5 ms·
that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that
by deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThen it sounds like a pretty dumb theory.
- deadfoxygrandpa 3y agohow much of a typical capitalist economy is based on the throwing gold into a volcano industry?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoHow would I know? I don't have insight into every bar of gold on Earth. For a practically possible scenario I think it definitely raises questions whenever a theory flat out ignores it.
- esarbe 3y agoIt's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. I doubt that there's any economic theory that spends any thought on this "practically possible scenario". But it's good that questions are raised. Raising questions is always good.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. Source? From my understanding that's by definition impossible for humans circa 2023.
- esarbe 3y agoIt's impossible for humans nowadays, but it is practically possible; one only needs enough delta v, which requires energy. There's certainly enough energy in existence to throw the Earth into the sun. Yes, obviously this is absurd. But I'm just extrapolating your argument to make an argument: It is silly to expect any economic theory to account for throwing the Earth into the sun. But its also silly to expect an economic theory to account for other absurd behavior, like throwing gold into a volcano. Every economic theory relies on simplified models of human behavior. Humans behaving irrational is not usually part of those models; the ways humans can behave irrationally is infinite - not useful for a model.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIs this written by a bot? If not, have you completely misunderstood how easily this can be accomplished? Raising an example that is not practically possible at all, by any dictionary definition of 'practical', such as moving the entire Earth into the Sun, and trying to confirm it meets that criteria by saying maybe in the very distant future it could be is just bizarre. The latter is literally dozens, if not hundreds, of orders of magnitude harder to accomplish than the former. So even in some incredibly distant future where that would become 'possible', it would still not be practical in any sense that HN readers of 2023 would understand it.
- esarbe 3y agoIt this written by a bot? If not, you have completely misunderstood the purpose of an argument reductio ad absurdum. The point is not whether is is currently practical of if it will be practical at some point. You are demanding that an economic theory makes sense of one particular, nonsensical human behavior. That demand is ridiculous; no economic theory tries to model irrational human behavior.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoA reductio ad absurdum argument does not apply here because I, nor anyone else here, has ever claimed that economic theories have to satisfy all potential possibilities arbitrarily far into the future. In fact no one in this comment chain has even raised the mention of it other than you. Have you completely lost track of the conversation? At best, it seems like an argument against the imagined thoughts made by yourself. You can review some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum