Shinimodori Reijou no Lucetta - Vol. 2 Ch. 8

[MangaDex]

 

[srtl15]

I love her. I could never be a hater.

 

[Bearcuptea]

Thanks for the chapter! And the definition of profit made me laugh, took me back to economics class

 

[TheBigMonk]

Thanks for the chapter!
A more brave story would just have her break off her engagement to him and be roommates with her instead.

 

[srtl15]

Thanks for the chapter! And the definition of profit made me laugh, took me back to economics class

I'm glad you liked the translator shitpost. I worked so hard on that.

Also hilariously ironic that the day I post this, the big Japanese publishers are taking down entire series, even ones that have no official english translation.

 

[Oeconomist]

Nope. What Marx called “surplus value” is actually the pay-off for using time-intensive methods. Sinking resources into means of production requires forgoing present consumption but yields a greater possible future consumption. Those who bear that cost reap that reward; those unwilling or unable to bear that cost do not reap that reward.

Moreover, that profit would simply be an equilibrium difference. The value of a good or service is dependent upon context, and much of real-world profit results from changing the context.

 

[Bearcuptea]

I'm glad you liked the translator shitpost. I worked so hard on that.

Also hilariously ironic that the day I post this, the big Japanese publishers are taking down entire series, even ones that have no official english translation.

Do you mean the ones on mangadex? Because there were a couple of series that I noticed were almost fully wiped out. That's pretty crazy

 

[jenniejcao]

LOL thank you for the new chapter!

 

[nobody2002]

Thanks for the chapter.

 

[srtl15]

...

Man, I'm neither an economist nor an internet debate bro, so I won't be able to use a lot of fancy technical terms, but heck, I'll give it a shot.

Spoiler: Spoilered since no normal person actually wants to read this screed in a Lucetta comments section.

Moreover, that profit would simply be an equilibrium difference. The value of a good or service is dependent upon context, and much of real-world profit results from changing the context.

Yeah, I agree that fluctuations in both perceived value and actual value happen. And even if workers owned the means of production, they'd have to contend with this.

But when a company's profits go up by 20%, how often do the workers see their wages go up by 20%? How often do you see the people who build the factories receive residuals when that happens? It's pretty obvious somebody's getting fleeced here.

Sinking resources into means of production requires forgoing present consumption but yields a greater possible future consumption. Those who bear that cost reap that reward; those unwilling or unable to bear that cost do not reap that reward.

"Sinking resources" and "cost" under a capitalist perspective, maybe. Things start to fall apart when you look at it from the perspective of labor. Who invests their time and labor into building the machines that make up the means of production? Workers. Who invests their time and labor into working those machines to create value? Also workers.

Yes, the money invested by the capitalist could be considered the fruits of their labor, but... you know people can be born with money, right?


Also, capitalists reap the rewards of things they didn't pay into all the time. Having workers healthier makes them more productive. So capitalists benefit from a robust, government-funded healthcare system. Having workers be more educated makes them more productive. So capitalists benefit from high-quality, government-funded education.


And there's an even bigger example of capitalists not shouldering the costs but reaping the rewards. Some places have governments build homes, then sell them to capitalists to recoup the costs. Which capitalists then use to rent out to people.

Here's a version of this that might be more relatable to your average consumer: A company is of good quality and earns enough to make up their costs. Someone comes along and buys up that company, and starts cutting costs and charging customers more to earn more profits, making the service worse for both the workers and the consumers.

That's what capitalism is in its most distilled form — rent seeking. Someone buying something up at a flat price, and consistently collecting money for its usage despite putting in a fraction of the work done, if any.


But what do I know, I'm not an economist. If anyone reading this is interested in hearing from an Economics PhD who spent his whole life studying Marx, here's a video. It's a 2-hour lecture, but it's jam-packed with easily digestible information, so you can jump to any point in it and learn something.

 

[Oeconomist]

I agree that fluctuations in both perceived value and actual value happen.

I didn't refer to fluxuations; I referred to effecting a change of context to increase value. One can profit by changing from one stable context to another. And I advisedly wrote “much of real-world profit results from changing the context”, not something ambiguous such as “much of real-world profit results from a changing context” or “much of real-world profit results from a change of context”.

In fact, technocracy (socialistic or otherwise) destroys value by mistaking it for an inherent property of goods and services, and changing the context in ways that move those goods and services from contexts in which they have higher value to contexts in which they have lower value.

when a company's profits go up by 20%, how often do the workers see their wages go up by 20%? How often do you see the people who build the factories receive residuals when that happens? It's pretty obvious somebody's getting fleeced here.

No, it isn't. Laboring didn't cause that 20% increase, and, likewise, when profits go down by 20%, laboring didn't cause that either. The investor absorbs both profit and loss because he or she has gambled his resources.

"Sinking resources" and "cost" under a capitalist perspective, maybe.

From an objective perspective. You don't get the factors of production without cost; and most laborers chose to be paid in immediately consumable benefits rather than in shares of ownership.

Who invests their time and labor into building the machines that make up the means of production? Workers. Who invests their time and labor into working those machines to create value? Also workers.

They typically don't invest for spans longer than the span between paychecks; so their share of profit is accordingly tiny. Workers who do invest, choosing to be paid some share in stock, get a greater share of profit.

the money invested by the capitalist could be considered the fruits of their labor,

You're begging the question by arguing as if a labor theory of value must be true, and the only question is of who does what labor. The labor theory isn't even coherent when push comes to shove. (Marx tried to salvage things by punting to the socially necessary quantity of labor, but that quantity is determined by the price of labor relative to that of substitutable inputs!) People value based upon usefulness to their purposes; labor does not magically maintain a fixed relationship to the usefulness of other commodities.

people can be born with money

Here you're pushing aside the economic theory of profit.

Yes, people can be born with money. To the extent that you own something, you can give it away to friends or relatives. When you give money to a friend or to a child, I don't think "Oh, that's so unfair!" And I don't carp that some people do better in the genetic lottery either; the good fortune of some people doesn't magically indebt them to others.

Now, continuing your abandonment of your original claim about surplus value, you write

capitalists reap the rewards of things they didn't pay into all the time.

More generally, we live in a system in which people such as you insist that the state should forceably take-over much activity, and then you insist that accepting benefits from the imposed monopolies creates obligations. The state is an institution of violence, you are embracing the morality of the protection racket.

Then you offer two fantasies:

So capitalists benefit from a robust, government-funded healthcare system.

So capitalists benefit from high-quality, government-funded education.

You don't even present these as hypothetic; you write as if these things exist. They don't. But, with each failure, people like you call for more.

Some places have governments build homes, then sell them to capitalists to recoup the costs. Which capitalists then use to rent out to people.

Still not a defense of your theory of profit. What we have is the state implicitly subsidizing economic activity (in this case, rental home construction), a bit of socialistic intrusion into the market. Not a good idea in the first place.

A company is of good quality and earns enough to make up their costs.

You're still looking to explain value in terms of cost (with surplus value being expropriated costs-to-workers); value is explained by marginal use.

Someone comes along and buys up that company, and starts cutting costs and charging customers more to earn more profits, making the service worse for both the workers and the consumers.

That strategy only works if the company was originally allocating resources in ways that were not Pareto optimal.

That's what capitalism is in its most distilled form — rent seeking.

You are using the term “rent-seeking” with no understanding of what it means.

Someone buying something up at a flat price, and consistently collecting money for its usage despite putting in a fraction of the work done, if any.

An economic rent is not some profit that you imagine as unfair based upon labor-effort. An economic rent is a benefit above-and-beyond what would be received in the market for the next most rewarding use. Those seeking the greatest economic rents are the self-identified socialists, followed by the economic populists; they seek economics rents through the violent power of the state. Of course, they get conned by folk such as Mao, Hitler, Clinton, and Trump, who get economic rents by conning rent-seekers.

But what do I know, I'm not an economist. If anyone reading this is interested in hearing from an Economics PhD who spent his whole life studying Marx, here's a video. It's a 2-hour lecture, but it's jam-packed with easily digestible information, so you can jump to any point in it and learn something.

I suggest not embracing the Marxian religion, founded on the idea that some great geniuses can prophetically see a deeper reality. Instead, get a book walking you through the way that market prices arise from the diffuse decisions of people attempting to make the best use of their options. A typical introductory microeconomics text will be pretty good, except for its implicit or explicit reliance upon an assumption that preferences are complete and therefore correspond to a measure.

 

[srtl15]

Okay, this person's pretty set in their beliefs, so I'm not even going to quote them anymore since I have no interest in trying to convince them.

But if there's anyone at all still reading through this and thinking "I don't really agree with what that person said, but they sound educated, so maybe they're right...", here's what I have to say about it.

Spoiler: If you're actually reading this to try to be more informed, I salute you.

This person talks about how the existence of a state is inherently violent, and if the state does like, anything, it's a "socialist intrusion in the market".

This person is probably a libertarian, or maybe even an anarcho-capitalist.

They're saying analyzing the economy from the perspective of labor is like a religion, but they'll go on about the power of the invisible hand of the market, and if the state didn't do anything and just let people make the economically optimal decisions, everyone would be successful.

Well a bunch of libertarians took over a town once. You know what happened? It got overrun by bears.

Nobody wanted to pay for garbage disposal, since that wasn't economically optimal. So they just kinda left their trash out since there wasn't a government to tell them no. And their town got overrun by bears.

Now this should tell you all you need to know about how seriously you need to take these people who think individual profit maximization is the solution to everything. Yep, you should point at them and laugh.

Well, actually, you do need to take them seriously. The people in charge of corporations dump waste improperly too, because paying for proper waste disposal cuts into their profits.

This is actually the origin of the US government's first federal agency, the EPA. Companies were dumping so much waste into rivers, that a river literally caught on fire because of all the chemicals in it. If the "violent" state didn't intervene here, the US would still have burning rivers.


So yeah, this should immediately tip you off about this person's claims that good government-funded healthcare is impossible. While a lot of healthcare systems around the world are under-funded and therefore insufficient, all you need to do is look up a hospital receipt from the free-for-all that is US healthcare to understand why the alternative is much, much worse.


Let me end my stupid essay by addressing the point about how capitalists deserve the profit because they gambled with their money, and workers should choose to take stock options instead of a flat paycheck, as if they can do that when their job barely pays enough for rent.

Remember that video I linked to in my last post? Here it is again. The previous poster claims that people like the one in the video worship Marx like a religion, but in the video he explicitly states that he disagrees with Marx on some things, and states his own view.

But what I'd really like you to listen to is what he says around 1:17:11, about risk. If you still haven't clicked on the video, let me quote it word for word.

"The employer takes a risk. He deserves some extra, some profit because he took a risk."

I always found this extraordinary. He did take a risk, but so did everybody else, you idiot.

The worker who moved into this state to get that job took a risk — that the job would be there, that the job would be bearable, that the job would pay enough. He took a risk. He takes a risk everyday he comes in! He doesn't know whether at the end of the day he'll be told not to show up tomorrow! He bought a house based on the risk that that income would be coming! The risk everybody takes.

The difference between the employer and the employee is: The employee takes the risk and then somebody else makes the decisions. The employer takes a risk, but he's got all the power to shape whether that risk works out! And when he has trouble, you know where he shifts the burden? Mm-hmm. He fires the workers. Because he doesn't want to bear the cost of the risk he took that didn't work out.

If you want to reward risk, all the workers get a piece of that.

I'm not asking for people to subscribe to a belief like a cult. All I'm asking is for people to try to look at and analyze things from the perspective of workers.

 

[Oeconomist]

This person

So you're going to argue ad hominem. I'll just pass-over that bullshit.

They're saying analyzing the economy from the perspective of labor is like a religion

No. I'm saying that clinging to a structure of assumptions that are drawn from supposed superior insight yet do not offer distinct correct predictions and often instead yield false predictions is religious rather than scientific or otherwise rational behavior.

they'll go on about the power of the invisible hand of the market, and if the state didn't do anything and just let people make the economically optimal decisions, everyone would be successful.

No, every system has losers, and people like you would probably fail even harder, but I'm okay with that.

Well a bunch of libertarians took over a town once. You know what happened? It got overrun by bears.

A bunch of Marxists took over multiple countries more than once. You know what happened? They killed tens of millions of people. Some they just shot or hanged or hacked to pieces; more they worked to death; still more they starved to death. I'll take bears over that.

Yep, you should point at them and laugh.

Laughter is the ultimate weapon in the arsenal of the fool.

Well, actually, you do need to take them seriously. The people in charge of corporations dump waste improperly too, because paying for proper waste disposal cuts into their profits.

This is actually the origin of the US government's first federal agency, the EPA. Companies were dumping so much waste into rivers, that a river literally caught on fire because of all the chemicals in it. If the "violent" state didn't intervene here, the US would still have burning rivers.

You need to get out more, intellectually. In this case, you need to learn the actual history of environmental degradation.

The intrusion of waste onto the property of others was widely recognized as trespass, but during the Industrial Revolution, for a supposed collective good, the state began severely limiting the means by which people could take action against such trespass.

The later origin of institutions such as the EPA in America was an attempt to fix a problem caused by an exercise of state power with a further exercise of state power.

So yeah, this should immediately tip you off about this person's claims that good government-funded healthcare is impossible. While a lot of healthcare systems around the world are under-funded and therefore insufficient

At least now you're not pretending that the state provides the healthcare that you fantasized.

the free-for-all that is US healthcare

But now you're fantasizing that American healthcare is free of state intrusion. In fact, both healthcare and eduction are industries with some of the most extensive and intensive interventions by the state, and the explosions in costs have followed those intrusions.

Medical tourism is people literally escaping the effects of law and regulation to participate in a freer market.

as if they can do that

I didn't say that everyone can do it. Likewise, not everyone can solve a differential equation or hit a fastball. I said that the rewards for investment go to investors. And you cannot reasonably defend a labor theory of value by ignoring the reward for investment. A cry that life should be fair isn't an explanation of profit.

The previous poster claims that people like the one in the video worship Marx like a religion, but in the video he explicitly states that he disagrees with Marx on some things, and states his own view.

Religions often have heresies, which are themselves religions. I'll repeat myself: Clinging to a structure of assumptions that are drawn from supposed superior insight yet do not offer distinct correct predictions and often instead yield false predictions is religious rather than scientific or otherwise rational behavior.

I'm not asking for people to subscribe to a belief like a cult. All I'm asking is for people to try to look at and analyze things from the perspective of workers.

Workers have many different perspectives. You're asking people to imagine some idealized worker who has embraced a theory for which you've grabbed, to ignore the importance of investment because you think that attending to it would somehow be unfair, and to imagine that if we embrace more socialism then the next time will be different. It won't be.

You can take solace in the fact that, when this chapter gets hit with a DMCA complaint, the comments will go into limbo.

 

[toru_okada]

y'all can argue about capitalism vs socialism or whatnot, but we can all agree that USSR's got a pretty banger am i right? or am i correct?

 

[srtl15]

y'all can argue about capitalism vs socialism or whatnot, but we can all agree that USSR's got a pretty banger am i right? or am i correct?

Absolutely mid compared to this:

 

[Oeconomist]

 

[lesseffective]

Lucetta has increased her engagementship level!

 

[tenijasenpai]

obviously the localizer would be a communist...