maybe you mean you think he got something subtle wrong .... he did in general broadly understand economics quite well, he's one of the most famous economists in history .. his analysis of economics is one of the most important events in history
Post by twetch#3375
No, he was just a con artist who knew almost nothing.
What the chain says
- Block
- 617 679
- Time
- 2020-01-14T23:57:23Z
- Signer
- 1JLButMZPU7xu2PUBPxekTcpJKPzZuaTuZ
- App
- twetch
- Type
- reply
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#3375
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1JLButMZPU7xu2PUBPxekTcpJKPzZuaTuZ VerifiedReplies (17)
i've seen a lot of your videos and i know that you consider yourself a rational person .. this seems out of character for you .. what Marx did you read? it seemed reasonable enough to me when i read it, and certainly i wouldn't say he "knew almost nothing"
Marx believed that profits earned by entrepreneurs do not correspond to anything valuable that they contribute to production and that only the labor and resources that go into production are valuable. He believed that ultimately all value was due to labor.
if entrepreneurs input helpful economic decisions, that's labor, that's part of the labor that's the entire value, it's when capital owners literally don't do anything that they're not laboring not when they do something constructive ... did you read Marx?
No, entrepreneurship is planning, not labor. Yes, I have read Marx.
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.