5 ms·

> "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not

> "[the Labor Theory of Value is] an idea long since thoroughly discredited." that's quite a claim to make without any backing ("everything is nothing" is not particularly useful). i've read some of the main critiques [0], but none thoroughly discredits it. yes, the critiques show flaws, but not fatal ones. so what's the fatal flaw? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theor...

nemo 7y ago
I think it'd worth reading that page again with an open mind. If you really read through that and thought that there are no fatal issues that's fine, I don't agree, though I doubt there's anything that anyone could say to change your mind. But I will retract and restate. The Labor Theory of Value is taken seriously by Marxists because they require it, but in terms of expert opinion it's long since been rejected. If you don't care about expert opinion and are willing to listen to ideologues then you will find compelling feeling arguments for the whole shambolic mess that is Marxist ideology. The Labor Theory of Value isn't a single flaw in Marxism, but one of dozens of serious points of incoherence. Marxism is an anti-empirical archaism of the Victorian era. Marxism is built on a dialectic that literally cannot reveal truth. Marxism makes many predictive claims that are false. Russell took apart the contradictions and irrationality of Hegelianism a long time ago and ended Hegelianism in the Anglo-American philosophical world because of it.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  Ah, people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice. I feel like I've been here before. If you dropped the constantly condescending hyperbolic anti marxist stuff and made substantive criticisms besides linking to wikipedia this could be a more interesting conversation!
  - nemo 7y ago
    "people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice" You are half right. People who are adherents to Marxism are certainly ideologues - Marxism is an ideology, not a science, and it's anti-empiricism leaves it there permanently. There's quite a lot of diversity among expert opinion on the many matters Marx discusses, and while current economics is barely a science, we have learned some things in the past 150 years. Marxism is a cult that pretends to have a science, despite the 150 year old claptrap in the source being unscientific, incoherent, and with most key concepts in Marx's ideas of economics being discredited. His more useful ideas have been picked up by everyone, and he's useful as a foil to illustrate ignorant concepts, but there really has been some progress in the sciences Marx was foundering at in the last 150 years. Dumping Hegelian magical thinking and learning to ground concepts in empirical data helped quite a lot for progress. The faithful follow Marx's anti-empiricism and adhere to Dear Leader's Greatness out of a sense of identity in the cause of seeking justice and economic fairness because it's a cult not a science. Marxists murdered anyone on the left who didn't agree with them as happily as the Capitalists, but these days it is possible to dump Marx and still be sincerely committed to universal economic justice. In fact it's our only chance given Marxism's dismal failure.
    - 0x262d 7y ago
      this is obviously silly, opinionated and unsubstantiated. criticize it on the merits or don't. so far you've just said "anti empirical" and linked wikipedia.
      - nemo 7y ago
        "Anti empirical" really should be enough.
        0x262d 7y ago
        lol. more garbage. I meant to type "anti-empiricism" - which is a reasonable philosophical position that doesn't actually just mean someone hates evidence. it's not enough.
uk_programmer 7y ago
The labour theory of value is easily discredited. The market determines the value i.e. what people are willing to pay for something. The labour theory of value is simply describing the cost of producing something. Whether people are willing to buy it as that price (which would be same as selling it at cost) is an entirely different matter.
- clairity 7y ago
  you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics).
  - uk_programmer 7y ago
    > you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. It isn't about what I think. When people make purchases they will typically try to buy as cheaply as possible. If someone is looking to make a purchase they will typically go to whoever is offering it cheapest, if other people want to compete they will either have to offer it at the same price or cheaper. Are you claiming this isn't true? Because I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I used to work in a Petrol Station we were ones of the cheapest places around and we had a lot of custom. Other places that were more expensive were empty at the same time on the same days because they were more expensive. There is of course exceptions to this (Head and Shoulders Shampoo being the classic example) but they are outliers. The same with a labour market. The market rate for a C# programmer is approximately £350-450 a day in the UK. More specialist development roles pay more e.g. Angular JS developers which are typically £500-750 a day (the last time I looked). There is less Angular JS developers that are available (low supply) so to attract talent companies that wish to hire need to raise the rate. However C# developers in the UK are much more common (higher supply) so companies won't pay those high prices. Are you telling me this isn't happening? Because you can go to total jobs yourself and put C# developer Manchester and you will see difference in market rate yourself. > beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics). Not true. You are making several assumptions: 1) That there is abundance of said product (high supply). 2) People are wanting or needing to make a purchase. 3) That there isn't other competitors which have improved their processes or paying their employees less. Number 2 being the most important IMO as everything else is normally equal. If nobody wants to buy it at the cost (or higher) you will be selling it at a loss.

nemo 7y ago

I think it'd worth reading that page again with an open mind. If you really read through that and thought that there are no fatal issues that's fine, I don't agree, though I doubt there's anything that anyone could say to change your mind. But I will retract and restate. The Labor Theory of Value is taken seriously by Marxists because they require it, but in terms of expert opinion it's long since been rejected. If you don't care about expert opinion and are willing to listen to ideologues then you will find compelling feeling arguments for the whole shambolic mess that is Marxist ideology. The Labor Theory of Value isn't a single flaw in Marxism, but one of dozens of serious points of incoherence. Marxism is an anti-empirical archaism of the Victorian era. Marxism is built on a dialectic that literally cannot reveal truth. Marxism makes many predictive claims that are false. Russell took apart the contradictions and irrationality of Hegelianism a long time ago and ended Hegelianism in the Anglo-American philosophical world because of it.

0x262d 7y ago
Ah, people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice. I feel like I've been here before. If you dropped the constantly condescending hyperbolic anti marxist stuff and made substantive criticisms besides linking to wikipedia this could be a more interesting conversation!
- nemo 7y ago
  "people who believe in marxism are ideologues and people who believe in the predominant ruling-class economic wisdom are simply wisely following expert advice" You are half right. People who are adherents to Marxism are certainly ideologues - Marxism is an ideology, not a science, and it's anti-empiricism leaves it there permanently. There's quite a lot of diversity among expert opinion on the many matters Marx discusses, and while current economics is barely a science, we have learned some things in the past 150 years. Marxism is a cult that pretends to have a science, despite the 150 year old claptrap in the source being unscientific, incoherent, and with most key concepts in Marx's ideas of economics being discredited. His more useful ideas have been picked up by everyone, and he's useful as a foil to illustrate ignorant concepts, but there really has been some progress in the sciences Marx was foundering at in the last 150 years. Dumping Hegelian magical thinking and learning to ground concepts in empirical data helped quite a lot for progress. The faithful follow Marx's anti-empiricism and adhere to Dear Leader's Greatness out of a sense of identity in the cause of seeking justice and economic fairness because it's a cult not a science. Marxists murdered anyone on the left who didn't agree with them as happily as the Capitalists, but these days it is possible to dump Marx and still be sincerely committed to universal economic justice. In fact it's our only chance given Marxism's dismal failure.
  - 0x262d 7y ago
    this is obviously silly, opinionated and unsubstantiated. criticize it on the merits or don't. so far you've just said "anti empirical" and linked wikipedia.
    - nemo 7y ago
      "Anti empirical" really should be enough.
      - 0x262d 7y ago
        lol. more garbage. I meant to type "anti-empiricism" - which is a reasonable philosophical position that doesn't actually just mean someone hates evidence. it's not enough.

uk_programmer 7y ago

The labour theory of value is easily discredited. The market determines the value i.e. what people are willing to pay for something. The labour theory of value is simply describing the cost of producing something. Whether people are willing to buy it as that price (which would be same as selling it at cost) is an entirely different matter.

clairity 7y ago
you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics).
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  > you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. It isn't about what I think. When people make purchases they will typically try to buy as cheaply as possible. If someone is looking to make a purchase they will typically go to whoever is offering it cheapest, if other people want to compete they will either have to offer it at the same price or cheaper. Are you claiming this isn't true? Because I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I used to work in a Petrol Station we were ones of the cheapest places around and we had a lot of custom. Other places that were more expensive were empty at the same time on the same days because they were more expensive. There is of course exceptions to this (Head and Shoulders Shampoo being the classic example) but they are outliers. The same with a labour market. The market rate for a C# programmer is approximately £350-450 a day in the UK. More specialist development roles pay more e.g. Angular JS developers which are typically £500-750 a day (the last time I looked). There is less Angular JS developers that are available (low supply) so to attract talent companies that wish to hire need to raise the rate. However C# developers in the UK are much more common (higher supply) so companies won't pay those high prices. Are you telling me this isn't happening? Because you can go to total jobs yourself and put C# developer Manchester and you will see difference in market rate yourself. > beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics). Not true. You are making several assumptions: 1) That there is abundance of said product (high supply). 2) People are wanting or needing to make a purchase. 3) That there isn't other competitors which have improved their processes or paying their employees less. Number 2 being the most important IMO as everything else is normally equal. If nobody wants to buy it at the cost (or higher) you will be selling it at a loss.