3 ms·

I'm not sure why you are being down-voted, you are correct. The "Labor Theory of Value" has been discredited. This is a group of students railing against someth

by hvs 12y ago

I'm not sure why you are being down-voted, you are correct. The "Labor Theory of Value" has been discredited. This is a group of students railing against something that they don't understand.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
Funny, because if it was global warming that we were talking about, I'm sure they'd demand we defer to the scientific consensus on the matter. :P (And no, not everything in economics -- let alone economic policy proposals -- has an overwhelming consensus behind it, but there are definitely some things, like free trade...)
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  "(And no, not everything in economics -- let alone economic policy proposals -- has an overwhelming consensus behind it, but there are definitely some things, like free trade...)" I've been reading most of the comments in this thread with a kind of silent horror, but I think yours clarifies the issue. The fact that there is a large gap between the imagined systems in place and the actual systems in place. So called "Free Trade" is largely a farce as it is purported to be, and the reality is something much different. That you would claim there is "overwhelming consensus" on "free trade" just strengthens my point. Here's what Chomsky has to say about "Free Trade". "Nobody in the corporate world or government takes free trade seriously. The parts of the economy that are able to compete internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive agriculture, high-tech industry, etc. The government has the public pay for research and development and provides a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy and private profit is what is called free enterprise. Source: What Uncle Sam Really Wants, by Noam Chomsky, p. 13 , Jan 13, 1991 " The same holds for the rest of the discussion here. People want to talk about Capitalism, or Marxism, or any number of other ideological economic ideas as if they exist in their ideological form, while they obviously do not. Not only that, but that they actively exploit the misunderstanding of their form as a sort of PR move. I don't think half of the people speaking in this thread have any sort of solid understanding of such things. Too much time spent understanding the textbook academic view and not enough time spent understanding the pragmatic, complex, and nuanced view of reality.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
I'm surprised you think so. Perhaps you believe The Magic Market Fairy somehow assembles products without human help? Last time I looked if you took labor out of the process, all you'd have left were assorted piles of raw commodities and disappointed wishes for the future. Not even marketing can save you from this terrible fate. (Unless you work for Cards Against Humanity, in which case - well played over Christmas.) >This is a group of students railing against something that they don't understand. Indeed, for assorted values of 'students.'
- ori_b 12y ago
  > Perhaps you believe The Magic Market Fairy somehow assembles products without human help? The value doesn't come from the assembly; the value comes from the utility that someone gets. Let's say you're a chef. How much would you pay for a bunch of shovels to stock up the kitchen of your restaurant? You wouldn't buy shovels? Why not, it's raw materials plus labor, same as a knife. In fact, it's just steel and wood -- it's even the same raw materials. Clearly it has value you should pay for; the value is the same, after all... Oh, you have no USE for it. I see.
- cheald 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
zenogais 12y ago
I have to point out again that it has not been discredited, and is still quite actively debated and used in economics. This includes both the LTV of Karl Marx and that of David Ricardo.

by hvs 12y ago

I'm not sure why you are being down-voted, you are correct. The "Labor Theory of Value" has been discredited. This is a group of students railing against something that they don't understand.

fennecfoxen 12y ago

Funny, because if it was global warming that we were talking about, I'm sure they'd demand we defer to the scientific consensus on the matter. :P (And no, not everything in economics -- let alone economic policy proposals -- has an overwhelming consensus behind it, but there are definitely some things, like free trade...)

arca_vorago 12y ago
"(And no, not everything in economics -- let alone economic policy proposals -- has an overwhelming consensus behind it, but there are definitely some things, like free trade...)" I've been reading most of the comments in this thread with a kind of silent horror, but I think yours clarifies the issue. The fact that there is a large gap between the imagined systems in place and the actual systems in place. So called "Free Trade" is largely a farce as it is purported to be, and the reality is something much different. That you would claim there is "overwhelming consensus" on "free trade" just strengthens my point. Here's what Chomsky has to say about "Free Trade". "Nobody in the corporate world or government takes free trade seriously. The parts of the economy that are able to compete internationally are primarily the state-subsidized ones: capital-intensive agriculture, high-tech industry, etc. The government has the public pay for research and development and provides a state-guaranteed market for waste production. If something is marketable, the private sector takes it over. That system of public subsidy and private profit is what is called free enterprise. Source: What Uncle Sam Really Wants, by Noam Chomsky, p. 13 , Jan 13, 1991 " The same holds for the rest of the discussion here. People want to talk about Capitalism, or Marxism, or any number of other ideological economic ideas as if they exist in their ideological form, while they obviously do not. Not only that, but that they actively exploit the misunderstanding of their form as a sort of PR move. I don't think half of the people speaking in this thread have any sort of solid understanding of such things. Too much time spent understanding the textbook academic view and not enough time spent understanding the pragmatic, complex, and nuanced view of reality.

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

I'm surprised you think so. Perhaps you believe The Magic Market Fairy somehow assembles products without human help? Last time I looked if you took labor out of the process, all you'd have left were assorted piles of raw commodities and disappointed wishes for the future. Not even marketing can save you from this terrible fate. (Unless you work for Cards Against Humanity, in which case - well played over Christmas.) >This is a group of students railing against something that they don't understand. Indeed, for assorted values of 'students.'

ori_b 12y ago
> Perhaps you believe The Magic Market Fairy somehow assembles products without human help? The value doesn't come from the assembly; the value comes from the utility that someone gets. Let's say you're a chef. How much would you pay for a bunch of shovels to stock up the kitchen of your restaurant? You wouldn't buy shovels? Why not, it's raw materials plus labor, same as a knife. In fact, it's just steel and wood -- it's even the same raw materials. Clearly it has value you should pay for; the value is the same, after all... Oh, you have no USE for it. I see.
cheald 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

zenogais 12y ago

I have to point out again that it has not been discredited, and is still quite actively debated and used in economics. This includes both the LTV of Karl Marx and that of David Ricardo.