PART 1: The Labor Theory of Value; Thesis

Mutualism Co-op Note: The following is the first transcript of a three part YouTube video series on Value Theory, created by @tak_kakYT Part One explores the the Labor Theory of Value, Part Two reviews the Subjective Theory of Value as compared to the LTV, and Part Three will cover Mutualist and Individualist insights on the topic. Subscribe to Hades’ YouTube channel here.

Section I – Introduction

How are things valued? How can we explain why things are priced the way they are? These questions are what have given birth to Theories of Value. Theories of Value have become one of the most contentious and frustrating topics in the innumerable debates between Capitalism and Socialism. It is so divisive, that it has even been used by many to mark the divide between Capitalists from the Socialists all together. In this analysis we will primarily look at variations of the Labor Theory of Value produced from Classical Economics and the Subjective Theory of Value produced by the Austrian School of Economics. The former being supported by most Socialists, and the latter being supported by most Capitalists. We will analyze and critically compare these two Theories of Value to see what they have to offer, find insofar they agree, wherein they differ, and the arguments for and against both. Upon close examination of both, I want to find the strengths and weaknesses of them, and perhaps, we can reach some sort of synthesis or reconciliation. This analysis will be from both an Anarchist and a Socialist perspective. With that, in the making and researching of this analysis I have tried to keep an open mind to both Theories as if I had not known either before reading. It should be known that I have certain values and political ideals that influence the kind of explanatory power I think is important in a Theory of Value, but that will become explicit as we outline these theories, their differences, and a synthesis more clearly.

Section II – The Labor Theory of Value

§1 – Overview

So, what is the Labor Theory of Value? It is important to first point out that there is not one sole Labor Theory of Value, but numerous descriptions of Value basing themselves on labor and/or cost. Nevertheless, at its most fundamental, a Labor Theory of Value is an attempt to explain the general tendency of the prices of commodities, and that key to understanding such a phenomenon that a Labor Theory of Value gives is that different commodities need different amounts of labor to produce them. Again, it should be understood that this is only what a Labor Theory is in its most rudimentary and fundamental form. For this analysis, I am going to treat Cost Theories of Value as an extension of the Labor Theory of Value. The “costs” that determine value are going to represent labor, which is said by Labor Theorists as the one true cost. Between the two Theories of Value we are looking at in this analysis, the Labor Theory of Value is older than the Subjective Theory. It is so old that we cannot pinpoint exactly where it first appeared. Marx identifies it as coming from Benjamin Franklin, but for what we will be concerned with, it will not be necessary to dig much deeper in the past than Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx himself; who are all proponents of varying versions of the Labor Theory of Value.

§2 – Adam Smith

Our inquiry first starts with Adam Smith, who we know as “the Father of Economics”, a wildly famous economist, and his construction of a Labor Theory of Value is very influential to the two later theorists: Ricardo and Marx. Before delving into his and later Labor Theories of Value, it is first crucial to understand distinctions Smith and the other Labor Theorists make when they talk of value. This is best explained in the Diamond-Water Paradox, which he is well-known for. “The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called ‘value in use;’ the other, ‘value in exchange.’ The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarcely anything; scarcely anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarcely any use-value; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, On the Origin and Use of Money]. The paradox is essentially that, although water may possess a much greater value in use, since it brings more utility and satisfies our basic needs better than diamonds, the price, or value in exchange, of a diamond is altogether higher than water, despite it possessing practically little value in use in comparison. This is essentially the foundation of what most Labor Theorists call the exchange-value and use-value of goods. The exchange-value is how much purchasing power an item possesses on the market, and represents a quantitative aspect. The use-value of a good, as Smith explained, is how much utility an object has, it is a qualitative aspect. Things may possess great use-value, but little exchange-value, and vice versa. This distinction is critical for understanding the Labor Theory of Value, "[F]or from no source do so many errors, and so much difference of opinion in [political economy] proceed, as from the vague ideas which are attached to the word value." [On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, pp. 10]. Keep this distinction in mind as the nomenclature is almost universally adopted by Labor Theorists. When Smith outlines his Labor Theory of Value, he explicitly tries to explain three questions:

1) What is the real measure of exchange-value?

2) What are the component parts of this real measure?

3) What alters the natural price of commodities?

The way Smith narrows down labor as the source of value is strikingly brief. He says: “Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life” (W.o.N. 47). These necessaries, conveniences, and amusements; all have labor embodied in them, and so, the degree to which we can command that external labor can be said to be how much the exchange value of a commodity is determined. So, Smith concludes that: “The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. " (Wealth of Nations 47). The real price of a commodity therefore is the necessary toil and trouble saved when purchased or the necessary toil and trouble imposed on others to bring that commodity to market. This means that the direct input of labor to produce a commodity doesn’t necessarily factor into the exchange value it holds, it is the labor saved and necessary to impose on others to bring that commodity to market that determines its exchange value. And for that toil and trouble, there are different component parts of labor that Smith finds influences its character. The chief factor of which is time, but Smith also finds that the “degrees of hardship” and the “ingenuity exercised” influence what is embodied in the toil and trouble of labor, which are adjusted by the natural “higgling and bargaining” in the market. This can be explained by intense labor being equal to a longer amount of less strenuous labor, taking an equal amount of toil in various spans of time. The ingenuity exercised can be explained by the necessity that it takes time to gain those skills necessary for said labor. So, how does this “real price” materialize in observable exchange values? This “real price”, is actually engendered in something called the “natural price”, which Smith explains as the goods ordinary price. This is where Smith introduces Supply and Demand to the equation. As we know, supply and demand regulate market prices of commodities, but Smith is more specific. Smith is interested in the “effectual demand”, or the demand of a commodity that is enough to cover the cost of bringing it to market. For, it is really a balance of Supply and Effectual Demand that regulate prices. Too much supply and prices drop to sell excess products, and too much demand will raise prices so the consumers who are willing to sacrifice more will obtain the product. If there is great demand for something, but this demand isn’t effectual, in that it isn’t enough to cover the costs of bringing it to market, then that good will not be produced, as undertaking that project is a loss for its producer. It should be noted though, that in both these circumstances, the economic law is trending towards an equilibrium. At this equilibrium, is where the “natural price” of the commodity is found—in other words, the Effectual Demand is just enough to bring an equal Supply of commodities to market for the toil and trouble it takes to produce them. “The natural price, therefore, is, as it were, the central price, to which the prices of all commodities are continually gravitating”. So, just to quickly summarize: commodities need to satisfy some desire for their consumers and are exchanged in regular proportions. The former represents its use-value and the latter its exchange-value. The use-value influences its demand, and an item must have some demand for it to be brought to the market. The exchange-value is influenced by the toil-and-trouble it takes to bring that commodity to market. When Supply and Effectual Demand are at equilibrium, the natural price is expressed, or the exchange-value that a commodity is perpetually trending towards and oscillating around in the market.

§3 – David Ricardo

David Ricardo was another famous Classical Economist and an enthusiastic adherent of the Labor Theory of Value, which he got from Smith. It is not exactly the same, as we will see, but he has certain insights that are practically universally accepted by all Labor Theorists. Ricardo makes the fundamental observation that if a commodity possesses utility, or in other words: has use-value, it can only get exchange-value from two sources:

1. From a commodity’s scarcity, or

2. The quantity of labor necessary to obtain such a commodity.

Both of which represent some difficulty for the commodity to be obtained, because some things have use-value, like air, but require no expenditure to obtain and are not scarce, and thus have no exchange-value. Some commodities possess great exchange value purely because of scarcity, as they cannot be reproduced. These types of commodities, as Ricardo noted, are things ranging from rare statues, books and coins of a limited supply, wines of a particular quality coming from a particular parcel of land, and other rare goods and artifacts along these lines. This may seem odd, as we find that there are goods in existence whose exchange-value does not entirely depend on labor necessary for their production, and although this is the case, these are a minority of the goods that are put into circulation on the market, as Ricardo assures us that: “These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market. By far the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labor, and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone, but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labor necessary to obtain them.” [David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation]. There is also a point that needs to be made mention, and that is the role of what is called the means of production in the exchange-value of a commodity. The input of these as capital in production is not ignored by labor theorists, and they are incorporated into the exchange-value of the product as “stored” or “dead” labor. This is because it is also necessary to expend labor to produce and maintain these factors of production, which must be accounted for when we bring goods to market. As for Ricardo and Smith, Ricardo makes a very important correction of Smith, and that is going to be the distinction of labor necessary for a commodity’s production and the wages which is paid for labor. His stance on the matter is best expressed in his maxim that: “The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labor which is necessary for its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labor.” [David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation]. By distinguishing wages for labor and the necessary amount of labor represented in the exchange-value of commodities, Ricardo is able to explain how a rise in wages doesn’t influence the exchange value of commodities all else equal, but only influences profits in an inverse proportion. So as wages rise, profit must fall, and the natural price of the product stays the same.

§4 – Karl Marx

Like Smith, Marx’s goal was to explain why commodities are priced the way they are, or, in other words, to explain a commodity’s exchange value. Marx uses “value” as shorthand for “exchange-value”, so keep that in mind when trying to understand his thoughts on the matter, as he directly states “-in speaking of the value, the value in exchange of a commodity, we mean the proportional quantities in which it exchanges with all other commodities.” [Karl Marx; Value, Price, and Profit; Chapter 7]. Like Smith and Ricardo, Marx identifies a commodity’s exchange value primarily in labor, but the way he arrives at that conclusion is more sophisticated than Smith. Marx makes the point to look at quantities of two commodities of equal exchange values in the market. Two different commodities, embodying two completely different use-values, may be exchanged for a fixed proportion of one another in the market. He points out that this must mean that there is some third thing, reducible from both of these commodities, independent of their use-value, that allows us to compare their exchange values in the market. And so, the common denominator of all commodities, the only thing able to be abstracted from use-value, is the amount of labor embodied within them. “As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value. If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labor.” [Karl Marx, Capital, Chapter 1, Section I] Furthermore, Marx declares the quantity of labor to be time. Although individual labor can be said to be unequal, what Marx is really looking at is the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity. It is found by seeing the sum total of all labor in society, itself being homogenous, and finding the unit of labor required, a part of the whole, as an average. What this means is, as Marx explains: “The labor time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with an average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.” (Capital Volume I, Chapter I, Section I). The exchange value of commodities, therefore, represents a kind of crystallization of this socially necessary labor, an average of the sum total necessary to produce these commodities. The value of labor also must be determined by the state of society, for it is the socially necessary labor time that determines the exchange value of commodities. The productivity of labor determines how much its product is valued. If it is necessary to use two hours of labor to produce a given quantity of a commodity, and through new developments in technology we can cut down the necessary labor expended to be about an hour to make the same quantity of commodities, then we can expect the exchange value added to this commodity through labor to be halved to become equal to a single hour. Like Smith, Marx uses supply and demand to show that it regulates the fluctuations in commodities’ exchange values, but he goes further. He explains that using Supply and Demand in and of itself, doesn’t explain why commodities are priced the way they are. Two commodities could have Supply and Demand reach equilibrium, but that still doesn’t explain why they may be priced differently. What these Theories of Value do is to explain why things are priced the way they are at equilibrium, and why Supply and Demand continually tend towards that exchange value. “[What supply and demand] will explain to you [is] why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself.” [Karl Marx; Value, Price, and Profit; Chapter 4]. To summarize Marx’s theory: commodities both possess use-value and exchange-value, and use-value is necessary for an object to have exchange-value. The exchange value is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce a commodity. The socially necessary labor time is an average of the time required to produce a commodity under normal conditions of production with an average skill and intensity. Supply and Demand continually tend towards this exchange value for reproducible commodities as they approach equilibrium in the free market.

Section III – Exploitation

§1 – Overview

These theories may seem relatively tame and uncontroversial to onlookers, but when applied to labor relations within Capitalism, they begin to describe something called “exploitation”. The ways theories of value describe labor relations with Capitalists will soon become clear for why this subject is so contentious. So, what is exploitation? In short, exploitation is how Marx, and a long and diverse lineage of other Socialists, account for how profit is generated in Capitalist businesses. What I intend to present here is a generalized form of what exploitation is. The idea is not native only to Marxism, and has been presented in a multitude of forms, but I intend to present it in a way congruent with most Socialist critiques.

§2 – What is Exploitation?

For the exploitation described by most Socialists, the dynamic is something like this: Initially, there is an original sin to start the process called “primitive accumulation” that separates laborers from land and capital, which consists of the means of production and the means of subsistence. This initially took place in Britain by a series of expropriations of land from Peasants and reducing the opportunities they had outside of wage-labor for this new minority that now owns the majority of the land and capital. I have a video exploring some of the history of primitive accumulation, so if you are interested in that, I will put the link to it in the description. So, by separating workers from the means of production, the means of production are essentially monopolized by one class of people, the Capitalists. This creates a bargaining divide between wage-workers and the newly privileged holders of capital. By separating and gatekeeping workers from means of subsistence and the means of production and the overall limitation of their opportunities, they can be funneled into wage-labor to earn their living, which drastically lowers their bargaining power. Adam Smith explains the reasons for the uneven bargaining power excellently: “The masters have the advantage, It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.” (Wealth of Nations G.ed p84). It may be a surprise to hear Smith talk about Combinations of, or Unions of, Capitalists. Smith explains this as a sort of “tacit, but constant and uniform combination” to represent their interests, which usually consist of lowering wages and extending working hours of their laborers to reap greater profits. We usually don’t hear of these “Combinations of Masters”, because as he states they are “the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of.” And this is where the use of the Labor Theory of Value to explain the value of labor may be a bit unintuitive. Just to recap, due to primitive accumulation, we now have a class of people with neither direct access to the means of production nor the means of subsistence, and now have to sell their labor to Capitalists, who have superior bargaining power. Labor power, or the capacity to labor, essentially becomes a type of commodity to be bought by Capitalists, and like all commodities, when laborers compete amongst each other for the available jobs, it reduces wages to the labor it takes to bring that commodity to market; we begin to talk of labor-power’s value. This price is the cost it takes to bring labor power to market; it consists of the cost of subsistence for the laborers, the cost of their training, and the cost of their reproduction. This “cost”, itself, is explained by the labor it takes to bring labor power, or the capacity to labor, to market. Marx summarizes this by saying that the “value of laboring power is determined by the value of the necessaries required to produce, develop, maintain, and perpetuate the laboring power” (Value, Price, and Profit Chapter 7). This creates an unsettling conclusion for a lot of propertarians. Essentially, in the Capitalist system, when a commodity sells, and we subtract the costs for the capital input, we find that labor is paid a lesser amount than what it adds in the form of exchange-value to the commodity finally sold, and this is pocketed by the Capitalist as what we call: “profit”. What profit represents in this scenario, the value of labor in production above the wages the worker receives, is what Marx and many other Socialists dub the “surplus value” of labor, because it is the surplus of the bare minimum it takes for labor to subsist, reproduce, and perpetuate itself which it has received in wages. Profit is still only one third of the picture at best. Rent is also collected by the Landlord and Interest is collected by the Banker, and these both constitute extraction of part of the surplus value of labor. In addition to profits, rent, and interest; Libertarian Socialists and Communists view taxation as another form of exploitation. As Alexander Berkman, a famous Communist-Anarchist noted: “But it is not only to [the Boss] that you are so generous. Out of your labor, by direct and indirect taxation, are supported the entire government, local, state, and national, the schools and the churches, and all the other institutions whose business it is to protect profits and keep you fooled. You and your fellow workers, labor as a whole, support them all.“ [Alexander Berkman, What Is Communist Anarchism?, Chapter 3].

§3 – Wage-slavery

The relationship here described has been dubbed “wage-slavery” by many Socialists directly because of the issue of exploitation. Like a slave, labor is only given its bare essential requirements for survival and reproduction for further exploitation. The only difference is that this is performed through wages and an intermediary contract rather than direct ownership by a master. For the laborer, this makes little more material difference than that of direct serfdom, as Marx explains: “In point of fact, however, whether a man works three days of the week for himself on his own field and three days for nothing on the estate of his lord, or whether he works in the factory or the workshop six hours daily for himself and six for his employer, comes to the same, although in the latter case the paid and unpaid portions of labor are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract and the pay received at the end of the week. The gratuitous labor appears to be voluntarily given in the one instance, and to be compulsory in the other. That makes all the difference.” [Karl Marx: Value, Price, and Profit Chapter 9]. As we have seen, the original sin of primitive accumulation calls into question the “voluntarity” of such a system. If exploitation depends on the maintenance of a historical divide based on theft and violence, does that really make it voluntary? It may be considered so, but only in the most superficial meaning of the term. It may even be said, and it has been said, that the conditions of the worker under Capitalism may be worse than that of a slave. Friedrich Engels extrapolates on this line of reasoning succinctly, explaining the difference between the proletariat, otherwise known as a propertyless worker, and that of the slave: “The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.” [Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism]. So what we may find is that even though wage-labor exists in the economy and allows people more freedom, this freedom may only amount to labor bearing its own cost of repairs for individuals while those hiring wage-workers only have to pay laborers as a class. Adam Smith notes this, where he predicts the price of “freed” labor to be cheaper than slave labor on the whole: “The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his master; but that of a free servant is at his own expense. The wear and tear of the latter, however, is, in reality, as much at the expense of his master as that of the former. The wages paid to journeymen and servants of every kind must be such as may enable them, one with another, to continue the race of journeymen and servants, according as the increasing, diminishing, or stationary demand of the society may happen to require. But though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense of his master, it generally costs him much less than that of a slave. The fund destined for replacing or repairing, if I may say so, the wear and tear of the slave, is commonly managed by a negligent master or careless overseer. That destined for performing the same office with regard to the free man, is managed by the free man himself. ... It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves. It is found to do so even at Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, where the wages of common labor are so very high.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Chapter 8, G.ed pp 99]. It is important to mention that when Socialists talk about “wage-slavery”, it is precisely because, like the Slave, the workers do not get paid their due. For: “No man is a slave because he gets his wages, though many men are slaves because they do not get their wages.” [Benjamin Tucker, Buffeted Labor]. As labor is restricted to being commanded by privilege and paid meager wages in recompense, the Socialists do not see the Capitalistic wage-system as an equitable or “free” exchange in the slightest.

§4 - Bargaining by Labor

This is not to say wage-work is worse than slavery—I do not believe such a thing—it is an exaggeration based on the worst possible conditions of wage-labor to presume so. The intermediary of a contract makes a very significant difference for laborers. Unlike slavery, in Capitalism workers may collectively bargain against their employers or perhaps they will get the chance to go into business for themselves, and thus the price of wage-work may increase, even if the bargaining power may be highly unequal due to economic privilege. Labor, under Capitalism, is a commodity, and like any commodity, it is subject to the same laws that determine prices. If supply is increased above demand, we can expect wages to decrease, and if demand exceeds supply, we can expect wages to increase. This has a very real effect on the price of labor in different countries. Marx elucidates this perfectly with a real life example, the economy of America in its transition into Industrial Capitalism: “As to the limits of the value of labor, its actual settlement always depends upon supply and demand, I mean the demand for labor on the part of capital, and the supply of labor by the working men. In colonial countries the law of supply and demand favors the working man. Hence the relatively high standard of wages in the United States. Capital may there try its utmost. It cannot prevent the labor market from being continuously emptied by the continuous conversion of wages laborers into independent, self-sustaining peasants. The position of a [wage] laborer is for a very large part of the American people but a probational state, which they are sure to leave within a longer or shorter term. To mend this colonial state of things the paternal British Government accepted for some time what is called the modern colonization theory, which consists in putting an [artificially] high price upon colonial land, in order to prevent the too quick conversion of the [wage] laborer into the independent peasant.” [Karl Marx; Value, Price, and Profit Chapter 9]. Exploitation according to theorists of the Labor Theory is dependent upon some restriction of the opportunities for laborers. As we have seen, it is through the separation and maintenance of laborers away from the means of production and subsistence that gives Capitalists unequal bargaining power. The more access laborers have to their own means of production or subsistence, the less supply there is for exploitative wage-work. Workers get a higher level of bargaining power for the same reason as Capitalists have a higher level of bargaining power at all, as they can subsist for longer without the transaction. The Labor Theory of Value applied to labor may also explain the varying wages according to different professions or specializations. As Ricardo has stated, the source of exchange value relies on 1) scarcity and 2) the necessary labor expended to get a product. When a type of work is supplied in a scarce amount, usually types of niche specialists—but this may happen with many jobs—workers in those jobs may demand higher wages. Where there is demand and insufficient supply, there will usually be supply created to fulfill said demand and reap reward from the heightened prices, and as more laborers specialize in an occupation there will be a general lowering of its wages to that cost of labor power and training that Marx speaks of. Another pertinent way wages may rise due to scarcity is Union activity. When laborers join a Union and become part of what Smith calls a “combination of workmen” they are able to collectively bargain with their employer. Unions may strike and restrict the supply of labor power to a business or a collection of businesses and thus get benefits, such as a raise in wages at those workplaces in this instance. When wages are determined by the price of labor power, they would represent “-the cost required for the maintenance of the laborer as a laborer, and for his education and training as a laborer.” [Karl Marx, Wage-labor and Capital, Ch. 4] For skilled labor that needs special training, those costs must come from somewhere, and this is why trained labor has higher wages. If wages do not incorporate the cost of training, then that labor cannot be brought to market, as it is a detriment for someone taking that job to get the training since it must come from their own pocket.

Part 1 Conclusion

We have now covered Labor Theory of Value from the Classical Economists, as well as the Socialist Theory of Exploitation. The future of this analysis will take place over multiple parts. Up next is a review of the Subjective Theory of Value from the Austrian School combined with a response to the Subjectivist critiques of the Labor Theory of Value. Lastly, I will present our synthesis and a review of the Mutualist and Individualist ideas and Theories on Value and exploitation. I also may upload some addendums on tidbits of theory that don’t make it into this analysis, so make sure to look out for that.

Thank you for watching, and subscribe for more content!

Watch the video version of this transcript here.