76 comments as of now. This will be good

It engenders the opposite if sympathy

I’m stupid. I completely forgot that the worlders have enforced an authoritarian tankie censorship regime 😔

From a basic labor theory of value perspective, bitcoin requires labor to produce because mining it requires massive amounts of compute power. This computer power is supplied using GPUs and electricity, both of which require labor to produce.

If you use this calculator, and enter the values 67 TH/s (tera hashes per second, the rate at which you are mining), 2680 watts for electricity consumption rate, and 5 cents per kilo watt hour as prices, you will see

4.25 USD revenue per day 3.22 USD cost per day Profit rate = 32.0%

To make the values of the the hash rate and energy consumption rate realistic, I consulted the specs of the machine antminer S17, which is aparantly a machine used in the bitcoin mining world (I ain’t into crypto mining). The cost of electricty comes from Kazakhstan, which has cheap electricty and substantial mining operations.

So basically, at the current price of bitcoin can support a gross profit rate of 32% for the people who produce bitcoin, assuming you keep all the profit (no taxes, interest, rent), have no employees or maintainable costs. This is the price currently settled at based on the technological conditions and level of competition.

It is nothing too crazy of a price, and the rapid growth of price in bitcoin is due to how the currency was designed. Basically, once a certain number of bitcoin have been mined, the bitcoin generation rate per mined block halves. This forces an exponential rise in the difficulty of mining bitcoin, and therefore an exponential rise in its price.

Most probably, if bitcoin was designed to have a constant difficulty of producing, its price wouldn’t have increased at all.

I’ll bite. This is a genuinely new take I haven’t seen before, despite 3 years of the war. Would you mind explaining how exactly Russia is an American minion?

More goofy you mean

I see how I have miscommunicated. I never meant that labor-power is literally power in the physics sense in my original post (that got me banned). I only meant that the relationship between labor-power and labor is analogous to the difference between the horse-power of an engine and the energy it outputs. Labor-power is the capacity to do labor at some rate.

Is that still a bad analogy though? Perhaps since labor is social, the labor-power of a single individual might not be well defined

Labor power isn’t using “power” in that sense.

Just as power is the ability to transfer/transform energy per unit time, I was using labor-power in the sense of being able to produce labor per unit time.

In fact, the engine is what increased human labor power in the industrial revolution, because humans could use them for physical power instead of their own bodies or horses or windmills or water wheels.

This seems confusing to me, since increasing the amount of labor-power implies a greater ability to generate surplus value/profit, and yet the increases in productivity of production cause the rate of profit to fall. From chapter 8 of capital:

Let us assume, that some invention enables the spinner to spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin before in 36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it was, for the purposes of useful production. The product of 6 hours’ work has increased six-fold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. But now the 36 lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of labour as formerly did the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new labour is absorbed by each pound of cotton, and consequently, the value added by the labour to each pound is only one-sixth of what it formerly was.

Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.

That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.

These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).

In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)

Oh wow, I actually remember this guy from like 8 years ago. Mf argued for a 3% tax rate and that “the” government hadn’t done anything useful since 1776 (aparantly forgetting that other countries exist). Glad yo see he is still just as stupid (and a CEO).

It wasn’t a pizza-loving, but pizza-hating diplomat. Basically, one of us had contact with a dprk diplomat, someone asked them what food they ate, and the diplomat answered that he doesn’t like pizza (likely due to lactose intolerance).

deleted by creator

How do “progressive” radlibs find themselves in spaces like NCD where they’re making light of genocide, ironically, while the dude next to them is doing it straight faced?

I don’t know honestly. I remember that pro-war libs basically radicalised me out of liberalism. Watching young radlibs stand side by side with well off neolibs is genuinely disheartening. The elderly libs are burning away the younger libs’ futures as if they were firewood.

Oh no, the neoliberal subreddit is a special layer of hell. Many of the other subs at least pretend to have shame, or have to be astroturfed into being lib-fash. The neolib sub is the authentic product of which the other subs are mere counterfeits.

The neolibs have implemented an apartheid system where vibes are first class citizens and logics are second class citizens.

I’d say it was FBI/CIA propaganda but honestly they ARE contrarian to such a stupid degree

I don’t think they are even contrairian. The dem base is split between radlibs and neolibs, and each camp does have some internal coherence, but both camps have the complete opposite view from each other (pro-war vs anti-war, pro-market vs anti-markets, pro-state vs anti-state).

Depending on what part of the base you are talking to, that meme might be entirely ironic or unironic.

Except it is since Chinese companies take US tech and flood the market with cheaper shittier versions.

Fixed it for you. The west barely even makes industrial products. At best western companies assembles parts ordered from China, or designs them but has them produced in china (obviously the factory manufacturing your designs will find out what the design is!)

On top of that, in many cases, western companies in china are literally signing explicit technology transfer contracts to work in china.

Even when the Chinese steal western designs (a fear that is completely overblown and mostly just corporate propaganda against market competitors), that is actually a good thing because IP is a plague upon humanity.

Even Intel had a bunch of there stuff stolen.

That’s good news.

Not something worth respecting in the first place

Amazing to see people in 2025 who still believe in this nonsense.

structural issues like command and control policies

Planned economics is precisely the reason why China has grown faster than India and become so dominant. Because they can control their economy for long-term human needs instead of putting everything into finance like the west.

the dictator

Anyone who still thinks Xi is a dictator despite the very strong collective and decentralised governance of China doesn’t know enough about the country to pass an elementary school civics test.

The whole reason the property market bubble happened was because the Chinese government is way too decentralised. Local governments bet all in on property values as a way to boost tax revenue (land taxes are their main source of income). The central government should have stepped in way sooner, but that would have required centralising the Chinese tax base significantly, a tough thing to do because it would also require centralising public services. Not only would that require buy in from the vast number of local representatives and the national people’s congress, but it would have also interfered with the poverty alleviation campaign.

an economy built on unnecessary public spending

Pure neoliberal cope. I hope you are enjoying your deindustrialised austerity economy.

an educational system which continues to emphasise blind obedience over individualism

This is hilarious coming from westerners who have naught an original thought, only memes.