Marxism 2.0 - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#14887655
Tainari88 wrote:@The Immortal Goon I think Marx discussed how the material conditions determine how humans go about their social and economic relations. As such? Property and how it becomes the essence of power relations between social classes is very clear and unequivocal in Marxist thought. The bottom line is feudalism had to be replaced because the economy was restructured and that social/economic relationship of feudal lord and his serfs was no longer valid and or functional for capitalist economies.

Then the hybrid between capitalism and socialism evolved out of the need to stabilize capitalist boom or bust economic structures that created mass instability and threatened to change socioeconomic relations and power relations again. There will be the next stages in which the wealth and the productive harnessing of labor and information and technology and land and property will again have to be restructured to conform to changing material conditions.

In that? It all is following a smooth pattern. The argument then becomes if it will be fairly fast transition or a gradual one. I think it will happen quickly. The old structures will just bottom out due to the wealth inequality being so massively extreme that everything is explosive and change will be forced to come fast just to avoid catastrophe. What is your opinion?


This is still sort of the big question.

The argument, on both sides, is that Marx didn’t see an imperialist world with a fully integrated global economy.

On the one hand, that this development will be a little more peaceful, as you wonderfully laid out:

Kautsky wrote:What Marx said of capitalism can also be applied to imperialism: monopoly creates competition and competition monopoly. The frantic competition of giant firms, giant banks and multi-millionaires obliged the great financial groups, who were absorbing the small ones, to think up the notion of the cartel. In the same way, the result of the World War between the great imperialist powers may be a federation of the strongest, who renounce their arms race.

Hence from the purely economic standpoint it is not impossible that capitalism may still Jive through another phase, the translation of cartellization into foreign policy: a phase of ultra-imperialism, which of course we must struggle against as energetically as we do against imperialism, but whose perils lie in another direction, not in that of the arms race and the threat to world peace.

...From the purely economic standpoint, however, there is nothing further to prevent this violent explosion finally replacing imperialism by a holy alliance of the imperialists. The longer the War lasts, the more it exhausts all tile participants and makes them recoil from an early repetition of armed conflict, the nearer we come to this last solution, however unlikely it may seem at the moment.


The idea being that all the big imperialist countries will realize that their best interest is in a single global market that they rule jointly together, crushing down dissent in the occupied countries and so on and so forth. From this globalized single ultra-imperialism a joint revolution may take place as people of Rarth rise together against their oppressors, maybe in an ideological way with little violence, and blossom into a better system.

Then you have the other big voice from a century ago:

Lenin wrote:There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war. War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property—on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.

Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists ... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America’s more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.


That is to say, capital continues to need to always expand. At a smaller level, we know a board of directors will never look at making the same profits as the year before as a stunning success, but instead as a miserable failure. If nothing else, as they are in competition. The same applies, in this theory, to imperialist nations which will always compete with each other for more of the globe.

In this version a violent upheaval is assured, and at the right moment (like after a World War) the system becomes vulnerable and violent revolution is virtually assured.

It seems to me that the latter is more demonstrably true. We have seen that repeated over and over, while we have yet to see a big global federation set up that can easily translate into anything like a peaceful transition of power to the proletariat.
By Rugoz
#14887710
The labor theory of value only holds with perfect competition. This is obviously not generally given in any market, including real estate, since the supply of land with certain attributes (fertility, proximity to infrastructure etc.) is limited. But the LTV is an abstraction, and perfect competition is an abstraction neoclassical growth models for example often make too (I don't fully subscribe to the LTV for other reasons). Whether it is justified depends on what you are looking at. Nowadays market power (mark-ups) seems to be good candidate for the explanation of the decreasing labor share (e.g. here). The problem with Marx is that he treats labor as a commodity not only in exchange but also in production. In that sense you could say he ignores the market power of labor.
By B0ycey
#14887719
There is no question that land rent removes some of the surplus value of Labour TTP, but your fixation that land rent is the overall problem with economics has absolutely no foundation to it what-so-ever. Don't embarrass yourself with TIG like you did with Crantag once before. I'm not going into everything because you once claimed banks don't need capital to function but I will give you some pointers.

1. The value of land depends on the demand for it.

2. If rent took away all surplus Labour value, a factory closes and the value of that land plummets. Nobody creates a business to not make a profit. So the land rent takes away a small portion of the surplus labour value and certainly not all.

3. The overall economy determines the lands value, not the other way round.

4. A business survives on the demand of their products. So its destiny whether it goes bankrupt or not is determined by demand and is not an issue with land rents.

5. The amount a landlord can profit from their land ultimately relies on the businesses success.

You'll also need to quote Marx if you are going to reference him. Kapital pt III was written from his notes. He wasn't the author. So you can only quote Engels if that is your source. But nonetheless Marx believed that surplus value of Labour and ownership should go the the state for the good of society as a whole. In true communism everyone owns the land (or more accurately nobody owns the land), so whether there is an issue with land owners taking away surplus labour is irrelevant to Marx's ideology.
By Atlantis
#14887722
Both labour and capital (or land) are secondary. In the knowledge society, only technological innovation has value. Marx and most economist don't seem to understand the value of technological innovation.

A worker in the industrialized world earns several times of what a worker earns in the developing world not because the former works harder but because he uses technology to produce high-tech goods and services. Thus, labour without technology is virtually worthless. Capital, on the other hand, will just drain away if it is invested in the wrong technology.
User avatar
By fuser
#14887750
^Nonsense. A worker in west with same level of skill set and working with similar level of technological tools still earns far more than a worker in a third world country. The deep divide between wages of western workers and third world workeres is due to many things but the gist of it, is International Capitalism.

Whereas the wage difference between Blue Collar workers and White Collar workers exist in every nation which could be partially attributed to technological know-how and education invested in the white collar worker but it still doesn't provides the whole picture.
By B0ycey
#14887767
Rugoz wrote:Actually land rent is not part of the surplus value. Marx assumed competitive markets. Monopoly rents would be part of the "superprofit".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superprofit


Bloody hell Rugoz, if you want to be precise for our friend TTP, a portion of the surplus exploited proletariat Labour profit from the bourgeoisie capitalist turns into a superprofit for the landlord when an exchange of capital for land rents occur. Happy?
By Atlantis
#14888078
fuser wrote:^Nonsense. A worker in west with same level of skill set and working with similar level of technological tools still earns far more than a worker in a third world country. The deep divide between wages of western workers and third world workeres is due to many things but the gist of it, is International Capitalism.


It’s quite simple: barring special conditions (war, natural resources, etc.), a country’s prosperity is directly proportional to its level of technical innovation. This can be seen in virtually all societies present and past. Eg., when India acquires the technological level of South Korea, Indian workers will earn approximately the same as South Korean workers.

Socialist regimes have been notoriously deficient at promoting innovation. That’s why they ultimately have to fail. It takes an ideological straightjacket and/or a total ignorance of the real economy not to understand the relation between economic prosperity and technological innovation.
User avatar
By Victoribus Spolia
#14888082
Atlantis wrote: prosperity is directly proportional to its level of technical innovation.


at the micro-level, this is not true of the Amish. They often, either as individuals or a collective, acquire large amounts of wealth in spite of technological development. It makes one wonder whether or not your thesis at the global-level is somewhat suspect or claims too much.
By Atlantis
#14888087
Victoribus Spolia wrote:at the micro-level, this is not true of the Amish. They often, either as individuals or a collective, acquire large amounts of wealth in spite of technological development. It makes one wonder whether or not your thesis at the global-level is somewhat suspect or claims too much.


An Amish community in Somalia or Congo would be a lot poorer than an Amish community in the US. Which proves my point that the prosperity of the US Amish community is determined by the level of the US's technological level.

Like fuser, you obviously misunderstand what I'm saying. The technological level of a country is determined by a small knowledge elite. That's why I said "labour and capital are secondary." If a plumber in France earns 10 times of what a plumber earns in Bangladesh, it's not because the French plumber plumbs 10 times better than the Bangladeshi plumber, it is because the French plumber has clients who earn high salaries at Airbus, Alcatel, PSA, Novartis, etc., while Bangladesh can neither produce aircraft, satellites, competitive cars, nor proprietary drugs .
By Truth To Power
#14888745
The Immortal Goon wrote:Oh awesome, can I guess your sourcing on that since you don't seem to want to admit to it?

Image

Wrong again. If readers can manage it, they can see for themselves in Vol III, Part VI of "Capital."
You've admitted before that you have a lot of trouble with basic economics.

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. What I have trouble with is the disingenuous, invalid and deceitful aggregations of Marxist and neoclassical economics.
That's how grown-ups tend to have these kinds of discussions :)

More gratuitous insults.
Most of us would consider that to be pretty childish. Try reading some other debates and see if you can see how your method is different than other people's.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
It's very clear that your reading comprehension and grasp of numbers is a little challenged.

Now you are just makin' $#!+ up again. You know that I scored 168/170 on the GRE quantitative, and 170/170 on the verbal. You, however, did not.
Do you need help?

<yawn>
Since I'm pretty familiar with it, you could just point me in the right direction. But here's the thing, TTP, you have admitted to having a lot of trouble with basic economics.

Disgraceful.
To the point that you think everybody else is lying to you

Not everybody. That is just some more $#!+ you have made up.
when we have a grasp of it.

I.e., make the same errors.
I'm guessing that you read someone on the internet that said this stuff and you've never actually read Kapitol vol. III at all.

I read the relevant section, Part VI.
It's okay to admit this, because you do have a lot of trouble understanding these very basic things and I want to keep helping you.

Like all Marxists, your intention is to prevent accurate understanding.
Now TTP, you didn't even know that he had editors until I taught that to you.

That is actually false, and qualifies as a claim made with such reckless disregard for truth that it is effectively a lie.
How can this be obvious to you when you didn't even know the most basic facts about this work a day ago?

Which basic facts were those?
You're embarrassing yourself worse by pretending that these secret messages that only you know from a book you seemingly know nothing about proves your feelings.

<yawn>
It's okay to ask for help if you don't understand. I've offered my services many times. There's no shame in asking a grownup for help!

You are a disgrace. If you were not a mod, you would be banned for such blatant, relentless trolling and personal insults.

<additional insults snipped>
#14888751
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong again. If readers can manage it, imagine they can see for themselves in Vol III, Part VI of "Capital."


Your lack of any kind of context, allusion, or citation has been fixed.

Reading can be hard for you, I know. But keep it up!

No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. What I have trouble with is the disingenuous, invalid and deceitful aggregations of Marxist and neoclassical economics.


No, you seem to have a lot of trouble with reading. And you disagree with every person, liberal, conservative, fascist, communist, whatever, about economics. You also think everyone makes it too hard.

Do you think everyone else in the world has trouble understanding, or just you?

More gratuitous insults.


Just common sense conclusions. But it's okay. As always, I'm here to help you learn!

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"


Oh, where did you learn that?

Now you are just makin' $#!+ up again. You know that I scored 168/170 on the GRE quantitative, and 170/170 on the verbal. You, however, did not.


How do you know what I scored?

Also, you seem to have a lot of trouble applying these alleged scores.

But that's okay. I'm offering to help you!

<yawn>


Image

Disgraceful.


Is it really disgraceful to say that since I'm pretty familiar with your source you could just point me in the right direction for what you're claiming it says?

Or do you think it's disgraceful I'm not listening to your feelings and instead asking for a citation?

Not everybody. That is just some more $#!+ you have made up.


You've said before, many times, that everybody else talks at a higher level of economics than you do—that you find it overly difficult. I understand.

I.e., make the same errors.


No, you just don't understand. And that's okay!

I read the relevant section, Part VI.


That's what I presumed when you couldn't tell me. I then cited it and showed it was the opposite of what you were saying. Then you said that it was actually littered throughout the work:

It [my evidence] is scattered through Part VI in various circumlocutions.


But then it was also in one place:

There is a particular passage where he does effectively make that claim


I do have to say that since you didn't know it was VI until I mentioned it in a way disprove you; and you didn't know the history of the book; and you don't know whether your super-secret source is "scattered throughout" or "in a particular passage" your argument isn't particularly compelling.

Like all Marxists, your intention is to prevent accurate understanding.


That's weird. I've been using citations to make things more clear. What have you been doing?

That [I didn't know that there were editors until I taught that fact to you] is actually false, and qualifies as a claim made with such reckless disregard for truth that it is effectively a lie.


You claimed that Marx insidiously hid something himself within this book that he did not compile:

This began with Marx himself. Late in life, he realized that his entire economic analysis was factually incorrect, and admitted as much -- deep in Vol III of "Capital" where no one would ever read it.


Do you think that your nap would make this lack of reading that you're doing a little easier? ;)

Which basic facts were those?


Do see above. It's easy to re-read something, even if you've read it first.

<yawn>


Image

You are a disgrace. If you were not a mod, you would be banned for such blatant, relentless trolling and personal insults.


You are certainly welcome to cite your source after you decide what it is, who wrote it, and what it says :)
By Truth To Power
#14889346
Rugoz wrote:The labor theory of value only holds with perfect competition.

It doesn't hold at all. Jevons disproved it.
This is obviously not generally given in any market, including real estate, since the supply of land with certain attributes (fertility, proximity to infrastructure etc.) is limited.

The supply of everything is limited -- except the stupidity and dishonesty of apologists for capitalism and socialism, of course. The supply of land -- the earth's solid surface -- is not merely limited, it is FIXED: the same amount is always there no matter what.
But the LTV is an abstraction, and perfect competition is an abstraction neoclassical growth models for example often make too (I don't fully subscribe to the LTV for other reasons). Whether it is justified depends on what you are looking at. Nowadays market power (mark-ups) seems to be good candidate for the explanation of the decreasing labor share (e.g. here).

No, only privilege -- which of course often confers market power -- can explain the declining share of wages.
The problem with Marx is that he treats labor as a commodity not only in exchange but also in production.

That's not a uniquely Marxist error. Classical economics made the same error.
In that sense you could say he ignores the market power of labor.

In a sense; but more importantly, Marx ignores the difference between market power arising from privilege and from productive contribution.
By Truth To Power
#14889355
Atlantis wrote:Both labour and capital (or land) are secondary.

No. False. Get that silly trash out of your head RIGHT NOW.

Labor and land are indisputably primary. Without both of them, there is no production, exchange, consumption, or economic activity whatsoever. Capital is produced by applying labor to land, so it is secondary.

Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.
In the knowledge society, only technological innovation has value.

No, that is just absurd nonsense with no basis in empirical fact. Technological innovation has no free market value at all because knowledge can in principle be multiplied indefinitely at arbitrarily low cost -- i.e., like sea water or atmospheric air, it is not naturally scarce, and therefore has no market value. It can be made artificially scarce by patent and copyright monopolies, and may then have market value.
Marx and most economist don't seem to understand the value of technological innovation.

Marx didn't understand much of anything; most (especially mainstream neoclassical) economists share at least some of his errors; but they both seem to have a better grasp of technological innovation than you.
A worker in the industrialized world earns several times of what a worker earns in the developing world not because the former works harder but because he uses technology to produce high-tech goods and services.

False. A Chinese worker often uses even higher technology than, and produces just as much as or more than, a European or American one, but is paid far less. The higher wages in advanced countries are caused by legal frameworks and labor market conditions.
Thus, labour without technology is virtually worthless.

Its productivity is low. Not quite the same thing. Factory labor that uses high technology can easily be worth much less than artisanal labor that uses little or no technology.
Capital, on the other hand, will just drain away if it is invested in the wrong technology.

That much is true, and Marx obviously didn't understand that it takes a contribution of productive effort -- labor -- to not only make ownership of producer goods yield a return, but even to avoid losing money.
B0ycey wrote:There is no question that land rent removes some of the surplus value of Labour TTP,

I do not believe the "surplus value of labor" refers to a valid empirical concept. Land rent extracts all production above what equivalent expenditure of capital and labor would obtain on marginal land. The landowner has no reason to accept less, and can't get more.
but your fixation that land rent is the overall problem with economics has absolutely no foundation to it what-so-ever.

I don't claim it is "the overall problem with economics." Misunderstanding it is a central problem with economics, and it is the largest single source of injustice and inefficiency in the economy, but the overall problem with (mainstream neoclassical) economics is its reliance on invalid definitions and wildly false axioms.
Don't embarrass yourself with TIG like you did with Crantag once before.

That did not happen.
I'm not going into everything because you once claimed banks don't need capital to function

They don't need it to LEND.
but I will give you some pointers.

I'll correct you as needed.
1. The value of land depends on the demand for it.

Correct. The supply is fixed, so its value depends ONLY on demand.
2. If rent took away all surplus Labour value,

See above for what rent takes away.
a factory closes and the value of that land plummets.

Wrong. The unimproved value of the land is unaffected by the factory's closure because it is the net subsidy the market EXPECTS the landowner to take from society in the future, not what he IS taking NOW.
Nobody creates a business to not make a profit.

Watch, "The Producers." It's far more common than you think. I've even seen it in practice.
So the land rent takes away a small portion of the surplus labour value and certainly not all.

See above for the exact amount land rent takes.
3. The overall economy determines the lands value, not the other way round.

Land value is determined by the expected rent, discount rate and tax rate. Cet. par., aggregate land rent tends to grow a little faster than GDP: i.e., it is a slowly rising fraction of GDP.
4. A business survives on the demand of their products.

Nope. Wrong again. Many profitable businesses, like the Grosvenor Trust, do not produce any products.
So its destiny whether it goes bankrupt or not is determined by demand and is not an issue with land rents.

No. That's utter nonsense, and proves you have no actual experience in business. Almost all businesses depend in some measure on LOCATION, and for that they must pay land rent. Being able to make good enough use of its location's advantages to pay the rent is a crucial challenge for any business that does not own the land under its premises.
5. The amount a landlord can profit from their land ultimately relies on the businesses success.

Flat false. There are many cases of VACANT land being traded among speculators for decades, with all of them making a profit, none of them producing anything, and no business being done at all.
You'll also need to quote Marx if you are going to reference him. Kapital pt III was written from his notes. He wasn't the author. So you can only quote Engels if that is your source.

I agree that readers should be skeptical of my claim without a direct, verbatim, in-context quote. However, Vol III was definitely Marx's work, even though it was incomplete when he died.
But nonetheless Marx believed that surplus value of Labour and ownership should go the the state for the good of society as a whole.

He just didn't understand the difference between owning land and owning capital.
In true communism everyone owns the land (or more accurately nobody owns the land), so whether there is an issue with land owners taking away surplus labour is irrelevant to Marx's ideology.

I don't have an issue with Marx's view on land as expressed in the Communist Manifesto (public ownership, and devotion of rents to public purposes). His error was in thinking capital should be treated likewise.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14889373
@Truth To Power Can you link the relevant specific and detailed instance(s) where Jevons dealt with value theory, in particular where--according to your surmising--he disproved Marx's labor theory?

It's worthy to point out that your claim is very lofty, to the extent that it can safely be disregarded, because there is an enormous propensity of philosophers, theorists, and researchers who have studied the matter of value theory--for centuries; and there is certainly no consensus that Jevons was the foremost theorist on the matter (Marx's theory is probably the only one which has withstood scrutiny, in fact).

Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested, and if you can directly reference some relevant literature, it would be appreciated.
By B0ycey
#14889376
I have a spare ten minutes to reply, but being you are the worse economist on PoFo, any future reply's from you to me will get ignored. You are just too difficult to teach.

Truth To Power wrote:I do not believe the "surplus value of labor" refers to a valid empirical concept. Land rent extracts all production above what equivalent expenditure of capital and labor would obtain on marginal land. The landowner has no reason to accept less, and can't get more.


Land rent is determined by demand. No demand, no rent. A nation with an economy with no production, resources or services would result in that land becoming virtually worthless. How much do you believe ISIS could get for rent for desert Syrian land from say Coca Cola?

I don't claim it is "the overall problem with economics." Misunderstanding it is a central problem with economics, and it is the largest single source of injustice and inefficiency in the economy, but the overall problem with (mainstream neoclassical) economics is its reliance on invalid definitions and wildly false axioms.


The worth of land is down to the areas economy. Until you understand this basic fact you will always be disregarded by people who understand economics.

That did not happen.


Yes they did. Crantag is one of the better economists on PoFo. If he tells you that you are chatting shit, you are chatting shit.

They don't need it to LEND.


Banks need capital to lend. They need a fractional reserve. If all deposits from banks are withdrawn then at some point before the last man can draw out cash the cash machine will be giving nothing out because their capital is linked to the loan assets. Why do you think banks shit themselves when there is a run on them? 2008 and Northern Rock is a great example of a bank shitting themselves when people want their money back. If money was in a vault somewhere out in the channel islands gathering dust (or whatever you believe), why would a bank even care if they have customers?

Wrong. The unimproved value of the land is unaffected by the factory's closure because it is the net subsidy the market EXPECTS the landowner to take from society in the future, not what he IS taking NOW.


No demand, no value. If a factory closes and no tennents move in, the land rent is nothing. The lands value is also linked to demand. London for example has a higher land value than Rotherham due to demand.

Land value is determined by the expected rent, discount rate and tax rate. Cet. par., aggregate land rent tends to grow a little faster than GDP: i.e., it is a slowly rising fraction of GDP.


Land value is down to demand.

Nope. Wrong again. Many profitable businesses, like the Grosvenor Trust, do not produce any products.


They offer a service which is a product. Not all products are physical.

No. That's utter nonsense, and proves you have no actual experience in business. Almost all businesses depend in some measure on LOCATION, and for that they must pay land rent. Being able to make good enough use of its location's advantages to pay the rent is a crucial challenge for any business that does not own the land under its premises.


Well Mr Business man explain this. Why do businesses relocate to third world nations if everything is all down to location? Answer, because their products can cross borders. The price they pay for rent obviously changes due to the demand of that land. And a third world nation with lots of empty space will no doubt offer low rents.

Flat false. There are many cases of VACANT land being traded among speculators for decades, with all of them making a profit, none of them producing anything, and no business being done at all.


This again is down to demand. Your quote says as much too. If someone is willing to buy vacant land then there is demand. No demand equals no value.

I agree that readers should be skeptical of my claim without a direct, verbatim, in-context quote. However, Vol III was definitely Marx's work, even though it was incomplete when he died.


Incomplete? Engels worked from notes.

He just didn't understand the difference between owning land and owning capital.


He did actually. @Rugoz helped you out there. Land rent is a superprofit meaning that the landlord didn't need to do anything to gain capital in laymen terms. But the value of land still and always will be linked to demand.

I don't have an issue with Marx's view on land as expressed in the Communist Manifesto (public ownership, and devotion of rents to public purposes). His error was in thinking capital should be treated likewise.


Are you aware that we humans are the only living creatures that use capital? The animal kingdom fuctions just fine without capital. Perhaps without capital being a "thing" there wouldn't be something to be treated likewise. Perhaps that was Marx's/Engels message in Kapital. The Communist Manifesto was just an idea really on a pamphlet to give to workers. It certainly didn't have any references to land rents I can assure you.
By Truth To Power
#14889613
Crantag wrote:@Truth To Power Can you link the relevant specific and detailed instance(s) where Jevons dealt with value theory, in particular where--according to your surmising--he disproved Marx's labor theory?

I can't point you to the exact passage, but in the Theory of Political Economy, building on the earlier treatment in the General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy, Jevons demonstrates that his marginal utility theory of value explains how the observed relationship on which classical economics based the Labor Theory of Value was an illusion. The Labor Theory of Value gets it backwards. Market participants do not value items depending on the quantity of labor devoted to their production. Rather, producers devote labor to producing an item until the price of the marginal labor input matches the market value of the marginal item. This theory accounts for the often substantial value of items that have little or no labor input, which the Labor Theory of Value does not.
It's worthy to point out that your claim is very lofty, to the extent that it can safely be disregarded, because there is an enormous propensity of philosophers, theorists, and researchers who have studied the matter of value theory--for centuries; and there is certainly no consensus that Jevons was the foremost theorist on the matter (Marx's theory is probably the only one which has withstood scrutiny, in fact).

No, Marx's theory is garbage with no basis in empirical fact.
Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested, and if you can directly reference some relevant literature, it would be appreciated.

The explanation above should suffice. If you think it is incorrect, or Marx's is better, maybe you can explain why.
User avatar
By Crantag
#14889634
Truth To Power wrote:I can't point you to the exact passage, but in the Theory of Political Economy, building on the earlier treatment in the General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy, Jevons demonstrates that his marginal utility theory of value explains how the observed relationship on which classical economics based the Labor Theory of Value was an illusion. The Labor Theory of Value gets it backwards. Market participants do not value items depending on the quantity of labor devoted to their production. Rather, producers devote labor to producing an item until the price of the marginal labor input matches the market value of the marginal item. This theory accounts for the often substantial value of items that have little or no labor input, which the Labor Theory of Value does not.

No, Marx's theory is garbage with no basis in empirical fact.

The explanation above should suffice. If you think it is incorrect, or Marx's is better, maybe you can explain why.

Thank you for that refresher.

Marginal utility theory is only useful for understanding the determinants of short-term prices.

The whole "what are diamonds worth in the dessert when you are dying of thirst?" stupid 'paradox' relates to this stuff.

Marginal utility theorists often claim Marx's labor theory of value is bullshit despite the fact that--if my experience is any teacher--they seldom-to-never understand it.

Marginal utility theory does not contradict the labor theory of value. One 'argument' I have personally heard is that Marx thought prices were based on wages, which is patently not what his theory says.

Marx's theory of value seeks to uncover--in modern parlance--the long run determinants of intrinsic value given the conditions of production under competitive capitalism (particularly factory production, and particularly in England during the Industrial Revolution).

What Marx showed was that the proportion of socially necessary labor power was the sole determinant of value under a model framework of perfect competition. The reason for this is that capital is remunerated at its full value. Workers on the other hand receive in effect a 'prevailing wage' (which Marx theorized under the conditions he confronted would basically amount to the cost of reproduction of labor power), and the workers' production in excess of this prevailing wage constitutes surplus value, which is the basis of capitalist profits.

Marginal utility theory is at the heart of mainstream economic practice of understanding value, but it actually only applies to 'spot prices', and says nothing about 'intrinsic value'. Contemporary economics has abdicated on this, although it certainly preoccupied classical economists.

Contrary to counter-lies, Marx's labor theory has indeed retained its place. Why it is not considered mainstream (although Marx's theories did indeed revolutionize classical economics--as well) probably has more to do with McCarthyism, than anything merit-based.

The notion that Marx's labor theory of value has been disproved is a false notion, as is the notion that his theory was supplanted by marginal utility theory. Marginal utility theory and Marx's labor theory of value address categorically different things. The one relates to prices (in particular on the spot), and the latter relates to intrinsic value. For some reason, some economists seem to confuse prices with values, and that's because they are so propagandized by the 'power of the market' to efficiently allocate, and so they ignore anything having to do with potential grounds for price distortions, in the real world.
By Atlantis
#14889654
Truth To Power wrote:False. A Chinese worker often uses even higher technology than, and produces just as much as or more than, a European or American one, but is paid far less. The higher wages in advanced countries are caused by legal frameworks and labor market conditions.


You don't understand. We are not talking about individual workers. We are talking about the technological level of a country. The technological level is determined by a small number of innovators, not by the big mass of workers. But even your example proves my point: the labor of the individual worker is not important. For the same labor, the Chinese worker gets more money than an Indian worker but less than a European worker because the technological level of China is higher than that of India but a lower than that of Europe.

Between 1990 and 2016, Chinese patent applications per millions of residents multiplied by a factor of 174 (from 5 to 874) while Chinese GDP per capita increase by a factor of 25 (from 317 to 8,123 USD). At the same time, Indian patent applications only increased by a factor of 10 (from 1 to 10), while GDP only increased by a factor of 4 (from 363 to 1,709). Thus, even though India started with a higher GDP, Chinese prosperity increased by a factor of 25 while Indian prosperity only increased by a factor of 4 because Chinese patent applications increased by a staggering factor of 174. The exact numbers aren’t important, but the trend is clear: innovation is directly proportional to prosperity. The same can be shown for most other countries.

Let me spell it out one more time: barring special conditions (war, natural resources, etc.) the prosperity of an economy is directly proportional to its innovation. Technological innovation is the primary driver of the economy, while labor and capital are secondary.

This is perfectly obvious to virtually every national decision maker worldwide. What is it that keeps internet ideologues from understanding the obvious? Autism? Narcissism?
By Truth To Power
#14889664
Atlantis wrote:You don't understand.

I understand incomparably better than you.
We are not talking about individual workers.

Strawman.
We are talking about the technological level of a country.

There's no such thing.
The technological level is determined by a small number of innovators, not by the big mass of workers.

Nonsense.
But even your example proves my point: the labor of the individual worker is not important.

Irrelevant gibberish.
For the same labor, the Chinese worker gets more money than an Indian worker but less than a European worker because the technological level of China is higher than that of India but a lower than that of Europe.

Blatantly fallacious and empirically false. In the 18th century, Europe's technological level was ahead of America's, but American wages were far higher. Market wages are determined by labor's product on marginal land. Japan has the highest technology level in the world, but it's wages are below Norway's and several other lower-tech countries.
Between 1990 and 2016, Chinese patent applications per millions of residents multiplied by a factor of 174 (from 5 to 874) while Chinese GDP per capita increase by a factor of 25 (from 317 to 8,123 USD). At the same time, Indian patent applications only increased by a factor of 10 (from 1 to 10), while GDP only increased by a factor of 4 (from 363 to 1,709). Thus, even though India started with a higher GDP, Chinese prosperity increased by a factor of 25 while Indian prosperity only increased by a factor of 4 because Chinese patent applications increased by a staggering factor of 174.

Blatant post hoc fallacy. Increased patent applications aren't a measure of increased innovation, just increased understanding of how to play the IP rentier game.
The exact numbers aren’t important, but the trend is clear: innovation is directly proportional to prosperity. The same can be shown for most other countries.

Another fallacy. Innovation and prosperity are both dependent on liberty, security of the person and property, rule of law, etc.
Let me spell it out one more time:

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.
barring special conditions (war, natural resources, etc.)

Weaseling. All counter-examples are now to be dismissed as "special conditions."
the prosperity of an economy is directly proportional to its innovation.

That's just false. If anything, it is prosperity that drives innovation.
Technological innovation is the primary driver of the economy, while labor and capital are secondary.

Flat false. In the 17th century, France led the world in technological innovation, but it didn't make them prosperous because its 10% capital tax prevented investment.
This is perfectly obvious to virtually every national decision maker worldwide.

But is still false.
What is it that keeps internet ideologues from understanding the obvious? Autism? Narcissism?

Facts?

One of my local acquaintances eloped with the wife[…]

Is light energy time?

Gravitons, photons, how do you spell these in Spa[…]

If thats the case then laws regarding guns would […]

Trump and Russiagate

Now Manafort's deputy and Deputy Campaign Chairman[…]