Thanks. Since only producers can now award points, I will not be able to reciprocate.

Oh, is that the salient criterion? ;-)

Yeah, but I said it using more words than you did. :P

Yes, I think that's what I said.

I'm glad I'm reading it, too. It's an excellent book, and has helped me to form a much more grounded understanding of economics than I otherwise would have had. I'm actually not done with it yet, but I agree with nearly everything I've read so far.

Perhaps the only point Mises has made that I disagree with is his claim that the women's suffrage movement wasn't really important, and that it didn't matter whether women obtained the right to vote. I'm a big advocate for civil rights issues myself, so that particular point of his didn't appeal to me at all. But it was merely a periphery statement, an irrelevant opinion he happened to throw in on the side, and wasn't a foundational principle for anything else he said, so it can easily be ignored. The rest of the book is amazing.

Oh yeah, I completely agree. One of the primary misconceptions which I think underlies Marxist economic theory is the misguided belief that labor, in and of itself, has some measurable amount of intrinsic and inherent value, when in reality labor itself has no value except what someone else is willing to trade for it. In fact, essentially every commodity, every product, and every service has no value except what people are willing to pay for it. The price of anything is determined by the free market. I've worked a few sales jobs in the past, and I noticed that regardless of what they're selling, they all typically teach their sales reps the value of products with the following question:

Q: What is any product actually worth?
A: Whatever people are willing to pay for it.

The economic worth of anything is and always will be subjective and open to personal interpretation based on the preferences and values of each individual who decides what they want to trade in exchange for whatever it is they want to obtain. There can be no absolute scientific value attached to it, and any attempts to do so are bound to end in failure. Some companies use this knowledge to their advantage by encouraging their sales reps to sell products at marked up prices for no other reason than because they can. If the sales rep is able to build enough value in the product to successfully persuade the potential customer that the product is indeed worth as much as s/he claims, then the sales rep and the company both generate more revenue for themselves simply through effectively leveraging the art of persuasion. And really, who's to say they're wrong? If the value of any product is never anything except the price which the buyer and the seller mutually agreed upon, then there is no deception. They both agreed on a particular price, and so the product was exchanged at that rate. That's how a free market economy works, and any attempt to interfere in that natural and dynamic process will only hinder and impede economic development.

Consider the following quote from Frederick Engels, as he struggles to understand this simple concept:

---------------------------
"How is the value of “labour” determined? By the necessary labour embodied in it. But how much labour is embodied in the labour of a labourer of a day a week, a month, a year. If labour is the measure of all values, we can express the “value of labour” only in labour. But we know absolutely nothing about the value of an hour’s labour, if all that we know about it is that it is equal to one hour’s labour. So, thereby, we have not advanced one hair’s breadth nearer our goal; we are constantly turning about in a circle."

"Introduction to Karl Marx’s Wage Labour and Capital," by Frederick Engels
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx//w...
---------------------------

As you can see, the erroneous belief that labor has an inherent value only leads Communists into an endless circle of confusion and logical frustration. Just read through Frederick Engels' introduction to Karl Marx’s "Wage Labour" above to see how Engels struggles in vain to attach an objective sum to a subjective value. Even if you have only a basic understanding of economics, the ridiculous statements that Engels makes regarding the supposed value of labor are just flat out laughable. Thinking about it kind of makes me wonder whether things would have turned out differently had Marx and Engels simply understood the fact that all values are inherently subjective.

That was this particular situation with Yahoo. It has been documented that others (NSA perhaps) can remotely turn on a camera surreptitiously and record whatever they want.

And it is fallacious to look at one hour of labor in crafting a nail to be the same value as one hour of labor creating a poem, and the same value as one hour of labor used to mine an ounce of gold, and the same value as one hour of labor to make a circuit board.

Value is only determined by what another is willing to trade for it. It cares not one whit the amount of labor that went into creating it. That's one reason that I get a big laugh out of watching "Pawn Stars." So many people think that what they paid for something is its value.

Plus, it can be used intentionally as a political weapon. Since the gov't has "unlimited fund" a vindictive politician with support by the judiciary, can string out a false accusation and put you in the poor house.

Yes, Mises pointed out the absurdity of the Marxist claim that only physical labor should generate income. In reality, the most challenging and financially rewarding forms of labor actually require little or no physical exertion at all, for they are the labors of the mind.

The labor theory of value is bogus. Glad you actually read the von Mises book.

Oh, yeah, I'm still in school. I've probably got about four more semesters left until I get my bachelor's degree. (I'm 27, by the way.)

But yes, there is a Communist/Socialist club at my university, and the meeting was indeed on campus. They call themselves the Revolutionary Students Union (RSU), and I've gone to a few of their meetings just to see what they talk about. See, a few years ago I decided I needed to learn about the economic theories behind Communism and Socialism, as Socialism has been becoming a topic of public discussion more and more frequently, and I realized I had no idea at all what it actually was. But I want to obtain a truly thorough and deep understanding of this subject, which means I have to research both sides, both for and against. That's just what I do when I want to know the truth of something – I research everything I can on both sides.

Plus I gotta keep tabs on the group, ya know? Now that I've begun to develop a more acute awareness, the fact that such a club even exists at the school, and that it can do so openly, is something I find deeply unsettling. So I attend their meetings just so I can stay in the loop about anything they decide to plan in my local area. Though I usually don't participate in any of the discussions, and instead mostly just observe. Honestly, if I did participate in the discussions, the meetings would probably all degenerate into massive arguments with them all ganging up on me since I usually don't agree with most of what they say, and they'd probably stop letting me come. So for the most part, I just keep my mouth shut and listen as they discuss things among themselves.

The first time I went to one of their meetings, I brought along my copy of Ludwig von Mises' book, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," and just set it on the table in front of me. One of the other guys there happened to notice it, and looking at me, he asked the question (with a tone of mild accusation), "Are you a Libertarian?" to which I just smiled coyly and said, "Maybe..."

At the most recent meeting, they had a guest speaker by the name of Dr. Steve Emerman, a Jewish Communist who had ties to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa during the 1960s. I wasn't able to stay for his entire presentation, unfortunately, but it was very interesting to listen to, as South African history is a subject which, as far as I'm aware, isn't really ever taught as part of the standard curriculum in any American schools. One thing Dr. Emerman mentioned that I found fascinating was how the Nationalist Party, which ran the South African government at that time, would frequently raid the homes of known Communists to arrest them and destroy their literature, even if that literature had nothing to do with Communism. For example, he told us about how he had managed to obtain a copy of a textbook about geology which had a bullet hole through the front cover, the shot piercing halfway through the book. The textbook had belonged to an influential and high-ranking member of the Communist party in South Africa, and the state troopers who raided his house had shot the textbook under orders from the Nationalist government to destroy all Communist literature (the fact that geology has nothing to do with Communism was apparently irrelevant). It was a very interesting lecture, and I regret not being able to stay for the whole thing.

A couple meetings ago the RSU group discussed Adam Smith's famous work, "The Wealth of Nations," and compared it to Karl Marx's infamous "Capital," (being Communists, they're obviously going to compare everything to Karl Marx). Now Adam Smith is frequently called the Father of Capitalism (even though the word 'capitalism' didn't exist in Adam Smith's day, and he never uses the term). Yet in the course of their discussion, they mentioned how there were, at least in their opinion, many similarities between the economic theories of Adam Smith and those of Karl Marx. Specifically, they talked about the "Labor theory of value," and how many of Adam Smith's discussion of the subject seemed almost blatantly Marxist. For example, they quoted a particular passage from Adam Smith where he explains how labor is the exchangeable value of all commodities:

---------------------------
"The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities."
~ From "Wealth of Nations," by Adam Smith, Book 1, chapter V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theor...
---------------------------

I can't remember if this was the exact passage they quoted at the meeting, but if not, it is very similar to the one they quoted. After the guy who was reading the quote finished, one of the other members made a remark, saying, "That's Marxist as shit," which everybody smirked at, including myself. I mean, you do gotta admit, that does sound pretty Marxist, which is ironic, considering it was written by Adam Smith, the man posthumously dubbed as "The Father of Capitalism." To me, this demonstrates how we can't automatically dismiss an idea simply because it happens to be purported by Communists. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I've only read a very small amount of Karl Marx's writings myself, but from the tiny bit I have read, the conclusion I've had to come to is that he makes many accurate and true observations about human nature and modern economics, but then proposes unworkable and impossible solutions to "fix" what he thinks are problems with the current system (sort of the opposite of Ayn Rand, who makes many inaccurate observations and false assertions about human nature, but nevertheless often arrives at correct conclusions about economics). For example, consider the following passage from one of Karl Marx's books:

---------------------------
"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls."
~ From "Wage Labour and Capital," by Karl Marx, Chapter 6: Relation of Wage-Labour to Capital
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx//w...
---------------------------

Now on the one hand, what Karl Marx says in that passage is definitely a true observation about human nature: that men will always be jealous of those who have greater material wealth than themselves. Even Ludwig von Mises admits that jealousy of the rich is everywhere present, but hidden, and that anyone who criticizes the rich is bound to have widespread and popular appeal among the more financially impoverished classes of society (which probably explains why Communism continues to have such enduring appeal). However, the problem with Karl Marx is not his observation, but rather his proposed "solution" to the problem. Karl Marx says that in order to appease the natural jealousy of men, we ought to redistribute all wealth so that everyone has an equal amount of it. After all, if everyone has the same amount of material wealth, then jealousy will become impossible, and everyone will be satisfied. However, Karl Marx's solution is impossible to implement, as it defies many aspects of human nature, mainly the desire to progress, to achieve, and also to keep the product of one's own labor. Not to mention the fact that many people often become lazy if they believe someone else is going to provide for them.

Ludwig von Mises, in contrast, says that the correct solution to this problem is actually for people to stop being envious, to curb their natural jealousy, to be thankful for what they have, and if they truly desire to obtain greater wealth, to work to achieve it through honest means, rather than trying to plunder the wealth of others. Ludwig von Mises was an atheist, but I found it rather surprising how closely many the things he said aligned with traditional Christian teachings.

This is how I reached the conclusion that much of Karl Marx's writings are a collection of accurate observations followed by impractical "solutions" to change the system, when really the thing that needs to change is not the system, but the attitude of the people. As Robert Kiyosaki points out in the book, "Why We Want You to Be Rich," which he co-authored with Donald Trump, too many people today have an entitlement mentality. They think they deserve something for nothing. This also explains why Karl Marx's theories refuse to die, and why people keep being drawn to his writing.

Marx persists because his theories feed directly into that natural jealousy and entitlement mentality which is so pervasive. And worse yet, many of the things he writes also often have a partial degree of truth to them. But this is precisely the characteristic of his writings which makes them so dangerous, for the most dangerous lies are the ones that are partially true, as such lies are far more convincing, and thus significantly more effective in achieving deception, than they otherwise would have been had they been comprised entirely of pure fantasy.

Anyway, I guess I've probably given you more information than you really wanted to know