[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/b/ - Siberia

"We need an imageboard of action to fight for OC making posters."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1695811776645.jpg ( 9.38 KB , 194x259 , image_proxy.jpg )

 No.149856

i did an interesting experiment yesterday

it is based on this article :
https://www.tinygardenhabit.com/how-many-carrots-to-plant-per-person-planning-carrot-yields/

or rather the data from the article

i did just calcualtions on how many passive labor / investment / land you need to sustain yourself with absolute minimum

if you have other provided to you (that is here : land (with no taxes), some tools, and maybe other things)

and if you already have some capital maybe

and the result was rather interesting, you need about 33 buckets / or about 5.5x5.5 m land to sustain yourself in absolute minimum

thats just very rough estimate

and the investments cost is about 30 euro (for buckets)
and that rather paid once


i did not calculate the labour cost, because this is rather minimum labor but also i would rather do that in code (maybe in limited 2d version)


would be nice if you could simulate some retarded region with some land given to you (for free) to experiments
>>

 No.149858

to simulate it in 2d is not as simple as it sounds
>>

 No.149859

File: 1695812691406-0.txt ( 494 B , calc.txt )

File: 1695812691406-1.txt ( 431 B , calc_sim.txt )

when people are free / liberated they can build something other (maybe voluntarily)
>>

 No.149860

>>149859
im not sure about the diet btw, this is some carrot-socialism simulation / test
>>

 No.149861

i just needed carrots to simulate *something* in fact
>>

 No.149868

So you're saying instead of having 6 square meters of land to myself I am working 40 hours a week without the option to quit and grow my own food. That's depressing. If you grew carrots and I grew potatoes we'd just trade and have a better diet.
>>

 No.149881

This is, uh… one of the neat things about communes. You work for the results of your labor, not some abstract representation of a portion of it.
>>

 No.149882

File: 1695838696792.jpg ( 224.94 KB , 913x691 , lidl-carrots-3714592469.jpg )

>>149881
>This is, uh… one of the neat things about communes. You work for the results of your labor, not some abstract representation of a portion of it.
Nobody is stopping you from growing your own carrots. The reason people get jobs is because 1 hour on minimum wage is enough to go into a supermarket and buy more carrots than you could grow in a year by yourself. It's called division of labor, put down marx and try reading an actual economics book.
>>

 No.149884

>>149882
yeah but for that you need

a) job
b) currency / money

and that ends up in wageslavery

autarky is inferior (compared to marked) but you don't need those

the point is obviosuly not about carrots
https://www.notechmagazine.com/2020/04/self-sufficiency-defies-common-sense.html

you're not saying about full picture here

(yeah you can do that with money if you have capital (from an outside system) but thats not the point of simulation, also to earn money futher you then need to export something or produce something which will result in wageslavery or something like i mean working. ideally you just work in mcdonandls but in reality isnt not that easy. market 'economies' known to have significant downsides)
>>

 No.149885

>>149884
basically its just about christian / jewish adoration of 'work'
>>

 No.149886

File: 1695840083825.jpg ( 6.58 KB , 252x200 , image_proxy.jpg )

>>149884
not that easy (the simulation doesn't have currently public laudries)
water supply is also isn't provided (but you can just collect it from your roof like romans did)
>>

 No.149887

>>149884
ideal scenario is actually buying food for 20 years off you capitalist money and then you can like more or less free

but again that not something you really can simulate
>>

 No.149888

*live more or less free
>>

 No.149889

>>149884
>that ends up in wageslavery
Again, nobody is forcing you to work. People get jobs because it unlocks a higher standard of living than being unemployed and is easier than starting your own business.

>to earn money futher you then need to export something or produce something which will result in wageslavery or something like i mean working

This is some kind of brain virus that infects leftists, this idea that it should be possible to not work but still get all the benefits of working.

>market 'economies' known to have significant downsides

Please tell me more, person who has read so many books you can't even fucking spell.
>>

 No.149891

>>149886
>>149868

>Again, nobody is forcing you to work.


good to know
>>

 No.149892

>>149882
At a glance, it looks like I could buy about 4 lbs of carrots for an hour of minimum wage here. That's not bad, I don't think that's an entire year of carrot farming though. Certainly not an entire year's harvest on a commune - carrots don't take up a whole lot of space. What's your problem with communes, exactly? Have you ever labored for specific goals rather than wages? It hits differently.

Now if you subsidize communal agriculture at all, you do even better. Since American commercial agriculture is massively subsidized, I don't figure there's anything wrong with smaller communities opting to subsidize their own agriculture in order to produce large, affordable yields, no? If you're all about carrots, you couldn't do much better - why not try it, buddy?
>>

 No.149894

>>149889
>Again, nobody is forcing you to work.

There's a contradiction here, because ordinarily people are charged to live. This could be expected. The odd thing is that people are charged to live, and then depending on when and where they are born, jobs may simply not be available; in 2008 and 2009 there was just nothing for a lot of folks. Now those expenses of living stick around whether or not anyone gives you the time of day working "honest" jobs, and if you're on the bottom you've got to take whatever you can even as you keep losing what you've got left.

There's this idea that you aren't forced to work, but on the most basic level you (well, most people) are and you (almost all of you) always will be. Labor is a part of the human condition. What's strange is when the opportunity to labor is denied. What's strange is when economists tell you that there are certain levels of unemployment which are "desirable," and then the economy shits the bed and the baseline unemployment is kept so high to begin with that unemployment going up higher at all is a total disaster. What's strange is that when these economic disasters happen, it's land bubbles and corporate loan sharks causing it, and yet workers, more than speculators, are the most impacted by it.

There are folks who have ways to "not work but still get all the benefits of working," and they are called landlords, predatory lenders, etc. The left could never in a million years hope to wreck capitalism as regularly as capitalists do themselves.
>>

 No.149895

>>149892
>That's not bad, I don't think that's an entire year of carrot farming though
You're not growing more than 4lbs of carrots in your back garden. Buddy.

>Certainly not an entire year's harvest on a commune

Such sloppy thinking. Why are you comparing one hour of salaried work to an entire commune? Multiple the number of people in your commune by the minimum wage rate and then divide that by the price of carrots in the supermarket.

>What's your problem with communes, exactly?

Nothing, I said you are free to do it. The implication that you will gain more resources from being part of a commune >>149881 is objectively false though.
>>

 No.149898

>>149894
>There's a contradiction here, because ordinarily people are charged to live. This could be expected.
I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that even if you were alone on a desert island with no evil capitalism you would still need to do some kind of work to keep yourself alive.

>jobs may simply not be available

And yet people don't starve on the street. They might live on the street, but they don't starve. Just because you prefer to have a higher standard of living than a tramp doesn't mean you are forced to work. Having a preference is not the same thing as slavery.

>There are folks who have ways to "not work but still get all the benefits of working," and they are called landlords, predatory lenders

You need to elaborate here. Do you need me to explain why people pay money to rent a thing that they don't necessarily want to own permanently? Or do you think there is some magical difference when it comes to renting houses and money?
>>

 No.149899

File: 1695846669296-1.jpg ( 473.79 KB , 1504x2015 , advertise here.jpg )

File: 1695846669296-2.png ( 1.2 MB , 1246x726 , 150000 dream house.png )

>>149895
>You're not growing more than 4lbs of carrots in your back garden. Buddy.

I don't have a back garden, so it's a moot point. If I did, it wouldn't actually take much space to grow that many carrots.

>Such sloppy thinking.


No it's not. I brought up communal labor - why wouldn't I think of farming in those terms? It's more efficient than growing carrots "in my back garden."

>Multiple the number of people in your commune by the minimum wage rate and then divide that by the price of carrots in the supermarket.


That would be about 45 lbs of carrots. With about 300 sq feet you could grow twice that. Subsidize that carrot harvest, increase the amount of land, and you're swimming in carrots, and you can sell your carrot surplus decently cheap with that farm aid coming in and you don't have to worry about anybody else taking a cut of the profits.

>Nothing, I said you are free to do it. The implication that you will gain more resources from being part of a commune >>149881 is objectively false though.


Even if you didn't gain more resources (which it seems you would, actually), >>149881 was referring simply to access to the fruits of one's own labor. If you haven't had that, you won't understand what I mean; I'm not kidding. In most of society, labor is middle-managed, people are shut out, they're subjected to hierarchies based mostly around little despots rather than the ability or need to produce necessary things. Achievement of a goal, completion of a task, because reduced to an abstract measure of how a specific individual will determine that task's value subjectively. To grow a carrot crop and harvest it and reap the benefit directly in the form of carrots is something fundamentally enlightening. There is a veil over much of labor, and in this sort of task that veil is removed. This is what I was referring to, although it is also interesting to know that this process is also more rewarding in terms of pure yield, too.

>>149898
>I'm sure you are smart enough to realize that even if you were alone on a desert island with no evil capitalism you would still need to do some kind of work to keep yourself alive.

I said that in the next paragraph, yes. ;P

>And yet people don't starve on the street.


This is an incredibly naive statement.
Firstly… yeah, they do. Secondly, a lot of food insecurity isn't even on the street level - homelessness in a major city tends to go better food-wise than destitution in (often less urban) homes does, because keeping a roof over your head costs money. If you don't have access to cheap food or charity and you have to pay rent, tightening your belt means tightening your belt. Even if the urban homeless tend to have access to pantries, the consequences of being homeless are severe. It's strange that shelter, a resource which humans have evolved around seeking for thousands of years, is so undervalued in your mind.

>You need to elaborate here.


Land speculation is an investment against labor, and against commerce. By buying up land as a speculative asset, the overall supply of land, a fixed resource, is reduced. Since land supply is constantly going down even before speculation, and speculative buying/holding of land accelerates the speed at which available supply is reduced, land speculation is a popular way to secure capital over time without actually producing anything or doing any kind of productive labor or investment. Because idle, speculative landholding increases scarcity, it makes the cost of housing go up faster over time.

This applies across all sectors. Landlords not only profit from the ownership of others' homes, but also from the ownership of others' businesses. The cut they take from commerce is a major blow, and the only reason capitalists go along with it is the assurance that those capitalists can reinvest their own capital in land once they've made enough profits on actual businesses which offer goods and services created through labor.

Mortgages, being often incredibly high under these conditions, are functionally not so unlike rent collection. The inflated price of land enables banks to offer these massive long-term loans, because there would be little other option for most workers. The homeowner can live for decades in the home they own, paying both the state whose laws protect their right to the land, and the bank for whom the state protects the right to extract the land from out under the homeowners' feet should they miss a few mortgage payments. Don't you think that's a little bit funny?

Now, it's funnier still when these conditions all align just perfectly to absolutely wreck the economy because living without incurring these insane debts simply isn't viable for so many people. We have so many empty buildings, but at the same time we have around half a million homeless (might be an optimistic estimate, though they do die a lot so maybe not), we have around 11 million unemployed. We have all these resources, and yet things are aligned so that having all of these resources drags us down. I'm not saying it couldn't be worse, but it could absolutely be better. Maybe landlords ought to work for a living like everybody else.
>>

 No.149900

>>149856
Loli name?
>>

 No.149901

>>149899
>Achievement of a goal, completion of a task, *becomes
I really should proofread my stuff. xDDD
There could be some more malaprops in there.
>>

 No.149902

>>149898
>Just because you prefer to have a higher standard of living than a tramp doesn't mean you are forced to work.
Many western marxists come from privileged middle class families and resent the fact that they suddenly have to work after graduating university when before daddy used to pay for everything. Jeremy Corbyn is a famous example.
>>

 No.149903

>>149902
You're singling out Jeremy Corbyn as privileged when he comes from a country where Lord is still a recognized political class?
>>

 No.149905

>>149900
>b-but loli is just 2D its not really pedophilia!!
Pedos tell on themselves once again
>>

 No.149907

>>149899
>With about 300 sq feet you could grow twice that. Subsidize that carrot harvest, increase the amount of land, and you're swimming in carrots
You're assuming land is free. When I talked about getting a minimum wage job that's called the opportunity cost in economics. Every hour you spend farming carrots in a commune is an hour you didn't spend working this other hypothetical job. If it turns out you would have earned more from the job then you are wasting resources by doing the commune thing. Opportunity cost applies to all capital including land. So if you want to be rigorous about it then you also have to factor in the price of the land your commune is using and see how many carrots that would get you at costco.

>To grow a carrot crop and harvest it and reap the benefit directly in the form of carrots is something fundamentally enlightening.

It is possible to value things other than money. That's fine.

>It's strange that shelter, a resource which humans have evolved around seeking for thousands of years, is so undervalued in your mind.

You didn't address the point that preferring to live in an apartment than a cardboard box doesn't make you a slave. It just makes you a person with a preference.

>Land speculation is an investment against labor, and against commerce.

Why are you switching topic. You specifically said landlords and usurers.

>land speculation is a popular way to secure capital over time without actually producing anything or doing any kind of productive labor or investment

Since you just learned about opportunity cost I guess we can cover speculators quickly. The service they provide is keeping resources available for the most productive potential user. Instead of selling land cheaply to a bunch hippies growing carrots a speculator will hold onto it until somebody with higher economic potential arrives and is willing to pay more for it. Since there is no guarantee that a better buyer will come along they are also taking on an amount of risk that others would pay to not hold themselves. For example a startup plans to scale up into a bigger factor next year. Letting the speculator hold onto the property and then buying it for a higher price next year may be preferable to buying the property now, paying all the costs of maintaining it while it's not in use and then scrambling to sell it at a loss when it turns out they don't need it after all. For a fee the speculator is taking on all that responsibility and risk for them.

It's kind of hard to explain these concepts to marxists because without an appreciation for risk and time preference you have a very 1-dimensional view of economics.

>Landlords not only profit from the ownership of others' homes

Landlords swallow the opportunity cost of tying up a massive amount of capital in a house they can't use and take on the expense and risk of maintaining it. When you boiler breaks you call the landlord and he is the one who pays $10,000 to fix it. When you feel like moving to another town you just move out and stop paying rent, it's the landlord who is stuck with the mortgage. This transferal of risk and responsibility to the landlord is what you pay rent for.

>Mortgages, being often incredibly high under these conditions, are functionally not so unlike rent collection.

Mortgages are complicated by the fact that the money doesn't exist the bank literally prints it out of thin air and gives it to the seller, which devalues the currency and means the next buyer needs even more money to buy the same house, leading to a runaway chainreaction of endless inflation. Houses are also overvalued because of laws preventing more houses being built, zoning laws in america and the labour party's land inheritance taxes in the UK for example.

In principle there is no difference between lending a dvd or a car or a house or a quantity of money. A person has capital locked into a thing they are not using right now so you give you exclusive right to use it for a limited period of time in exchange for a fee. In the case of usury the fact that the thing being lent and the fee happen to be the same thing is something national socialists struggle to get their heads around. But you're smarter than nazis I hope.

>Now, it's funnier still when these conditions all align just perfectly to absolutely wreck the economy

The economy is wrecked because the government forces us to use paper money that a cartel of bankers have monopoly control over. Everything else is just a knockon effect of that. The 1% are the 1% because they siphon wealth through inflating the currency. If you're getting your panties in a twist over landlords then you should be going nuclear on bankers.
>>

 No.149908

>>149907
>This transferal of risk and responsibility to the landlord is what you pay rent for.
This is an important point for lefties to understand.

The alternative to renting is not that a house magically falls out of the sky for you and you live happily ever after.

The alternative to renting is that you lock up a significant portion of your money into a house, when things break you have to do work to fix them, when big things break you need to pay a professional to fix them, if you want to move away you need to find somebody to buy your house first before you have money to buy a house in the new town. Also a fire or flood could destroy the whole house and everything you've invested into it.
>>

 No.149909

>>149903
>You're singling out Jeremy Corbyn as privileged when he comes from a country where Lord is still a recognized political class?
This is the marxist archtype
>middle class family
>average or higher intelligence
>goes to university
>didn't take it seriously
>fails to get a "real" job
>feels that a working class job is beneath them
>stays unemployed and rages about how capitalism has failed
That's not only Marx/Engels/Corbyn but people I know from university as well.
>>

 No.149910

>>149907
>You're assuming land is free.
No I'm not. ;P

>When I talked about getting a minimum wage job that's called the opportunity cost in economics. Every hour you spend farming carrots in a commune is an hour you didn't spend working this other hypothetical job.


And every hour you spend beating the pavement in the hopes of getting a minimum wage job during a period of economic stagnation is time you didn't spend harvesting carrots, isn't it?

>Opportunity cost applies to all capital including land.


Land isn't really capital, though. Land is land. Nobody creates it, everyone relies upon it. I'm aware that there are some schools of thought which include every asset as "capital," but in my view that's very misleading.

>So if you want to be rigorous about it then you also have to factor in the price of the land your commune is using and see how many carrots that would get you at costco.


The carrots you buy at Costco are harvested with massive farm subsidies.

>You didn't address the point that preferring to live in an apartment than a cardboard box doesn't make you a slave. It just makes you a person with a preference.

Because it's not a point worth addressing. You're being obtuse about the necessity of shelter. People don't live under bridges because of pure preference, they do it because when they break into the buildings nearby which sit vacant in cities for decades, they are typically kicked out. If you disagree on this, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

>Why are you switching topic. You specifically said landlords and usurers.


I haven't switched topics. It's literally the same thing. Classically, "landlord" and "land speculator" are frequently synonymous.

>It's kind of hard to explain these concepts to marxists because without an appreciation for risk and time preference you have a very 1-dimensional view of economics.


You think I'm 1 dimensional? You're not even talking to a Marxist. Your conception of this stuff is so naive that you're just assuming that you're speaking to some token idea of what you think a leftist is.

It's weird the amount of authority you seem convinced that you're wielding just on account of having attended the same middle school economics classes as everyone else, but having never attended a business class. It's a refreshing optimism, I guess, but we differ on whether or not it's entirely reasonable.

>Landlords swallow the opportunity cost of tying up a massive amount of capital in a house they can't use and take on the expense and risk of maintaining it.

And again here! This is just flatly wrong. Are you from a country where this is true? Landlords here don't reliably behave this way, but they do reap the benefits of charging rent all the same.

>Mortgages are complicated by the fact that the money doesn't exist the bank literally prints it out of thin air and gives it to the seller, which devalues the currency and means the next buyer needs even more money to buy the same house, leading to a runaway chainreaction of endless inflation. Houses are also overvalued because of laws preventing more houses being built, zoning laws in america and the labour party's land inheritance taxes in the UK for example.

America's zoning laws aren't enough to prevent our accruing surplus of homes. We keep building, we have plenty of vacancies, and yet homelessness persists and home ownership falls. The market stagnates because of runaway land speculation, which also prevents building on lots which are held. When new residential buildings are built, they're often "luxury" buildings, even in areas where housing is a problem already. You end up increasing the amount of available units without affecting the cost at all, despite incredibly generous land deals granted to developers by local government. Zoning can be a problem, but it isn't anywhere near our biggest one.

>The economy is wrecked because the government forces us to use paper money that a cartel of bankers have monopoly control over.

Irreconcilable differences at play here. ;P

>>149909
As opposed to the UK's more conservative political archetype of… hereditary heir to aristocratic titles held over from feudalism.
>>

 No.150353

bump
>>

 No.150356

Communist try not envision the most wrenched possible way to live challenge
>Difficulty level: impossible
>>

 No.150702

>>149908
bruh. this is one of the many things lefties discuss.


Also with landlords is that they want to give you so little for such a large price.


Also fores amd floods can affect rented places amd peoppe end up with no insurance coverage and/or they end up having to pay for repairs.
>>

 No.152025

>>149886
Dont forget about Billy Mays at a concession stand selling OxyClean.

Unique IPs: 19

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome