[Truth To Power]

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

If you believe stupid Marxist bull$#!+, that is.

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

It's only a paradox if you think Marx had anything useful to say.

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.

It can't be understood by anyone who understands economics.

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.

His theory says whatever Marxists want it to say.

Marx's theory of value seeks to uncover--in modern parlance--the long run determinants of intrinsic value

Which is why it is objectively wrong: there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is what a thing would trade for, and is therefore absolutely dependent on the market context.

given the conditions of production under competitive capitalism (particularly factory production, and particularly in England during the Industrial Revolution).

Gibberish.

What Marx showed was

His ignorance of economics.

that the proportion of socially necessary labor power

Gibberish.

was the sole determinant of value under a model framework of perfect competition.

I.e., in a fantasy world bearing no resemblance to empirical reality.

The reason for this is that capital is remunerated at its full value.

Which is objectively false. Capital obtains the return the market allows.

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),

Which is objectively false. Market wages are equal to labor's product on marginal land. Everything else is taken by the landowner. The "cost of reproduction of labor power" is utterly irrelevant.

and the workers' production in excess of this prevailing wage constitutes surplus value, which is the basis of capitalist profits.

Which is objectively false. The basis of capitalist profits is allocating resources more efficiently than others.

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'.

Because there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

Contemporary economics has abdicated on this, although it certainly preoccupied classical economists.

Whom Jevons refuted.

Contrary to counter-lies, Marx's labor theory has indeed retained its place.

Along with phlogiston theory, epicycles, and inheritance of acquired characteristics.

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.

No, it's entirely based on Marxist theory's absolute lack of scientific merit.

The notion that Marx's labor theory of value has been disproved is a false notion,

No, it is objectively correct.

as is the notion that his theory was supplanted by marginal utility theory.

No, it is correct.

Marginal utility theory and Marx's labor theory of value address categorically different things.

Right: the things that marginal utility theory addresses exist, and the things that Marx's Labor Theory of Value addresses do not.

The one relates to prices (in particular on the spot), and the latter relates to intrinsic value.

Which does not exist.

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.

Value is what a thing would trade for, and is therefore normally close to price (what it did trade for).

[Crantag]

@Truth To Power, you've done nothing with your time here than raise two big, broad white flags with those two posts.

Your intellectual dishonesty is really palpable. Willful blindness is dishonesty in academics.

You aptly prove again how futile it is to ever attempt to take you seriously on here.

(P.s., I study the texts, which is how I know what they say. You can't even reference a passage to support your contrived fantasies.)

[Rugoz]

I will now respond to TTP, knowing I will regret it .

It doesn't hold at all. Jevons disproved it.

Practically all modern economists are marginalists, and I won't pretend it's not the superior theory by far. But, marginalism doesn't hold either.
The assumptions about the properties of production and utility functions aren't generally true.

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.

Cleary the supply of "land with certain attributes" can be increased. Build a road somewhere and you've increased the supply of land. Residential land for example is valuable first and foremost because of externalities. That doesn't mean land cannot have inherent properties that make it more valuable.

No, only privilege -- which of course often confers market power -- can explain the declining share of wages.

It's one candidate, but obviously not the only one.

In a sense; but more importantly, Marx ignores the difference between market power arising from privilege and from productive contribution.

Market power can only be justified from the perspective of dynamic efficiency.

[The Immortal Goon]

I will now respond to TTP, knowing I will regret it.

Be careful!

He has a secret source from an author he doesn’t know, that says something he doesn’t remember, in a way he isn’t sure of, in a citation he cannot find, that would completely invalidate your argument if you just trust the idea that an illiterate did well on his GRE.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power, you've done nothing with your time here than raise two big, broad white flags with those two posts.

So you have been refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Check.

Your intellectual dishonesty is really palpable. Willful blindness is dishonesty in academics.

I am the most -- perhaps the only -- intellectually honest person posting on this site: I am the only one here who does not refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

You aptly prove again how futile it is to ever attempt to take you seriously on here.

That's funny coming from a Marxist.

(P.s., I study the texts,

I study reality.

which is how I know what they say. You can't even reference a passage to support your contrived fantasies.)

What difference would it make if I found and quoted the passages I've referred to?

[Crantag]

Frankly TTP, I'm becoming a bit annoyed with your insistence on derailing every topic.

It might be interesting to hear what people generally have to think on a critical basis, but instead people end up circling their wagons to take on your ludicrous dribble.

So, the most practical thing is to completely ignore your posts going forward.

[B0ycey]

What difference would it make if I found and quoted the passages I've referred to?

Credibility, viability and supporting evidence.

Are you sure you understand the things you think you know if you cannot find the passages to cross reference?

[Truth To Power]

Practically all modern economists are marginalists, and I won't pretend it's not the superior theory by far. But, marginalism doesn't hold either.
The assumptions about the properties of production and utility functions aren't generally true.

It's true that neoclassical economics takes marginalism too far in its attempt to "prove" that markets are efficient, that equilibrium is relevant, that the privileged somehow earn everything they take from society, etc. But that does not affect the validity of the marginal utility theory of value. Value by definition is what a thing would trade for. What a product of labor would trade for is determined where its marginal utility to buyers and marginal cost -- including labor cost -- to producers meet. So value is not determined by labor, and the Labor Theory of Value is therefore false. Labor, rather, is determined by value.

Cleary the supply of "land with certain attributes" can be increased.

No, the supply of certain improvements to land can be increased, improving the utility of such land, but the supply of land is fixed.

Build a road somewhere and you've increased the supply of land.

No, you most certainly and indisputably have not. All you have done is enhance access to the immutably fixed amount of land that exists permanently in that area. Your statement is just another example of the phenomenon I identified in my previous post, which is universal among apologists for socialism and capitalism: REFUSAL TO KNOW facts that prove your beliefs are false.

Residential land for example is valuable first and foremost because of externalities. That doesn't mean land cannot have inherent properties that make it more valuable.

The physical qualities nature provides at a given location are inherent properties of that location. That does NOT mean their value is inherent. Value is determined by market context. It is never inherent.

It's one candidate, but obviously not the only one.

It's the most important one, by far.

Market power can only be justified from the perspective of dynamic efficiency.

Nope. Wrong. The market power I exert by being the only provider of my labor is justified by my rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of my labor. It couldn't matter less that I can thereby obtain a higher wage than I would be willing to work for.

[Rich]

Frankly TTP, I'm becoming a bit annoyed with your insistence on derailing every topic.

PoFo is a bit of a meritocracy. The more you post, the more influence you have. I never thought there was much mileage in Rei's Japo-White supremacist Lesbian fascism, but she certainly put the work in so she got the pay back. I'm a much lazier poster.

[Truth To Power]

Frankly TTP, I'm becoming a bit annoyed with your insistence on derailing every topic.

When you are all debating your epicycle theories, it is not "derailing the topic" to identify the fact that epicycles do not actually exist, because orbits are not circular but elliptical.

It might be interesting to hear what people generally have to think on a critical basis, but instead people end up circling their wagons to take on your ludicrous dribble.

You don't have to answer me when I refute your false and evil beliefs. I merely identify the relevant facts of objective physical reality and their inescapable logical implications. If you refuse to know them, that's your business. I can't make you think.

So, the most practical thing is to completely ignore your posts going forward.

Yes, if your goal is to preserve your false and evil beliefs.

[Truth To Power]

Credibility, viability and supporting evidence.

But it would only be evidence that Marx said it, not that it is true. I'm actually not that interested in what Marx said, and only referred to it because I know Marxists have a lot of trouble thinking about anything Marx didn't say.

Are you sure you understand the things you think you know if you cannot find the passages to cross reference?

I remember seeing it many years ago, but not where I saw it. It would be troublesome and time consuming for me to comb through the text for it. I assumed Marxists would know about it: they have the same sort of textual devotion as biblical literalists.

[Citizen J]

Please define "evil" in the context of your use, TTP.

[The Immortal Goon]

I remember seeing it many years ago, but not where I saw it. It would be troublesome and time consuming for me to comb through the text for it. I assumed Marxists would know about it: they have the same sort of textual devotion as biblical literalists.

And yet not only were you dead wrong about the origin of whatever was in the book, but what was there completely disproved your point.

When asked for clarification, you didn't know if what you were imagining was a single section, or something that was sprinkled throughout the book. You did not know what section it was in, what it said, or how it impacted your analysis feelings.

When pushed, you sulked away and stopped responding.

Since you can't seem to make it through an economic text, maybe you can make it to the bottom of this meme

[Truth To Power]

quote function error, please delete

[Truth To Power]

You are just too difficult to teach.

I will correct your errors as I encounter them.

Land rent is determined by demand.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

More accurately, it is determined EXCLUSIVELY by demand, because supply is fixed.

No demand, no rent.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

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?

Is this meant to be informative?

The worth of land is down to the areas economy.

The word, "worth" is conveniently vague. Are you talking about exchange value or rental value? Or something else? They are determined quite differently.

Rental value is determined by the difference in obtainable production between marginal and advantageous land given the same inputs. Exchange value is determined by the expected rental value, discount rate and tax rate. If the tax rate is high enough, exchange value will be near zero no matter how active the local economy. Contrariwise, low taxation and a low discount rate will increase exchange value even if economic activity is weak.

Until you understand this basic fact you will always be disregarded by people who understand economics.

You have not given any evidence that you understand the above.

Yes they did.

No, they did not.

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

I have corrected his erroneous claims, but he does not seem willing to know the relevant facts because they prove his beliefs are false.

Banks need capital to lend.

No, they do not. The capital adequacy ratio required by the Bank for International Settlement is just a safety measure. A bank that did not deal with the BIS would not need any capital to lend.

They need a fractional reserve.

Again, that is only a statutory requirement based on an erroneous understanding of bank operations. Some countries, like Canada, have realized that it is irrelevant, and have eliminated it.

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.

So many errors, so little time...

The amount of cash currency in circulation is just a small fraction of bank deposits, and has nothing to do with banks' capital, which in turn has nothing to do with their loan assets. Banks would not even attempt to redeem all deposits in currency.

Why do you think banks shit themselves when there is a run on them?

Because they don't want the market to think they can't meet their obligations.

2008 and Northern Rock is a great example of a bank shitting themselves when people want their money back.

It was not a case of a depositor run. It was mounting loan losses that made their balance sheet unsustainable. If other banks started to get scared and refuse their instruments, they would be out of business.

If money was in a vault somewhere out in the channel islands gathering dust (or whatever you believe),

That bears no resemblance to the facts (which are what I believe).

why would a bank even care if they have customers?

They don't care much if they have depositors. They care if they have borrowers, because that's where their interest income comes from.

No demand, no value.

A miracle of uninformativeness.

If a factory closes and no tennents move in, the land rent is nothing.

False. The land rent is the difference in production obtainable on that land vs marginal land. If no tenants move in, it just means the landowner is holding out for more than that.

The lands value is also linked to demand.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

London for example has a higher land value than Rotherham due to demand.

Imagine that...

Land value is down to demand.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

They offer a service which is a product.

No, they do not. They simply charge tenants full market value for access to the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at those locations.

Not all products are physical.

Not all revenue is obtained by production.

Well Mr Business man explain this. Why do businesses relocate to third world nations if everything is all down to location?

They can't make enough use of the advantages of locations in their own countries to pay the rent, whereas from locations in third world countries, they get the advantage of access to cheap labor.

Answer, because their products can cross borders.

No, that is not the answer, because many companies whose products can cross borders DON'T relocate to third world countries. See what happens when I apply elementary logic to your silly claims?

The price they pay for rent obviously changes due to the demand of that land.

But what determines that demand? What determines how much people are willing to pay to use it? Blank out.

And a third world nation with lots of empty space will no doubt offer low rents.

<sigh> Third world countries that attract a lot of such investment, like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines, are actually much MORE crowded than the first world countries that formerly hosted the operation.

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.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

Incomplete? Engels worked from notes.

The idea that Engels inserted important material Marx did not produce strains credulity.

He did actually.

Nope.

@Rugoz helped you out there.

I schooled him on the facts.

Land rent is a superprofit meaning that the landlord didn't need to do anything to gain capital in laymen terms.

And in fact, he also took the "surplus" that Marx had incorrectly assumed existed, and attributed to the capitalist's exploitation of labor.

But the value of land still and always will be linked to demand.

But what determines demand? Blank out.

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.

False (unless you beg the question by defining capital as a product of human labor). A spiderweb is capital. The honeycomb in a beehive is capital. Some ant species keep other insects as livestock, which are capital. Others cultivate edible fungus on leaves carried into the nest, which are capital. It's not common in the animal world, but it does happen.

Perhaps that was Marx's/Engels message in Kapital.

And that's why it was garbage?

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.

You can? When it seems you haven't read it?

"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

[Truth To Power]

Please define "evil" in the context of your use, TTP.

Evil in action is deliberate abrogation of another's rights with intent to inflict injustice. Beliefs are evil when consistent adherence to them would require evil action. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. Lies told to justify evil actions or evil beliefs are also evil.

[B0ycey]

So many errors TtP, is it even worth acknowledging your presents?

But as I part ways, I leave you this ponder. When everyone tells you that you are wrong and only you claim to be correct could you really be wrong? But does it really matter? Ignorance is bliss. Believe what you like. It doesn't affect me or reality and I instead will discuss these matters with people who don't cry or shout 'false' to a claim without supplying any evidence when debating economics. But I do enjoy people claiming the things I haven't read or done or learnt without even knowing me. Just because I do not publish personal data on the internet doesn't mean I am an uneducated bed wetter who lives in his mother's basement. Perhaps I know things to be true.

[Tainari88]

So many errors TtP, is it even worth acknowledging your presents?

But as I part ways, I leave you this ponder. When everyone tells you that you are wrong and only you claim to be correct could you really be wrong? But does it really matter? Ignorance is bliss. Believe what you like. It doesn't affect me or reality and I instead will discuss these matters with people who don't cry or shout 'false' to a claim without supplying any evidence when debating economics. But I do enjoy people claiming the things I haven't read or done or learnt without even knowing me. Just because I do not publish personal data on the internet doesn't mean I am an uneducated bed wetter who lives in his mother's basement. Perhaps I know things to be true.

I am curious about you B0ycey? Are you an uneducated bed wetter who lives in his mama's basement? Somehow.....I don't think so.

Are you a European? Somehow I think you are English? Is it true?

Let me guess.....I will play psychic network. I am the only Puerto Rican woman born in San Juan who you have read on the internet in PoFo? Yes. That is true. Why is this true? Because I doubt if you live in the UK you know many Puerto Ricans. They are scarce there or almost non existent.

So it is safe to think I am the only one.

Me and J Lo. The only Puerto Ricans you know....the horror.

Marxism it is not for everyone who don't like it.....I say, Marxist theory is not for those who don't want to know about Marxist theory. It is relegated to the dust bin of those tomes like Das Kapital. Capital. I or II.....big fat tomes of economic theory written in original German and badly translated by many.....to be digested in bits and pondered over as one's eyes glaze over with lots of hot coffee in a Caribbean setting....like I did. Then discussed after many hours of breaking down the concepts with copious notes.....and debating it with a Puerto Rican professor with flourishing gestures and talking with the hands......and making bold statements.....like "Workers of the World Unite!" And dance some salsa if you can--just to be able to throw off the steam from too much German philosophy in one sitting.

Marxism is a pain in the ass for those who can't cope with Marxism. Punto y se acabo! Don't talk to me about Marxism. Material conditions don't determine a damn thing. We are all floating in the air like we just don't care. They say to themselves.....God is gonna save me and science is religion. Religion is science. This is that. And stop talking to me about that.

When people start with that stuff.....I know it is time to realize. Never gonna get it.

Good night B0ycey!

Capitalism TtP is all about this: (make it simple for you):

You look out for your own ass. Who cares about other people?

And the Commies @Truth To Power are Carlito Brigante taking out the bullets and leaving the Capitalists who have some angry pro revenge people looking for their sorry asses....it is all there. The EVIL is the capitalists with the selfish shit.

That is all you need to figure out.

[B0ycey]

I am European and British @Tainari88. And yes I am English as well. But I don't like to publish too much personal data about myself on here. Only relevant information. This is both a security measure and to also to prevent prejudious within my posts. TtP assumptions about me highlights this important notion to be correct. I could be teenage bed wetter who spends all day masturbating, the governor of the BoE (but being British rules this out) of someone else. He doesn't know me. So he needs to debate what I have written and not the person he thinks I am. Claiming that I haven't done something, learnt something or read something is not evidence. It is an assumption that is worthless (and he has been wrong). He needs to present his argument with quotes if he claims to have read them. Otherwise it is just an opinion. And an opinion is not necessarily a fact.

As for knowing Puerto Ricans, I can't say I know any personally but know of plenty via published or digital means. From my understanding they are very friendly social people. I respect more traditional living than the greed of the West. I think you get that from Latino or Caribbean residents. I think Britain needs to leave the rat-race of Corporatism and conservatism and return to more Centrism politics to perhaps learn the more traditional family values such nations have. Brexit is a factor of UK greed that will ultimately reduce our international standing and remove us from our friends across the channel. It will reduce our wealth and return reality home here. Next year will be a sad time for me but perhaps it might reset the UK financially to start a new economic foundation. And that financial foundation could be less class divisive. Perhaps there is a silverlining after all.

[Tainari88]

I am European and British @Tainari88. And yes I am English as well. But I don't like to publish too much personal data about myself on here. Only relevant information. This is both a security measure and to also to prevent prejudious within my posts. TtP assumptions about me highlights this important notion to be correct. I could be teenage bed wetter who spends all day masturbating, the governor of the BoE (but being British rules this out) of someone else. He doesn't know me. So he needs to debate what I have written and not the person he thinks I am. Claiming that I haven't done something, learnt something or read something is not evidence. It is an assumption that is worthless (and he has been wrong). He needs to present his argument with quotes if he claims to have read them. Otherwise it is just an opinion. And an opinion is not necessarily a fact.

As for knowing Puerto Ricans, I can't say I know any personally but know of plenty via published or digital means. From my understanding they are very friendly social people. I respect more traditional living than the greed of the West. I think you get that from Latino or Caribbean residents. I think Britain needs to leave the rat-race of Corporatism and conservatism and return to more Centrism politics to perhaps learn the more traditional family values such nations have. Brexit is a factor of UK greed that will ultimately reduce our international standing and remove us from our friends across the channel. It will reduce our wealth and return reality home here. Next year will be a sad time for me but perhaps it might reset the UK financially to start a new economic foundation. And that financial foundation could be less class divisive. Perhaps there is a silverlining after all.

Got to learn how to go and pursue what you find meaningful in life.

Oh B0ycey, people are so similar in their desires in their hearts. So similar. I often wonder why people are the way they are? Why greedy people somehow don't realize other people are noticing how greedy they are and how underhanded and selfish....and how they don't try to correct it?

The answer is about people trying to fill voids they have. They think, "I don't have enough. I need something. Power. Strength. Prestige. That person has more than I do. I don't want to live in poverty. I don't want to be the person in the lower position. I don't want____________. Fill in the blank reason."

People become slaves to their habits. Bad ones. Good ones. Habits. They become that which they dedicate a lot of efforts to in this life. What they have learned from their families, from society, from each other, from school or work, or their social networks.

Truth with human beings is often subjective. People say they want change? They often don't. Change is pain filled many times. It requires conscious efforts at breaking habits and breaking patterns that one has accepted about one's self or others and it is uncomfortable. Yet, change is inevitable in the extreme. Every natural law is about constant change in the environment, in the age of the planet and of the stars and the rest of the heavenly bodies.....it is fundamental in everything.

But human societies avoid both pain and change. Because? It is easier to stay static and to trust only what is known to us.

But what we fail to realize that change also means renewal, it symbolizes transformation and a sense of control. Internal control and external control. And if we flow with it, instead of resisting it? We come out better in the end.

We are here to transform ourselves and each other. Never to remain stagnant. That is why I think my political thoughts are about going with transformation. It is what we all have to do in the end. Not to remain the same and living with fear of other races, status, classes, people, nationalities, sex, etc....but to transform from feeling separate and wanting to feel better than others, to feeling connected and feeling part of everything. And that is what is the answer to the alienation that Marx talks about. Alienation from work, alienation of man or woman, to feeling connected to everyone.

That for me is what people fail the most at. And why we are a society with so many issues. But our natural state? Is connection and transformation. Not separation and stagnation.

So? No matter how stubborn the Truth to Powers are in the world or others? They are all heading in the same direction. They just don't know it yet.