my stories, true or false, tend toward the same conclusion? Don't they all have the same meaning? So what does it matter whether they are true or false if, in both cases, they are significant of what I have been and what I am? Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object." -The Fall, Camus

[@xspartan346x]

Hoppe's lecture on "What Marx Gets Right" is incredible

[@elijaguy]

A wonderful sample of your craft and art, Mr West! Clear, funny, serious, relevant, encompassing, concise, Thank you!

[@FavoriteMovieIsBooks]

Marx drew a distinction between Use Value and Exchange Value, but these concepts are conflated here

[@RoAnneHendrich87]

nice podcast! A friend of mind recommended your podcasts and now I'm hooked.

[@antonyarakkal7203]

I wish I met you when I lived in Seattle.....

[@eddiealexander3081]

Hi=)...Love your stuff. You ever thought to record video of you droppin these gems?? I think you have a great sound and the ppl would just Love....to actually meet you. Do it for your BOO.

[@OTPpride]

Steve you should have a 5-10 second hardcore rap outro for your videos

[@Lowgenn]

First time looking into Philosophy this. I’m really intrigued with these ideas and I wonder if he’s expanded on his thoughts for profit being theft. Does he acknowledge opportunity for experience/time spent working as part of the equation? For example one might get paid less than their work is worth but is the number on your paystub the only piece of data he accounts for? Would love to know if he talks about this at anytime!

[@liammorris9823]

Austrians don't ever refute Marx's labor theory of value and neglect the use value, exchange value, and value and socially nesissary labor time for commodity production. For example, we look at the island example. Marx would say that the water has a subjective use value so you want it more but the value (which is socially nesissary labor time) of the diamond is higher. Risk is also obfuscated for the employees. The employees take a risk by moving to a place and depending on an income etc. Even if you take a risk it doesn't mean the act is moral

[@xspartan346x]

Bohm Bawerk refuted Marx's labor theory of value in Marx & The Close of His System.

[@TeaParty1776]

There is no mystical value in labor. Austrians recognized that value is a product of a mind evaluating reality. They misnamed it subjective.

[@DewaldtdeKlerk]

The workers do not create value they merely reproduce it. The first man who figured out how to dig a well produces value, he teaches the workers in his company to reproduce value.

[@t.d.mcintosh]

Good video, though I would like to make a few corrections. You set up this episode as if the Austrians were responding to Marx specifically, but actually it could be best said that the Austeians are mainly a response to the classical economists (E.g Adam Smith and Friedrich Bastiat) Menger was an economic journalist who noticed inconsistencies within how the Classical economists spoke about economics and his 'principles of economics'. And I don't think you really gave the Austrians critique of Marx a fair shake. In Böhm-Bawerk's book 'Karl Marx and the close of his system' he goes after Aristotle's theory of exchange which was the precursor to Adam Smith's labour theory of value and Marx's take on the labour theory. you left that part out Also, you seemed to have left out one of the biggest aspects of the Austrian school, which is Praxeology, which I guess the early Austrians had a type of proto-Praxeology but was really codified Von Mises and diverge from the more Empirically based theories of today's economists.

[@TeaParty1776]

Empiricists hide their theories, as Mises noted. Mises has problems but he also starts in the common human economic experiences of action, purpose, action accross time, priorities, etc. He predicted the Great Depression because the increasing tech of the 1920s should have lowered prices. He inferred that the Fed was conterfeiting and that this would fragment markets.

[@Swift-mr5zi]

This is one of the few good videos on Austrian econ from a none Austrian person, Good job!

[@Thelimitsof]

Love your discord, very informative.

[@christinemartin63]

So THAT'S the Austrian school theory! I never knew .... Thx for explaining.

[@satyasubhash8869]

What happened to episodes upto #82? 🤔

[@oussama_na]

They r still on spotify tho

[@_PanchoVilla]

From Las Vegas, NV and can confirm that we will pay $7+ for a bottle of water

[@AnselLindner]

Solid

[@rodrigodiazcasas384]

Just a tini tiny correction: it is not being in the desert or next to the tub wich determins the marginal value of an aditional glass of water, but the fact of how much water has been consumed before it. I mean, logically you might asume that in the middle of the dessert you havent drunk much water, but that is not necesarily de case. The point im trying to make is the following: the way you put it, lets say being "close or far" from the tub, is still a suply demand issue. BUT the point marginalist make is that if you have drunk a lot of water, wether having or not a tub nearby, you will give little to no value to an extra glass... this has nothing to do with suply demand: if you just ended playing a soccer match, that first glass of water will have A SUPERB MARGINAL VALUE. Only then suply demand "game" take place, and of course, you wont pay as much for water than for a diamond in the city: that has nothing to do with the marginal value of that first glass of water, wich would be (acording to autrian marginalist) still rocket high.

[@craigwillms61]

I hope you were joking when you claimed to be a marxist - I had such respect for your intelligence... Not so sure anymore.

[@fernandov1492]

It is interesting to hear the hypothetical austrian argument. I, myself, subscribe to the austrian school postulates and my argument would be a tad different. I would say: "Workers are to be paid the exact subjective value they produce for their employers." (So far the same). But it is not necessarily because of the logistical implications the employer had to go through, but rather because of contractual considerations. For workers to be paid the exact value of what they produce, they wouldn't be workers in the first place, they would be producers without intermediaries. They would produce directly for the consumer not for the employer. The producer (employer in this case) however, is in fact paid by the consumer the exact subjective value of what they produce. I presume these matters are more easily explained by legal considerations rather than purely economic ones. I know they aren't completely distinct from one another. But if you were to say: What is a contract?, What is the definition of a party in a contract?, What makes contracts valid in the first place?, I think the answers to these questions are perhaps more relevant in determining who gets paid how much and why. Just an opinion, it was still very interesting to listen about these considerations from a different perspective.

[@truenorthaffirmations7049]

This is great

[@dangerousideas5356]

very funny arthritis joke, great podcast as usual homie

[@joshuabyram7485]

Never heard the term subjective theory of value. I always thought it was referred to as marginal utility

[@joshuabyram7485]

And isn’t marginal utility more or less directly related to supply and demand

[@ImperiumSerama]

@@joshuabyram7485 it is termed subjective value because it is due to individuals acting on the margin of their own utility which is subjective

[@ImperiumSerama]

@@joshuabyram7485 supply and demand can be derived from marginal utility

[@randyrustybuts9566]

MATE YOU F---ING ROCK GOD OF THE PHILOSO

[@Blablablateelbal]

I like this episode too

[@fatimafouad3298]

Hey there! I’ve been looking for the old videos on the channel, the oldest video I found is Episode #63 or something, so I guess I missed tens of eps... What should I do to watch the old ones? PS: DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!

[@zrj9604]

spotify has them all for free in the podcast section

[@JudahDaniels]

On their website they have all the episodes from No.1

[@maecarima6572]

It's on Spotify, Deezer and Itunes

[@robertcarpenter8077]

Philosophize This is kidding about being a Marxist and does a fabulous job making the case for the Austrian School.

[@melissasmind2846]

I shared

[@Dipzerz]

Are there any good books on Austrian economics?

[@kpeace11]

There are some good youtube videos kzbin.info/aero/PLALopHfWkFlHwjYbtRJLmhTIN7lFFyAi4

[@MonkeyFabGarage]

Dipzerz anything from Mises or Rothbard. Pretty though reads though as was marx. Man economy state is the standard also you can just check out Mises media on KZbin. Just find any topic that catches your eye and watch it.

[@GodIsTheReason]

Cheers to you for accurately representing the Austrian arguments on value all the way through. So, did/will you make a follow up to this podcast about the refutations of these? I'd be very interested in it. To anyone who's looking to take a deep dive into Austrian (aka "praxeological") economics, I highly recommend Human Action by Ludwig von Mises (available for free on the website of the Mises Institute). It is the most comprehensive economics-based defense of free markets ever written.

[@alexb9501]

"profits are theft" is not actually marx.

[@beto4Cristo]

austrian economics

[@smtrm212]

you are the the thing you are talking about at the moment, at any moment. thus ...

[@Arygo87]

Ah, a true foil to Marx... i'll remember it as a tin foil theory :)

[@MonkeyFabGarage]

Great podcast. Appreciate your ability to speak on topics in an unbiased manner. I’m hooked. Kudos for admiring you’re a Marxist. I know you have limited time, but I would think the Austrian more precise argument against marx is the failure of central planning. I mean, think about das capital and then immediately think of the Gulag archipelago. Entrepreneurs tend to do a much better job at getting the consumer a better product also making the consumer the ultimate controller of what and how things should be valued.

[@TeaParty1776]

Entrepreneurs are the controllers. Consumers merely respond to what has been created. Consumers as such are not part of economics. Consumers must first produce to consume. (Theft is not eeconomics)

[@γνῶθισεαυτόν-ε9ω]

Yay, hes a marxist!

[@nacho007]

Hahahaha what are you saying?

[@γνῶθισεαυτόν-ε9ω]

@@nacho007 well I am not a marxists cause I've never read any marx so I dont know lol

[@GhostSinatra]

Marx is not an economist. He is a fairytale writer.

[@shaneburke4826]

have you read das kapital?

[@TeaParty1776]

@@shaneburke4826 Have you read _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ by Ayn Rand? A social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children stamping their foot and shrieking: “I want it now!”-is through. -Ayn Rand

[@shaneburke4826]

@@TeaParty1776 okay? this isn't even an argument it's just an insult lmao. Read Capitalism Realism

[@TeaParty1776]

@@shaneburke4826 You evade Rands identification of the IDEA of subjectvism in Hegel, Marx and the people influenced by subjectivism. >Capitalism Realism For subjectivists, realism is relative to subjectivity, eg, a drug addict being "realistic" about getting more drugs or Marxists being realistic about mass murder. Favorable Amazon reviews of _Capitalist Realism_ condemn prosperity (from capitalism?!) and the individual's desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Schools are condemned without recognizing that Progressive education (which dominates US schools) is a valid application of the same Kantian attack on mans independent mind that Marx used. No clear alternative to capitalism is identified. This is nihilism, ie, destruction for the sake of destruction. Marxism is emotionalism w/intellectual pretensions. Marxism is the hatred of the focused mind. Marxism is a pseudo-scientific restatement of the mystical Garden Of Eden and as realistic. Marxism is altruism of the immediate moment ,w/no past or future. Marxism is for bugs on a sidewalk. As Marianne Faithfull sang about modern culture. "We've been trying to get high without having to pay."

[@shaneburke4826]

@@TeaParty1776 The reason what no clear alternative to capitalism is identified is because it has now become impossible for any alternative to be realised. This is the entire point of the book. Capitalism has subsumed all radical theory, all media, all possibilities and the powers of human negation so that anything other than itself is seen as utopian. Marxism is none of the things you described. It is an intellectual theory of the progresssion of human society and how such a society can develop further; favoring human progress over economic progress. Of course this type of society is unimaginable, but that is precisely the point. I'm sure capitalism seemed utopian to the feudal serf. Also you clearly don't understand what he means when he writes about realism. I'd recommend reading Marcuse's "One Dimensional Man". It has a very similar feeling to "Capitalism Realism" but much more technical.

[@tobykate77]

You are quite well spoken but your ideas have little substance. When the Soviet Union collapsed the Austrians won the argument. Case closed!

[@curioussoul6059]

If one communist country collapses, communism is bad, case closed? Then, if a capitalist country collapses, capitalism is bad, case closed?

[@codyedwards5827]

Much substance your comment is lacking

[@curioussoul6059]

@Johan Strydom Well, according to Steve Woods' logic, if one country fails then the system is a failure. Capitalist countries have failed. So capitalism must be a failure, if Steve Woods is correct

[@curioussoul6059]

@Johan Strydom (He's not correct though, his logic is flawed, hopefully I demonstrated that by applying it to the real world)

[@curioussoul6059]

Stevey, the Austrians weren't arguing against "The Soviet Union will never collapse", they were arguing against Marxist critiques of capitalism.

[@wcropp1]

Marxist philosophers of the world, unite! Let’s interpret the world and change it!

[@NathanDudani]

Austrian economics: when you presuppose the beliefs in your socio-economic system are natural and argue from there

[@t.d.mcintosh]

wow, that sounds stupid, it's almost like that's not what the Austrians are doing

[@TeaParty1776]

Mainstream economics-when your beliefs are not based in nature but from mystical symbols pretending to math.

[@edhiepitz]

Isnt this interesting, karl have to be journalist, seeing for himself the horror of capitalism, meanwhile rich people conjuring up bullshit like this from the comfort of their sofa.