How to migrate:
Go to account.mojang.com/migrate
Put in the details (user : email : pass)
Add birthday and your own email
Click "Migrate"
Check your email and click the link from mojang
Done!
(base) leijurvs-MacBook-Pro:gopro shit leijurv$ du -sh *
29G gopro day 1
22G gopro day 2
25G gopro day 3
28G gopro day 4
25G gopro day 5
17G gopro day 6
(base) leijurvs-MacBook-Pro:gopro shit leijurv$
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/566749523666534402/809816739973169152/image0.jpg
u look so dirrentn
scientists are still trying to decypher what this could possibly meanThe labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
The LTV is usually associated with Marxian economics, although it also appears in the theories of earlier classical economics such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo and later also in anarchist economics. Smith saw the price of a commodity in terms of the labor that the purchaser must expend to buy it, which embodies the concept of how much labor a commodity, a tool for example, can save the purchaser. The LTV is central to Marxist theory, which holds that the working class is exploited under capitalism, and dissociates price and value. However, Marx did not refer to his own theory of value as a "labour theory of value".
> David Steele argues that Marx gives no good reason why labor should have a "privileged position in the determination of prices", when any other input could be used - machines, paper or even capital itself. Steele notes that commodities almost never have equal quantities of labor and that Marx's argument rests upon the assumption that when commodities are exchanged, they must have "something" in common and that something can be nothing but labor.
Since Marx argued that skilled labor was simply "condensed" labor, he has been accused of circular reasoning, as he resolves the issue of the value of skilled labor in the labor theory of value by assuming the labor theory of value is true so that skilled labor is judged by its exchange-value.[36][37][38][39] It has been argued that Marx's effort to distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor was incoherent, as all labor ultimately required some degree of skill - true unskilled labor would only be possible with mindless automatons as workers still need to think in order to produce. This means it is not possible to reduce skilled labor to unskilled labor (and thus determine the number of unskilled labor hours) because all labor is skilled, meaning that value cannot be determined just by counting labor hours.[40] Furthermore, Marx asserted that skilled labor is allegedly more productive than unskilled labor, yet this explanation is both circular and incomplete. It is circular because productivity can only be compared by using wage and price differences, the very thing the labor theory of value is supposed to explain.
It is incomplete because Marx does not explain why the additional value-creating power of skilled labor should necessarily be related to the labor cost of skill acquisition. While one suggested solution is that the skilled labor transfers its production time to the commodity it produces, this solution means that it is not the total number of hours of skill creation that matter but only those that the worker or their employer end up paying for, when in reality economics and politics are never separate, thus rendering the equilibrium assumptions behind the theory untenable. Much training is provided by the government, community and house for free. In addition, the economy is almost never at a fully competitive equilibrium, so there is no guarantee that the education and training will be transacted for at their value. Lastly, it is unclear what should be used as measure of unskilled labor (the unskilled labor of a school graduate, a peasant, a hunter-gatherer etc.) by which to measure skilled labor.[41]
The 'value' that Marxists claim that labour produces, is not "personal preference" or "liking" or other inherent subjective forms of values. Rather, it is what Marxists call exchange-value, which they define as the value of a commodity for exchange with other commodities, which is essentially the market price of a commodity that ends up being paid by a buyer. This value, of price, is objective and quantifiable, thus measurable, because everyone can see the same numbers listed on the price tag.
"[t]he function of gold as coin becomes completely independent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things that are relatively without value, such as paper notes, can serve as coins in its place"
No...? It is the seller who sets the price in a way that maximizes profit, which relies on the amount of buyers who could afford it (to satisfy the exchange-value) and want it (to satisfy the use-value). You as a buyer on the market dont directly influence the price, but indirectly, as it is ultimately the seller who owns the commodity and thus controls the price.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in capital and financial markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7]
A real estate investment trust is a company that owns, and in most cases operates, income-producing real estate. REITs own many types of commercial real estate, ranging from office and apartment buildings to warehouses, hospitals, shopping centers, hotels and commercial forests. Wikipedia
In public-choice theory, as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2] and potential national decline.
you both like SOCIALISM