"Intro to Marxian Economics" 2 (4of8) - Richard D Wolff

[@Quantumpencil]

Professor Wolff isn't saying that cost-benfit analysis is efficiency, he's saying that the means making a decision based on economic efficiency (of which cost-benefit analysis is very often a form) are inadequate to determining which of a number of alternatives "produces more positive effects" given a certain set of presumed costs. i.e, which uses the resources best, i.e, which is more efficient. You're being silly by accusing him of not understanding this difference.

[@Quantumpencil]

Markarich, his definition of economic efficiency is not incorrect. (There exist multiple uses of the term efficiency) but it's essentially an index that is supposed to answer the question, "Is this a good use of resources?" meaning are the resources involved in this economic decision producing valuable enough outputs to justify their expenditure. This is just a process which yields a measure that people use to make decisions about relative "efficiency" between two projects.

[@username19237]

Wow what a tangent that was

[@anarchovendean]

@anarchovendean various exercises could be said to be more 'efficient' than others. It's less efficient for a body builder to run laps all day and it's less efficient for a marathon runner to bench-press every day. So when someone says that markets are just more efficient as if it's an objective critera, they are operating under some kind of hidden assumption about what the proper goal of economic action is.

[@nohisocitutampoc2789]

It’s a shame thAt Sound. Is thAt impossible to get this videos back?

[@bapyou]

@johnnymazaratti Notice: markarich159 has no answer for your question. And he talks about the audience not asking enough questions of Wolff.

[@johnnymazaratti]

@markarich159 define completely objective?

[@anarchovendean]

I understood him as being metaphoric. Remember his analogy wasn't "God" per se but appeals to the "will of God". The idea being that appeal to efficiency as an objective property is akin to an appeal to God's will in that the person doing it is acting as if they are discussing something completely objective when in reality what they are talking about is relative. Both pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces in the USA appealed to the will of God to support their ideologies but these were cont-

[@whatabouttheearth]

I'm thinking he must mean before markets became the primary modes/drivers of production. Because he's saying "before markets" as if markets only existed a few hundred years before Marx when trade, markets and currency is very old. Maybe in his mind he is explaining hunter gatherer primitive communism or the stage after that, but he's being a little confusing. Maybe the issue is I don't think he clearly defined "markets" so many he is using a specific definition. He's being a bit ranty. He's acting like there wasn't currency, trade and market places in ancient Rome, ancient middle east etc. There is no way he thinks that though, that's too basic.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

Lack of obvious questions from audience is fascinating.

[@WarrenWebber]

"What is this concern with prices?" Equitable trade. Is there something wrong with that?

[@slobodanjevtovic7102]

The absolute isn't convenient. Its difficult to submit to.

[@GalenAus]

@markarich159 send this query to him?? i'd be interested to see his response

[@anarchovendean]

@markarich159 Did you think he was being literal when he said it was like appealing to "God"?

[@WarrenWebber]

Wait, so you're saying we should just go ahead & do things, and not worry how wasteful or beneficial they might be?

[@bluewater454]

It is most certainly true that a free market system is going to be less "efficient" at some things than a centralized one. Freedom is a messy thing. It goes in unpredictable directions. The stock market would be a good example. So what. You can debate the fine points of how one market system is more or less efficient all you want. Give me freedom every time.

[@Nordkiinach]

*_"Give me freedom every time."_* Capitalism has no Freedom, you troglodyte.

[@bluewater454]

@@Nordkiinach Get a clue, marxist. Lots of capitalist societies are free.

[@Nordkiinach]

@@bluewater454 *_"Get a clue, marxist. Lots of capitalist societies are free."_* "Free" only if your descriptor for Freedom is synonymous/defined as = $ Pay to Live instead of as in Communism; Struggle for Life.

[@bluewater454]

@@Nordkiinach Why do people like you repeat the entire comment someone makes as a part of your own response? As if I did not know what I just said. Do you need your own comment repeated back to you in case you forget? Maybe that is a problem for marxists, not really sure. In any case, I have no idea what _"$ Pay to live instead of as in communism; struggle for life"_ means. Either you dont like having to make money for a living to pay for your needs, or you just dont like the idea of struggling to make ends meet. Well Im sorry but, welcome to Planet Earth. We have to work (and sometimes struggle) to live. That is the way it was before capitalism, and that is the way it will be when capitalism is no longer prevalent. Every living creature on Earth has to work and struggle to live. There are no exceptions, not even for communists. Sorry to pop your leftist bubble.

[@YashArya01]

It's not true that a free market is less efficient than a centralized system. It's almost always the other way around. Milton Friedman's 4 ways to spend money is a good way to understand this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4OnfpeZatdosJo&ab_channel=Sidewinder77 For an even more complete picture you need to understand the Calculation Problem and how the price system works. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f4qyZKeFpql8iac&ab_channel=I%2CPencil

[@MoeKabbara]

what's funny is that you can't see that cost=input and output=benefit heh!

[@anarchovendean]

@anarchovendean -cont just efforts to grant a veneer of divine sanction to their beliefs. Likewise with the idea of objective 'efficiency'. Efficiency is not an objective property but rather is always efficiency *towards* a certain goal. Take exercise for example- it's meaningless to talk about a particular exercise routine as being objectively more efficient and thus more superior to other routines. Depending on one's goal at hand (lose weight, build muscle, prepare for a sport etc) cont-

[@Alex-xp9lu]

3:24 Pete Buttigieg.

[@h2flow1]

He says markets are a new thing, what about money? obviously monies been around for thousands of years. Not just redistribution of resources by elders/leaders. I'm sure money has been around, at least since the beginning of recorded history. The desire for wealth by individuals has also probably existed just as long.

[@rhysoliver227]

The two ideas and political forces have been at war for millenia. Money individualism egotism and private property have at our point in history won out. Largely because of the death of god. Thus the humanitarian /religious parts of the world have been silenced for there falsehoods and capitalism and science have risen.

[@whatabouttheearth]

Of course he knows money has been around for a while, I think he is refering to overall modes of production. In the transfer from feudalism (which was an overall mode of production not based on the market) to capitalism the market started to the the primary mode of production for SOCIETY which was no longer based on agricultural use value based self production combined with serfs laboring for a lords use value (as a PRIMARY form of SOCIAL productions). In feudalism the surplus was still taken from the laborer but the lord did not use that surplus for M' (money added, meaning profit), but as the market and trade grew to become the PRIMARY and DOMINANT mode of production M' was the prominent feature of the theft of the laborers surplus. If I'm not mistaken he's meaning the market as the primary mode of production in society, not a lesser peripheral aspect.