6 ms·

I've seen interviews with Varoufakis before, there are several on YouTube. I find him very hard two bear for two (unrelated?) reasons. First of all, I have the

I've seen interviews with Varoufakis before, there are several on YouTube. I find him very hard two bear for two (unrelated?) reasons. First of all, I have the impression that he's incredibly vain. Maybe that's not entirely his fault, because parts of the left in Europe celebrate him like a rock star. But when he retells the story of how he negotiated with other leaders of the EU about the Greek debt crisis, the framing is always that he was the only wise person in a room full of idiots, and they wouldn't agree to the rational course of action because they were intimidated by his superior intelligence. This is of course just my observation, and I don't have a good source ready, so I'm curious if others have the same impression. Second, although he downplays it somewhat when asked directly, he is a full-on radical marxist. This includes the view that anytime someone makes any money anywhere whatsoever, that can only mean somebody else is being exploited. I don't know how marxists square their conviction that no trade is ever beneficial to both sides with the reality that nobody is held at gunpoint to make those trades, but here's an example quote from the interview: > So, when a recession hits, and the central bank decides to stimulate the economy, the central bank lowers the interest rate of the overdraft it grants commercial bankers – who then exploit this to profit from arbitrage (by lending the money on to customers at a higher interest rate). I find this incredibly disingenuous because as an economist, he knows better. Lending is a service that banks provide that many (arguably perhaps too many) people choose to make use of. And Varoufakis is fully aware of the difference between risk-free and risk-adjusted interest rates. But of course, "banks bad", that's what his audience wants to hear. I think there, he agrees with the crypto people to a much larger extend than he would admit. TL;DR: I think Varoufakis is overrated, although I somewhat agree with him on crypto.

hkt 4y ago
Marxist exploitation occurs in the labour relation - it isn't really about consumers. The thing he was referring to was the price mechanism, for which Marxists have entertained quite a few alternatives based on the use value, labour costs to produce (labour value) etc. Re CBDC, he's referring to current accounts. There is a big debate at the Bank of England about how to offer these accounts via intermediaries, the idea being that they will add value in some way. The idea of the bank offering basic (read: deliberately rubbish) accounts vs not offering then at all is a key part of that debate. Underwriting for loans is different, but it is a fair thing to say that most banks don't bother investing in SMEs or the real economy more broadly. The fact is, banks lend to virtually risk free borrowers in the form of mortgages - the risks being mitigated by persistent property price inflation. As such, why charge above the base rate? It doesn't seem as though he is advocating replacing the lending function of banks, though in the broad sense I'd guess he would prefer savings and loan cooperatives like building societies and credit unions.
- codeflo 4y ago
  Since all labourers necessarily are consumers, a point that Marx hits home repeatedly, the question whether labour prices are too low or consumer prices too high is irrelevant, they are mathematically equivalent.
  - hkt 4y ago
    They aren't - that's the point Marx makes in describing the idea of alienation from the fruits of one's labour. Because labour is commodified, the rate of pay does not relate to the value at the point of consumption - the difference between the price of the labour (eg labour value) and the price paid (exchange value) is profit, which is generally quite well known to be what the capitalists are in it for..! To put it more clearly: if I create one unit of value a day, it follows that for a profit to be accrued, it is not possible for me to be paid one unit of value. I'll be paid less. This is why the labour share of national income is still very important to some on the left, and it is the natural flip side to the idea of value add.
ahartmetz 4y ago
He just annoys me as well. Somehow, I don't seem to get any real insights from his writings, just maximalist claims with little reasoning.
ughitsaaron 4y ago
> I don't know how marxists square their conviction that no trade is ever beneficial to both sides with the reality that nobody is held at gunpoint to make those trades. This isn’t a theoretical position even remotely attributable to Marxists.
- codeflo 4y ago
  Straight from Das Kapital: > Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    Yes, and? This does not imply that trade is not beneficial. Marx is just saying that exchange of goods in itself does not create new value. He believed in the labor theory of value, which means that human labor is the ultimate source of value creation. The idea that trade is never beneficial does not follow from that theory.
- lanfeust6 4y ago
  It can be rephrased as: all enterprise is exploitation, to Communists.
  - antifa 4y ago
    If you accept the premise that all entreprise is exploitation, then your goal would be to minimize exploitation. If it's actually possible to eliminate exploitation, then great, we can work towards that. I'm not sure what's difficult to square away about that. On the other hand, there's also differences of opinion on how consent works. Most anti-Marxists just declare any transaction without a gun as fully consential, therefore it can't be exploitation. I find that harder to square away with, it's straight up denial of harm instead of minimization of harm.
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> they wouldn't agree to the rational course of action because they were intimidated by his superior intelligence. The EU finance ministers wouldn't agree to his rational course of action because: 1. They wanted to make a visible example out of Greece, pour encourager les autres. 2. They didn't care about the social consequences of austerity and the economic depression it caused in Greece. 3. It was actually good for domestic political consumption to be tough on the Greeks. In Germany, for example, the powerful right-wing tabloids were pushing for the government to punish the "lazy" Greeks. Varoufakis had a very strong economic argument. Massively contracting government spending while massively increasing taxes would obviously cause a severe depression in Greece. Besides the social consequences of that policy, it would also make Greece less capable of paying off its debts. This is obvious, but for the reasons I've listed above, the argument went nowhere. If you listen to Varoufakis' recordings of the ministers' conferences, they treated Greece like a vassal state, rather than as a member of a close, "value-based" union. The way that the EU dealt with Greece is very different with how such an economic crisis would play out in the US. The common social safety net and the wider Federal budget mean that states that are in trouble automatically get increased support. The EU took the opposite approach, and induced a depression in Greece.
sudosysgen 4y ago
Who the hell told you that Marxists think trade is never mutually beneficial? Marxists make a distinction between use-value and monetary value, so it's definitely possible for a trade to be mutually beneficial. The issue is within capital-labor transactions that are fundamentally different in the Marxist framework from trade of goods. There is no view that when anyone makes money someone is exploited. The view is that whenever you make money purely from investment, someone somewhere is being exploited to pay for part of it. The vast majority of people make money from selling their labour, so clearly that wouldn't be exploitative in any way in such a framework. It would help your critique a lot if you weren't simply factually wrong on most of your points, especially if you want to call him overrated.
- codeflo 4y ago
  I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with. I gave a direct quote, from the very article we're discussing, that Varoufakis directly attributes a price difference to "profit". You may believe that, but it contradicts all (non-Marxist) economic theory, which is the only thing I'm pointing out. In fact, I realize most Marxists never read Das Kapital, but Marx himself is very clear that he doesn't believe trade creates value: > Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
  - dundarious 4y ago
    I don't see how that quotation, or the preceding example Marx uses to illustrate it, backs up your strong claim that Marx thinks "no trade is ever beneficial to both sides". He's making an economic argument about a certain notion of value. It's not a nihilistic "woe is everything" argument about how there's no point or no ethical way to do any kind of trade. And at least one aspect of his argument is also uncontroversial in modern economics. Take the metric of GDP, and the example of a neighborhood of a ring of 5 houses, each with a mother and child. If mother 1 pays mother 2 for day care to raise child 1, and so on in a circle, then each mother is paying and being paid the same amount to raise a child (just not their own), and each child is being cared for. There is no economic benefit to this shuffling arrangement (in practice there would be downsides like taxes, but ignore all that), however GDP is increased by 5 times the cost to care for a child. But nothing is profited and nothing is lost, and the system cares for no more/fewer children. So while I'm no expert (I'm not a Marxist and I've barely read any Marx or other political economists in their source works), but from what I know, such a strong claim isn't justified, and it reads like a misunderstanding based on the use of "value", which Marx often though not always makes pains to disentangle from notions of exchange value, use value, sometimes ethical and intellectual value (of ideas, etc.), and probably more besides.
jdrc 4y ago
That is how he is seen in his country. He also tends to quote other people a lot in attempted osmosis . His views about ukraine is that basically they should surrender
atmosx 4y ago
> > [...] he was the only wise person in a room full of idiots [...] The goal of the "program" was to bring down the Greek national debt. Judging by the result, well, I'd say he nailed it :-) > But of course, "banks bad", that's what his audience wants to hear. I believe you're oversimplifying. But there are ppl less educated that can't express themselves so eloquently. The problem with the current banking system at least has been recently ELI5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r76KkcJaTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r76KkcJaTE (see Yelen's response, it's fine if you're the banker, less than ideal if you're a random tax payer).

hkt 4y ago

Marxist exploitation occurs in the labour relation - it isn't really about consumers. The thing he was referring to was the price mechanism, for which Marxists have entertained quite a few alternatives based on the use value, labour costs to produce (labour value) etc. Re CBDC, he's referring to current accounts. There is a big debate at the Bank of England about how to offer these accounts via intermediaries, the idea being that they will add value in some way. The idea of the bank offering basic (read: deliberately rubbish) accounts vs not offering then at all is a key part of that debate. Underwriting for loans is different, but it is a fair thing to say that most banks don't bother investing in SMEs or the real economy more broadly. The fact is, banks lend to virtually risk free borrowers in the form of mortgages - the risks being mitigated by persistent property price inflation. As such, why charge above the base rate? It doesn't seem as though he is advocating replacing the lending function of banks, though in the broad sense I'd guess he would prefer savings and loan cooperatives like building societies and credit unions.

codeflo 4y ago
Since all labourers necessarily are consumers, a point that Marx hits home repeatedly, the question whether labour prices are too low or consumer prices too high is irrelevant, they are mathematically equivalent.
- hkt 4y ago
  They aren't - that's the point Marx makes in describing the idea of alienation from the fruits of one's labour. Because labour is commodified, the rate of pay does not relate to the value at the point of consumption - the difference between the price of the labour (eg labour value) and the price paid (exchange value) is profit, which is generally quite well known to be what the capitalists are in it for..! To put it more clearly: if I create one unit of value a day, it follows that for a profit to be accrued, it is not possible for me to be paid one unit of value. I'll be paid less. This is why the labour share of national income is still very important to some on the left, and it is the natural flip side to the idea of value add.

ahartmetz 4y ago

He just annoys me as well. Somehow, I don't seem to get any real insights from his writings, just maximalist claims with little reasoning.

ughitsaaron 4y ago

> I don't know how marxists square their conviction that no trade is ever beneficial to both sides with the reality that nobody is held at gunpoint to make those trades. This isn’t a theoretical position even remotely attributable to Marxists.

codeflo 4y ago
Straight from Das Kapital: > Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  Yes, and? This does not imply that trade is not beneficial. Marx is just saying that exchange of goods in itself does not create new value. He believed in the labor theory of value, which means that human labor is the ultimate source of value creation. The idea that trade is never beneficial does not follow from that theory.
lanfeust6 4y ago
It can be rephrased as: all enterprise is exploitation, to Communists.
- antifa 4y ago
  If you accept the premise that all entreprise is exploitation, then your goal would be to minimize exploitation. If it's actually possible to eliminate exploitation, then great, we can work towards that. I'm not sure what's difficult to square away about that. On the other hand, there's also differences of opinion on how consent works. Most anti-Marxists just declare any transaction without a gun as fully consential, therefore it can't be exploitation. I find that harder to square away with, it's straight up denial of harm instead of minimization of harm.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> they wouldn't agree to the rational course of action because they were intimidated by his superior intelligence. The EU finance ministers wouldn't agree to his rational course of action because: 1. They wanted to make a visible example out of Greece, pour encourager les autres. 2. They didn't care about the social consequences of austerity and the economic depression it caused in Greece. 3. It was actually good for domestic political consumption to be tough on the Greeks. In Germany, for example, the powerful right-wing tabloids were pushing for the government to punish the "lazy" Greeks. Varoufakis had a very strong economic argument. Massively contracting government spending while massively increasing taxes would obviously cause a severe depression in Greece. Besides the social consequences of that policy, it would also make Greece less capable of paying off its debts. This is obvious, but for the reasons I've listed above, the argument went nowhere. If you listen to Varoufakis' recordings of the ministers' conferences, they treated Greece like a vassal state, rather than as a member of a close, "value-based" union. The way that the EU dealt with Greece is very different with how such an economic crisis would play out in the US. The common social safety net and the wider Federal budget mean that states that are in trouble automatically get increased support. The EU took the opposite approach, and induced a depression in Greece.

sudosysgen 4y ago

Who the hell told you that Marxists think trade is never mutually beneficial? Marxists make a distinction between use-value and monetary value, so it's definitely possible for a trade to be mutually beneficial. The issue is within capital-labor transactions that are fundamentally different in the Marxist framework from trade of goods. There is no view that when anyone makes money someone is exploited. The view is that whenever you make money purely from investment, someone somewhere is being exploited to pay for part of it. The vast majority of people make money from selling their labour, so clearly that wouldn't be exploitative in any way in such a framework. It would help your critique a lot if you weren't simply factually wrong on most of your points, especially if you want to call him overrated.

codeflo 4y ago
I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with. I gave a direct quote, from the very article we're discussing, that Varoufakis directly attributes a price difference to "profit". You may believe that, but it contradicts all (non-Marxist) economic theory, which is the only thing I'm pointing out. In fact, I realize most Marxists never read Das Kapital, but Marx himself is very clear that he doesn't believe trade creates value: > Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value. Circulation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value. Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
- dundarious 4y ago
  I don't see how that quotation, or the preceding example Marx uses to illustrate it, backs up your strong claim that Marx thinks "no trade is ever beneficial to both sides". He's making an economic argument about a certain notion of value. It's not a nihilistic "woe is everything" argument about how there's no point or no ethical way to do any kind of trade. And at least one aspect of his argument is also uncontroversial in modern economics. Take the metric of GDP, and the example of a neighborhood of a ring of 5 houses, each with a mother and child. If mother 1 pays mother 2 for day care to raise child 1, and so on in a circle, then each mother is paying and being paid the same amount to raise a child (just not their own), and each child is being cared for. There is no economic benefit to this shuffling arrangement (in practice there would be downsides like taxes, but ignore all that), however GDP is increased by 5 times the cost to care for a child. But nothing is profited and nothing is lost, and the system cares for no more/fewer children. So while I'm no expert (I'm not a Marxist and I've barely read any Marx or other political economists in their source works), but from what I know, such a strong claim isn't justified, and it reads like a misunderstanding based on the use of "value", which Marx often though not always makes pains to disentangle from notions of exchange value, use value, sometimes ethical and intellectual value (of ideas, etc.), and probably more besides.

jdrc 4y ago

That is how he is seen in his country. He also tends to quote other people a lot in attempted osmosis . His views about ukraine is that basically they should surrender

atmosx 4y ago

> > [...] he was the only wise person in a room full of idiots [...] The goal of the "program" was to bring down the Greek national debt. Judging by the result, well, I'd say he nailed it :-) > But of course, "banks bad", that's what his audience wants to hear. I believe you're oversimplifying. But there are ppl less educated that can't express themselves so eloquently. The problem with the current banking system at least has been recently ELI5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r76KkcJaTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r76KkcJaTE (see Yelen's response, it's fine if you're the banker, less than ideal if you're a random tax payer).