 |
| |
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
To get more of it. Value is good. I believe I said that, and then you started telling me that you don't accept my idea of value. It's not my idea. Give the credit to Adam Smith maybe, or probably someone who came before him. There is only one 'value' that is appropriate to the context of our discussion. |
I believe Marx is usually credited with the labour theory of value. You say this kind of value is the same as that the capitalists speak of - I'm entirely failing to see how that is the case. The fact that capitalists tend to reject the labour theory of value suggests they do not think it is the same.
That we can get more of anything isn't a reason to, if you'll excuse the pun, value it. We can increase the product of the budget deficit and the number of codfish in the North Sea, but that doesn't mean it's a meaningful number.
Value is good? Why? If I have two stone chisels, the one made by a human stoneworker - and thus, according to the labour theory of value, has had value infused into it - and the other formed by freak accident, there is no certainty that the former is better. What I, as the user of the chisels, value is purely its utility to me. Looking at my metaphical chisels, I'm feeling strongly tempted to say that value is a function of how desireable an object is to me; the essence of the capitalist notion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I believe Marx is usually credited with the labour theory of value.
|
Marx developed the Marxist labor theory of value of course. He used the Classical labor theory of value, and referred to the same value that the Classical economists did.
quote:
You say this kind of value is the same as that the capitalists speak of - I'm entirely failing to see how that is the case. The fact that capitalists tend to reject the labour theory of value suggests they do not think it is the same.
|
Neo-classical economists reject the labor theory of value for the fact that Marx brought it to it's logical conclussion. They, however, did not come up with any new type of value. They merely argued, very poorly I might add, that labor is only half of value. In so doing Alfred Marshall developed what is called consumer surplus which he basically robbed from Marx's theory, while at the same time rejecting Marx's theory. Complete crap!
quote:
That we can get more of anything isn't a reason to, if you'll excuse the pun, value it. We can increase the product of the budget deficit and the number of codfish in the North Sea, but that doesn't mean it's a meaningful number.
Value is good? Why? If I have two stone chisels, the one made by a human stoneworker - and thus, according to the labour theory of value, has had value infused into it - and the other formed by freak accident, there is no certainty that the former is better. What I, as the user of the chisels, value is purely its utility to me. Looking at my metaphical chisels, I'm feeling strongly tempted to say that value is a function of how desireable an object is to me; the essence of the capitalist notion. |
I'm not going down this road. It's absurd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
Value
Like any other term, it has many possible definitions. I value the love of my parents but would never put a price on it . .
But its clear we want to talk about the value of products, items etc that can be purchased for money.
You can get into all sorts of arguments about such things as whether a useless (other than decoration) gemstone is really "worth" a thousand bucks or whether the value of a pound of carrots is really only a few cents. The price of some items makes no sense to me BUT monetary worth as indicated by price is the best indicator we have of the value of a thing.
Now for labor . .. I don't see why it should be treated any differently. The "value" of an hour of labour is no harder and no easier to ascertain than many "things" and I believe that a labourer should be compensated regardless of whether or not their efforts added value to something else
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
Even if I accept one of kid's main concepts, that labour creates all "value "( for teh moment and for the purposes of argument), where does this get us?
There can be little doubt that the operational factory has "value"-- perhaps it can be several millions of dollars. If the owner owns this then theoretically he is the rightful owner of many thousands of hours of accumulated labor value. Perhaps he worked 100 hour weeks for 50 years-- maybe he was smart and made good deals. maybe he invented something and became rich. Perhaps he and his ancestors profited from an enslaved populace . . . . The bottom line is you don't know.
But to call all this accumulated value a new term "capital" and to say it is therefore unworthy of compensation seems absurd to me. Use your own theory and assess the factory as what it is, the product of thousands and thousands of hours of labour. If you can appropriate this without compensation, you would equally feel free to fail to pay the "workers" for their labour.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Different context |
My point exactly.
Besides, I thought you liked to interchange contexts. You do it all the time with the term "exploitation"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You have a degree in econ, right? |
Am doing, yes. I'm only 20.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
So you know what consumer surplus is, right? So tell us, what does a consumer get a surplus of? |
The consumer gets more value than he is willing to pay. For example, if one consumer is willing to pay $10, another $8 and another $6, and the company wants to sell to all 3, he must sell at $6. Thus the one who is willing to pay $10 gets it for $6, and has $4 consumer surplus. Similarly the $8 consumer gets $2 consumer surplus. This is exra money they have that they would be willing to part with for that good.
Hence why I said "marginal" consumer, specifically.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Yes, but a good economist has no reason to pick data specifically that goes one way or the other. In order to be well recognised, academically, you want to pick as large a random sample as you can manage. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's not biased, and if you look at the statistical significance involved in a sample of 300,000, you'll see it's a pretty good approximation of the true, full set of data. |
Well neo-classical economists are not good economists. Chile, case in point. Free market economics was a drastic failure there. Then they started regulating the economy, and the economy improved. Now the economists go around the world claiming that Chile was a free market miracle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
As if there were actual 'marginal' consumers. We're talking in general terms here. Don't look at the trees. Look at the forest. |
There is always a marginal consumer. That's part of the definition of one. The marginal consumer, and their willingness to pay, denotes the price. That's why we refer to price equaling value, as when it comes to deciding how much is traded, it does, for the marginal consumer. Now, for a measure of value, that is of course wrong, which is where consumer and producer surplus come in. Trading creates value as long as the price someone is willing to pay is higher than the price the firm needs to be offered to be willing to sell. Price falls raise value, because they raise output. If there's more output in the economy, there's more value.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
In general consumers get a surplus from production in the market place. This is the same argument as the Marxist labor theory of value, just put into another context. So how do you claim that the Marxist labor theory of value is wrong. It's obvious where Marshall got it. |
Because Marx states that the value of a good is the value of the labour. He ignores the things needed to make labour effectual. If you have one worker producing 10 cans a day, and then he's given a new machine and can produce 20 cans a day, the value of his output will go up. He hasn't changed, however. That is why havign value equal to the labour input is wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Yes, Neo-classical economists are not good economists. They're not respected in the economic community. Neither are true Keynesians. Any economist that is out to prove a point, rather than discover how things work, is generally not recognised as a good economist.
|
All economists are out to prove a point. That's why they became eocnomists, and yes neo-classical is the orthodox school.
quote:
And as said, free market economics didn't work. That doesn't mean a competative market doesn't, that means a free market didn't. You do realise every basic microeconomics course teaches that regulation is sometimes necessary, when the costs of it are lower than the benefit from producing more output. |
Competitive markets have their place, but it certainly is no law that they always work the way most economists claim they do.
And whether or not you were taught that regulation is sometimes needed or not, depends on your teacher, course and textbook.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-02-2005 03:15
I shouldn't, but what are you talking about?
|