Political Theory

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

SirThinkALot — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:46:04 GMT

Yea Marx was really just building on what the Classical economists thought.

Although forms of the labor theory of value have been around since Aristotle's time. So it would seem the classical economists were just building on what was passed down to them....

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

onebornfree — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:55:04 GMT

Prateek Sanjay:

@Liberte

lol@physical sciences having any bearing on economic theory. Even Marx knew better.

Yeah, I am not kidding one bit when I say that leftists once used to be cool. At least, a league above today's leftists. Which is why so many early socialists were converted away by Bohm Bauwek, Mises, and Hayek.

"Even Marx knew better"

I was under the [mistaken?] impression [via LVM], that Marx' was actually in agreement with the classical economists and their underlying [false] assumption of the truth of their own "economic man" model - that in fact Marx and the classical economists shared this false, core assumption [i.e. the truth /relevance of the economic man model], and that Marx just "took the ball and ran with it" so to speak [that ball being "economic man"] , finally producing his own, labor theory of value.

It just goes to show how far off conclusions made with straightforward logic can be when the underlying assumptions upon which that logic is built remain unquestioned-and wrong.

regards, onebornfree.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Prateek Sanjay — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:40:05 GMT

@Liberte

lol@physical sciences having any bearing on economic theory. Even Marx knew better.

Yeah, I am not kidding one bit when I say that leftists once used to be cool. At least, a league above today's leftists. Which is why so many early socialists were converted away by Bohm Bauwek, Mises, and Hayek.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

cognitivist — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:52:04 GMT

Solid_Choke:
It contradicts the definition of a commidity to claim that two units of the same commodity are qualitatively different

We can always assume that whoever decides what a "commodity" is can be generalizing. Although at a certain miniscule level such generalizations become frivolous.

But define frivolous. This is after all a forum practically bursting with frivolosity, i.e. how many angels are really dancing on the head of one pin?

I think we suffer from a "think too hard and come up with ridiculous conclusions that no body cares about in the real world" syndrome.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Solid_Choke — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:58:26 GMT

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the labor value on a service is not only the bodily energy or time that goes into performing it. It also includes the years of preparation a trained doctor has went through in order to learn how to perform such procedures.

That is like saying that coal and diamonds are the same commodity but more years of preperation went into the making of the diamond, so it commands a higher price. It contradicts the definition of a commidity to claim that two units of the same commodity are qualitatively different.

A commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.

-Wikipedia

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Azure — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:28:46 GMT

So, if you wanted open heart surgery I'm sure you would go find a construction worker to do it, am I right? Afterall, if labor is a commodity, then you would be indifferent between all "units of labor".

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the labor value on a service is not only the bodily energy or time that goes into performing it. It also includes the years of preparation a trained doctor has went through in order to learn how to perform such procedures.

To make an analogy, consider a man who builds a house and sells it. The most recent labor he has performed is selling the house to you, but does that mean this is the only service he should be compensated for? Likewise the Doctor has not only taken the time and performed the physical motions required to perform heart surgery, he has also done the very laborious work involved up until that point. He deserves compensation for all the labor he has done, even the labor that is unseen to the customer.

That said this isn't how LTV'ers usually phrase it, as most of them really do think doctors should be paid the same as construction workers.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Solid_Choke — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:59:40 GMT

Sure. Labor is a commodity too.

So, if you wanted open heart surgery I'm sure you would go find a construction worker to do it, am I right? Afterall, if labor is a commodity, then you would be indifferent between all "units of labor".

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Azure — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:44:37 GMT

It doesnt seem to be much use for economic analisis though....

Neither is the LTV. And the MTV has the advantage of not running into all of those silly contradictions the LTV constantly finds itself banging up into.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

SirThinkALot — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:29:30 GMT

As well as my question about the price of oil.....

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Andrew Cain — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:51:11 GMT

Rob, I'm still waiting to here how price develops for non-reproducible goods. That along with some other questions I had.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Smiling Dave — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:45:36 GMT

Rob Heusdens:

... anyone accepts the fact that the outcomes of our decissions can be determined by conditions outside of us.

As for instance, anyone can freely make a choice wether to go on vacation on not. But then it shows that there is a statistical significance that in years in which the economy is bad, less people decide to go on vacations as in years in whicht the economy was sufficiently good.

So, we are already used to the fact that our decissions are in fact and partly determined by other conditions.

So the real issue is, what in fact do we consider free will to be, how can it be properly defined, without denying any fact that science can bring up to explain the real motives of our actions.

That's a valid point, at first glance.

But let me ask you, what happens to people when the economy is bad?. Do they lose control of their decision making faculty? Are they taken over by a zombie? I don't think so. I mean, just because we know what people will choose, doesn't mean they didn't choose it. A subtle point, but a true one.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Rob Heusdens — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 22:10:42 GMT

Azure wrote:

<<< Isn't labor a cost of production? Just sayin'. >>>

Sure. Labor is a commodity too.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

SirThinkALot — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:29:11 GMT

Even simpler is the Magic Theory of Value (MTV). Prices are simply magic that can't be understood or explained in any way.

It doesnt seem to be much use for economic analisis though....

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

Azure — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:07:56 GMT

Yes it seems to me Occam's Razor can be applied here: We need (at least) two seperate theories of price for the LTV to work. At least one of which involves a complex relationship of labor, 'use value' and lord knows what other factors to have real explanatory power.

The SVT, otoh, can very simply explain the price of everything from a can of Coke to an original copy of Batman #1.

I know which of these can be 'shaved' away.....

Even simpler is the Magic Theory of Value (MTV). Prices are simply magic that can't be understood or explained in any way.

Re: How physics is validating the (marxist) labour Theory of Value

SirThinkALot — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:18:37 GMT

Also please consider that crude oil still requires labour, cause the oil is not running out of the well all by itself, and needs at least also transport and packaging. So there is labour. And as simple to get oil gets less abundant, we need to dig deeper holes or get oil in other regions, which then means more labour is necessary for producing the same amount of crude oil.

Now, if crude oil was abundantly avaliable everywhere without requiring any labour, just guess that would do with the price...

Out of curosity: what if we manage to reach a point where we dont need oil for anything anymore? That is to say 'renewable' energy sources become efficent enough to replace all our energy needs, we make well working electric cars, and we even mange to create economical replacements for jet fuel and petroliem based plastics....What would happen to the price of oil then?

Well that's what I am trying to figure out. Firstly, he is saying there is a separate way for two different aspects of the market, reproducible and non-reproducible goods.

Yes it seems to me Occam's Razor can be applied here: We need (at least) two seperate theories of price for the LTV to work. At least one of which involves a complex relationship of labor, 'use value' and lord knows what other factors to have real explanatory power.

The SVT, otoh, can very simply explain the price of everything from a can of Coke to an original copy of Batman #1.

I know which of these can be 'shaved' away.....