Labor vs. Subjective Theories of Value

[Dean]

Or, "what happened to our analytical economics?"


The labor theory of value states in basic terms that value* is created by the application of human labor to natural resources. Further, natural resources are seen as just as important to the valuation of objects.

The LTV was promoted by Karl Marx, Adam Smith and David Ricardo and the basis for its creation was in Aristotle's theory of value.

The most important point about the subject is that the labor theory of value accounts for the individual contributions that members of society make to production.

Now what does this quantification provide for economic analysis? In simple terms, it allows us to track the relative returns that labor can achieve in different markets. On the other hand, it can show what value labor can provide to the purchaser of labor (capitalist) in exchange value.

Once we have summed up the costs (or wage rate and material costs) that each particular value-addition has incurred in the production of the commodity, we can find the difference of exchange value - the difference being surplus value which the capitalist accrues:


The whole produce of labour does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which employs him.

*Value as a quantifiable concept (required for most economic models) is a social model - it can only exist in exchange; individual, non-social choices can only enumerate value


The subjective theory of value states or requires a few certain things:
-humans should "voluntarily" dictate value via the market
-intrinsic value theories should be rejected
-this value is always increasing since exchange is always desired, that is the exchange provides benefits - and therefore increases value - for both parties.


There are a few things worth noting here. Firstly, the subjective theory of value actively distances itself from exchange value and in doing so actively excludes itself from both:
-the model of analysis provided in Marxist economics
-any quantified analysis of economic models

In fact, this subjective theory follows the same logic as an ethicist who might say "these individuals are right since they think they are right." In that sense, individual moral values prove their own merit.


So a few conclusions can be drawn:
Subjective theories of value are no substitute for quantitative analysis, do not provide assessment of material changes in society, and rather provide a philosophical-moral doctrine.

[RGacky3]

The Subjective theory of value in its extreme form promotes things like housing bubbles, because the value has nothing to do with the house itself, but what the expected profits are from exchanging the house with someone who expects to do the same, which means that when the exchanging stops, all that value dissapears, so essencially the subjective value ends up being both what rich people thing is valueble and what people think they can flip for a profit, based on other people doing the same, rather than any actual need or want being fulfilled.

[Dean]

The Subjective theory of value in its extreme form promotes things like housing bubbles, because the value has nothing to do with the house itself, but what the expected profits are from exchanging the house with someone who expects to do the same, which means that when the exchanging stops, all that value dissapears, so essencially the subjective value ends up being both what rich people thing is valueble and what people think they can flip for a profit, based on other people doing the same, rather than any actual need or want being fulfilled.

That's an interesting point. As the theory states, the above pricing bubbles "creates value." But apparently, it not only is unsustainable - but must destroy value at times.

Such facts don't bode well for the character of the model as a method to analyze the economy in either case.

[fredflintstone]

The Subjective theory of value in its extreme form promotes things like housing bubbles, because the value has nothing to do with the house itself, but what the expected profits are from exchanging the house with someone who expects to do the same, which means that when the exchanging stops, all that value dissapears, so essencially the subjective value ends up being both what rich people thing is valueble and what people think they can flip for a profit, based on other people doing the same, rather than any actual need or want being fulfilled.

You are describing a phenomenon that was created by the convergence of many forces, and super-simplifying it to include only one factor.

[Skooma Addict]

The Subjective theory of value in its extreme form promotes things like housing bubbles, because the value has nothing to do with the house itself, but what the expected profits are from exchanging the house with someone who expects to do the same, which means that when the exchanging stops, all that value dissapears, so essencially the subjective value ends up being both what rich people thing is valueble and what people think they can flip for a profit, based on other people doing the same, rather than any actual need or want being fulfilled.

The STV promotes housing bubbles? lol, wtf.

There is no objective or intrinsic value of the house. The houses value is completely agent dependent and varies from person to person.

[RGacky3]

You are describing a phenomenon that was created by the convergence of many forces, and super-simplifying it to include only one factor.

I'm not, I'm explaining one factor, which is a pretty big factor.


There is no objective or intrinsic value of the house. The houses value is completely agent dependent and varies from person to person.

I know, it has no "Objective value, but the STV puts a fake value on it based not on the utility of it for an individual but for the percieved profit to be made by someone who will also try and profit.

We arn't talking about utility value being different from person to person, thats fine, but valuing based on profit incentive will end up creating these bubles.

Eventually the actual utility value comes back, and you have a crash?

(Again I know there are other factors, but this is a big one)

[Revolution starts with U]

It would be good to keep in mind the STV deals better with exchange values, the LTV deals better with utility values.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It would be good to keep in mind the STV deals better with exchange values, the LTV deals better with utility values.

I think it's the other way around, actually.

Determining use-value is subjective, and there is correlation between long-run exchange values and prices and labour inputs.

[Dean]

You are describing a phenomenon that was created by the convergence of many forces, and super-simplifying it to include only one factor.

The STV promotes housing bubbles? lol, wtf.
Subjective economic models of value are a prerequisite for those housing bubbles.

Furthermore, freer models of banking industry, that is models more closely related to the subjectivism of primary industry players (banking firms, speculators) create more unstable housing markets with greater inflation.


There is no objective or intrinsic value of the house. The houses value is completely agent dependent and varies from person to person.
Actually, the labor and material costs, quantified as a measure of labor or materials, are two explicitly intrinsic values.

The fact is that a set amount of labor and a set amount of materials went into the house. More can be added or taken away, the use-value, labor and material values created can be destroyed, but the labor and material values will still exist within that product, in their original magnitudes, insofar as it is unchanged in labor or material added.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dean, what do you think about S "T" V and its applicability or non-applicability to use-values? If I don't have space for the goods, then I don't care what exchange values those goods are going for. If I'm not in the mood for the goods, then I don't care what exchange values those goods are going for.

[Skooma Addict]

Subjective economic models of value are a prerequisite for those housing bubbles.


This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that without the STV, there would be no housing bubbles?


Furthermore, freer models of banking industry, that is models more closely related to the subjectivism of primary industry players (banking firms, speculators) create more unstable housing markets with greater inflation.


This is just flat out wrong. Inflation has been greatest when banking was centralized.


Actually, the labor and material costs, quantified as a measure of labor or materials, are two explicitly intrinsic values.

The fact is that a set amount of labor and a set amount of materials went into the house. More can be added or taken away, the use-value, labor and material values created can be destroyed, but the labor and material values will still exist within that product, in their original magnitudes, insofar as it is unchanged in labor or material added.

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value." Idk what you mean when you say "the labor still exists within the product." Also, just because something "exists within a product" does not mean it has intrinsic value.

[¿Que?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem

I've tried and failed in the past. Maybe time to give it another shot. Maybe it's time to dig up some Branded Cooney videos.

[RGacky3]

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that without the STV, there would be no housing bubbles?

Yes, because value would'nt be based on projected profits which are based on projected value, which means the only value that would matter is value of the actual house itself as a living area.

[Kiev Communard]

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value." Idk what you mean when you say "the labor still exists within the product." Also, just because something "exists within a product" does not mean it has intrinsic value.

Well, it's simple. Without labor (either physical or intellectual) all the other input resources are just parts of the nature, inaccessible without being previously combined or somehow customized by human labour. The land is worthless without the people who till it (that thing was quite well understood by landowners of pre-capitalist times), the constant capital is useless without labour force servicing it, enabling it to function as such, "entrepreneurial talent" is nothing if the entrepreneur in question can't find the workers to toil for him, etc. I'm surprised that this is so hard to understand.

[Dean]

This makes no sense to me. Are you saying that without the STV, there would be no housing bubbles?
Why don't you reread what you're responding to?


This is just flat out wrong. Inflation has been greatest when banking was centralized.
Still trying to parody Monty Python, I see.


There is no such thing as "intrinsic value." Idk what you mean when you say "the labor still exists within the product." Also, just because something "exists within a product" does not mean it has intrinsic value.
Actually, there is such a thing as "intrinsic value," even if it isn't a real phenomenon (as you claim).

However, I wrote the above in a hurry. If it was intrinsic it wouldn't have been added to the material via labor. Intrinsic value only exists in the realm of ideas and isn't really necessary for the discussion.

[DWI]

I don't think there's much of an argument here. I can expend the same amount of time, effort and raw materials making a painting as Picasso, and yet it will not be worth the same. Similarly, I can spend a lot of time, effort and raw materials making the greatest expression of gothic revival architecture (not really, but assume I can), and it still won't be worth as much as if I had built it in 1850.

The subjective theory recognises two vital truths:

1. People don't care how much effort and materials you put into something, they care how much better it makes their life.

2. Peoples' view of what makes their life better is not fixed, either in time or between people.

[Dean]

The Austrians' own Carl Menger seems to reject the subjective value model:

We are thus considering a case—one that is typical of ordinary life—in which satisfactions of very different degrees of im*portance depend on the availability of a quantity of goods that we shall assume, for the sake of greater simplicity, to be composed of completely homogeneous units.* The question that now arises is: what, under the given conditions, is the value of a certain portion of the grain to our farmer? Will the bushels of grain that secure his own and his family’s lives have a higher value to him** than the bushels that enable him to seed his fields? And will the latter bushels have a greater value to him than the bushels of grain he employs for purposes of pleasure?

No one will deny that the satisfactions that seem assured by the various portions of the available supply of grain are very unequal in importance,** ranging from an importance of 10 to an importance of 1 in terms of our earlier designations. Yet no one will be able to maintain that some bushels of grain (those, for instance, with which the farmer will nourish himself and his family till the next harvest) will have a higher value to him than other bushels of the same quality** (those, for instance, from which he will make luxury beverages)."
-Principles of Economics (http://mises.org/etexts/menger/three.asp)

*Here, Menger endorses the homogeneous character of a given item - in this case grain. Critics of Marx's characterization of labor as homogeneous for the sake of the model should criticize Menger with equal vigor on this point.

**In these samples, Menger directly rejects the notion of subjective value, unless he were to make the (rather absurd) claim that humans value things on a homogeneous basis, that is to say that the value 'Bob' places on commodity X is fixed through different conditions - conditions which, per the above, vary in the particular relevance of the commodity X.

[Dean]

I don't think there's much of an argument here. I can expend the same amount of time, effort and raw materials making a painting as Picasso, and yet it will not be worth the same. Similarly, I can spend a lot of time, effort and raw materials making the greatest expression of gothic revival architecture (not really, but assume I can), and it still won't be worth as much as if I had built it in 1850.

The subjective theory recognises two vital truths:

1. People don't care how much effort and materials you put into something, they care how much better it makes their life.

2. Peoples' view of what makes their life better is not fixed, either in time or between people.

The question is not the particular validity of the points in and of themselves. Largely, they are fairly simple truths which apply to particular models of value. But these are philosophical or moral concepts which, by their purely subjective approach, completely dispose of any ability to assess the movement of value in economic models.

The STV is disassociated - by way of its own admission - from the real economic models manifested in society today, as well as the LTV and exchange value (a value which Menger and others recognize, though Skooma pretends doesn't exist).

I could just as urgently remark that language is subjective, and after all, it is. But that will tell us nothing about how language works, or what it means to people.

Subjective facts of life are also objective insofar as they are manifested in synergy of activity, which reflects a concurrence of ideas (values) in multiple people.

[Dean]

Dean, what do you think about S "T" V and its applicability or non-applicability to use-values? If I don't have space for the goods, then I don't care what exchange values those goods are going for. If I'm not in the mood for the goods, then I don't care what exchange values those goods are going for.

Actually, your example is better to analyze from the LTV.

The subjective theory of value will point out a couple things:
-You don't use them doesn't mean you don't value them. I don't have the money to buy a new car doesn't mean I don't value one.
-Use-value is not the same as the "subjective value" though it is involved in its realization.

These describe emotional facts stemming from the material.

The LTV:
-You will not acquire the valued good since it doesn't fit in your scheme of things - by being cumbersome, unnecessary or both. This is unrealized value which has not become an objective value by way of exchange in the market.

This describes an objective economic fact - namely, that you are not engaged in the social economy.

[DWI]

The question is not the particular validity of the points in and of themselves. Largely, they are fairly simple truths which apply to particular models of value. But these are philosophical or moral concepts which, by their purely subjective approach, completely dispose of any ability to assess the movement of value in economic models.

The STV is disassociated - by way of its own admission - from the real economic models manifested in society today, as well as the LTV and exchange value (a value which Menger and others recognize, though Skooma pretends doesn't exist).

I could just as urgently remark that language is subjective, and after all, it is. But that will tell us nothing about how language works, or what it means to people.

Subjective facts of life are also objective insofar as they are manifested in synergy of activity, which reflects a concurrence of ideas (values) in multiple people.
What causes people to subjectively value things in particular ways is possibly an interesting question, but the LTV gives wrong answers, so it fails as a theory of value.

[Kotze]

People don't care how much effort and materials you put into somethingThat's not really true. Example: luxury goods. Example: The existence of this thread. And what about the "sunk cost fallacy"? Example: Bob has just bought a ticket to a movie as Alice walks by. She tells him that the movie is crap and Bob knows she is a very trustworthy source when it comes to movies. But he has already bought the ticket and he thinks he now has to watch the movie to avoid wasting the ticket. If he hadn't bought the ticket, he would have done something else instead, a walk through the park. You might find that an odd decision, given that nobody forces him to watch the movie and it's not like you need money to enter the park.

So you might object: Why is it my problem that many people are often so stupid that they commit that logical fallacy? But if you say that, you admit that it is common, and if you admit that it is common, you admit that people do care about effort and materials put into something. So you have to replace your claim with a weaker descriptive one: People only care somewhat about effort and materials you put into something. You could also come up with this normative claim: People shouldn't care about sunk costs, because that's not rational. That is a common claim among economists and it seems like a sensible claim at first. Wouldn't stupid Bob be more happy if he went to the park?

Many stories that are meant as clear-cut examples of that logical fallacy actually contain their own little fallacy. For a model with only two rounds — round one is production of stuff, round two is selling the stuff — it could be plausible to say that the past doesn't matter in round two anymore. But that's not a dynamic view of things. If we add further rounds of producing and selling and producing and selling and producing and selling — and that the players don't really know how many rounds for them the future holds, they don't exactly know when they will go out of business or kick the bucket — what happens then? Going way below production cost can have funny consequences concerning the expectations of your customers (not funny for you though). What happens in the real world is that prices are usually in a close relationship to the labour content (http://www.revleft.com/vb/empirical-strength-ltv-t122470/index.html?t=122470) (there is the exception of art you mentioned, land is another).

[Dean]

What causes people to subjectively value things in particular ways is possibly an interesting question, but the LTV gives wrong answers, so it fails as a theory of value.
Care to explain why or are we to take your comments as gospel?

[DWI]

That's not really true. Example: luxury goods. Example: The existence of this thread. And what about the "sunk cost fallacy"? Example: Bob has just bought a ticket to a movie as Alice walks by. She tells him that the movie is crap and Bob knows she is a very trustworthy source when it comes to movies. But he has already bought the ticket and he thinks he now has to watch the movie to avoid wasting the ticket. If he hadn't bought the ticket, he would have done something else instead, a walk through the park. You might find that an odd decision, given that nobody forces him to watch the movie and it's not like you need money to enter the park.

So you might object: Why is it my problem that many people are often so stupid that they commit that logical fallacy? But if you say that, you admit that it is common, and if you admit that it is common, you admit that people do care about effort and materials put into something. So you have to replace your claim with a weaker descriptive one: People only care somewhat about effort and materials you put into something. You could also come up with this normative claim: People shouldn't care about sunk costs, because that's not rational. That is a common claim among economists and it seems like a sensible claim at first. Wouldn't stupid Bob be more happy if he went to the park?

Many stories that are meant as clear-cut examples of that logical fallacy actually contain their own little fallacy. For a model with only two rounds — round one is production of stuff, round two is selling the stuff — it could be plausible to say that the past doesn't matter in round two anymore. But that's not a dynamic view of things. If we add further rounds of producing and selling and producing and selling and producing and selling — and that the players don't really know how many rounds for them the future holds, they don't exactly know when they will go out of business or kick the bucket — what happens then? Going way below production cost can have funny consequences concerning the expectations of your customers (not funny for you though). What happens in the real world is that prices are usually in a close relationship to the labour content (http://www.revleft.com/vb/empirical-strength-ltv-t122470/index.html?t=122470) (there is the exception of art you mentioned, land is another).
To be falsified a theory has to fail in just one experiment, not every experiment. I don't think your examples are that good (I can explain why if you want), but that's by the by.


Care to explain why or are we to take your comments as gospel?
Sorry, I assumed it was implied, I was referring to the examples in my previous post.

[Dean]

To be falsified a theory has to fail in just one experiment, not every experiment. I don't think your examples are that good (I can explain why if you want), but that's by the by.
Falsification is not usually applicable to the social sciences, and Popper himself failed to reconcile this conflict:

Popper’s scheme of social science involves a law, the R.P, which is both nontestable,
therefore not amenable to falsifiability, and false (it has been falsified); yet, he
claims that this is the way to go about it. This indicates a different conception of
science23 since it blatantly contradicts what he has been preaching all along, the gospel of
falsifiability and falsification (Marxism is dismissed along these lines); it also contradicts
the unity-of-method thesis.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf


Sorry, I assumed it was implied, I was referring to the examples in my previous post.
Then perhaps you missed that, before you made your post, I had already criticized those examples.

[∞]

I agree, subjective value tends to not take in account the lack of work it takes in exchange. Communism cuts out the middle-man. I was actually watching a show called "Pawn Stars" and couldn't help but get mad when I saw a 5,000$ rifle sold for less than half it's price so the store-owners can make a profit. "Holding" the rifle is basically what they are doing for 3,000$. Subjectivity already exists in a communist economy, it cannot be separated from human nature. Just doesn't apply all the time.

[DWI]

Falsification is not usually applicable to the social sciences, and Popper himself failed to reconcile this conflict:

http://www.anonym.to/?http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf
It's not Popperian, it's an integral part of logic (proof by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction)). Popper's contribution was to claim that scientific theories could only be falsified and not proved, a debate that isn't strictly relevant to this.


Then perhaps you missed that, before you made your post, I had already criticized those examples.I did miss it. Could you rephrase the criticism?


I agree, subjective value tends to not take in account the lack of work it takes in exchange. Communism cuts out the middle-man. I was actually watching a show called "Pawn Stars" and couldn't help but get mad when I saw a 5,000$ rifle sold for less than half it's price so the store-owners can make a profit. "Holding" the rifle is basically what they are doing for 3,000$. Subjectivity already exists in a communist economy, it cannot be separated from human nature. Just doesn't apply all the time.
The holding is valuable. Money is worth more now than in five years. It's also worth more if I don't have to do anything to get it than if I have to go to auctions every weekend for a year looking for that someone who wants to spend a few thousand dollars on my ridiculously niche collectible. It's simply division of labour.

[∞]

An unequal division of labor. The sort of labor which hold the actual owner as the one who made the least profit.

[Kotze]

To be falsified a theory has to fail in just one experiment, not every experiment.That's true. The problem is that you don't actually address what the LTV advocates claim, instead you criticize something else and give it the same name. They don't claim that labour values explain all prices. To top it off, you give an example (art) that they regularly give when they explain themselves. Your arguments aren't new to the forum users, they are literally older than a century, arguments that depend on misrepresenting the position they claim to criticize. I suggest you take a look at the link I gave above.

[Dean]

It's not Popperian, it's an integral part of logic (proof by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction)). Popper's contribution was to claim that scientific theories could only be falsified and not proved, a debate that isn't strictly relevant to this.
I went back and reread the point you're discussing; unfortunately, you're making an error out of ignorance of Marx' LTV:


The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.[13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#13) Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.


I did miss it. Could you rephrase the criticism?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1880879&postcount=18

[RGacky3]

DWI, I think you've got the wrong idea of the LTV, read more into it, also, its not ment to be used only by itself, obviously other factors come into play.

But then again, how much money you can get for something does'nt determine the value of something for the reasons I was talking about.

One big one being projected profits based on projected price, which create bubbles, like people buying a house in order to re-sell it at a higher price, and people buying the house to do the same, not for the actual worth of living in the house. In a housing bubble the 'value' of the house does'nt change, just the profit projection, one could argue that the stock market is entirely that. Lots of pricing happens not because of any actual value, but because of projected pricing.

[Skooma Addict]

Why don't you reread what you're responding to?

The STV has no connection whatsoever with housing bubbles.


Still trying to parody Monty Python, I see.


Nah. Just pointing out that your claim was dead wrong.


Actually, there is such a thing as "intrinsic value," even if it isn't a real phenomenon


What on earth do you mean by this?

There is such thing as unicorns, even if they aren't real phenomenon.


The Austrians' own Carl Menger seems to reject the subjective value model:

Absolutely nowhere in that quote does Menger reject the STV. That quote is just about marginal utility.



Falsification is not usually applicable to the social sciences, and Popper himself failed to reconcile this conflict


This is the second time you made this incorrect claim. Falsification applies whenever a theory is presented. It does not matter if the theory is part of the social or the physical sciences.

[RGacky3]

The STV has no connection whatsoever with housing bubbles.


Its a prerequisit for them, just because you say so does'nt make it true.

[Dean]

The STV has no connection whatsoever with housing bubbles.



Nah. Just pointing out that your claim was dead wrong.



What on earth do you mean by this?

There is such thing as unicorns, even if they aren't real phenomenon.



Absolutely nowhere in that quote does Menger reject the STV. That quote is just about marginal utility.

Thanks for explaining yourself. Oh wait, you didn't and we're back to square one. I wonder why you even respond to my posts in parts when you provide no reasoning, explanation or evidence for your claims.


This is the second time you made this incorrect claim. Falsification applies whenever a theory is presented. It does not matter if the theory is part of the social or the physical sciences.
Again, please back this up instead of simply repeatedly asserting your own opinion. You chose to completely ignore the thread the went in depth on this issue, so I'm not sure why I or anyone else should trust you on this.

[Skooma Addict]

Thanks for explaining yourself. Oh wait, you didn't and we're back to square one. I wonder why you even respond to my posts in parts when you provide no reasoning, explanation or evidence for your claims.Is this just a convenient way for you to dodge the points?

To recap you said...


Furthermore, freer models of banking industry, that is models more closely related to the subjectivism of primary industry players (banking firms, speculators) create more unstable housing markets with greater inflation.Granted it is extremely difficult to know what it is you are even talking about here. However, it is not true that when the banking industry was freer inflation was greater. Do you deny this?


Actually, there is such a thing as "intrinsic value," even if it isn't a real phenomenon This just makes no sense. Explain what you mean and whether or not my unicorn example applies.


The Austrians' own Carl Menger seems to reject the subjective value model:And then you proceeded with a quote in which Menger did not reject the STV. That quote was just about marginal utility, which is compatible with the STV.


Again, please back this up instead of simply repeatedly asserting your own opinion. You chose to completely ignore the thread the went in depth on this issue, so I'm not sure why I or anyone else should trust you on this. I am not sure where you got the impression that falsification somehow doesn't work or does not apply for the social sciences. A theory in the social sciences either can be proven false or it can't. If it can't then how is that any different from a theory in the physical sciences which can't be proven false?

Also, if you are referring to Poppers beliefs on the subject, he believed that it did apply to the social sciences. He did criticize elements of Marxism for being unfalsifiable after all...

[Dean]

Is this just a convenient way for you to dodge the points?

To recap you said...

Granted it is extremely difficult to know what it is you are even talking about here. However, it is not true that when the banking industry was freer inflation was greater. Do you deny this?
Yep.


This just makes no sense. Explain what you mean and whether or not my unicorn example applies.
We agree that value isn't intrinsic. The rest is semantics - I think we can leave it at that.


And then you proceeded with a quote in which Menger did not reject the STV. That quote was just about marginal utility, which is compatible with the STV.
Well, then, the quote seems to be rejecting marginal utility. But again, the point of the quote is interesting in that the value Menger discusses must be static or otherwise unchanged by the different conditions that humans experience, which is absurd. How can you cite the personal value judgments of individuals as "the source of value" and at the same time deny the value changes that occur to people under different conditions?

He's trying to both endorse and reject subjective value at the same time. You can call it marginal utility (a subjective model of value!) but that doesn't change the incomprehensibility of the point.


I am not sure where you got the impression that falsification somehow doesn't work or does not apply for the social sciences. A theory in the social sciences either can be proven false or it can't. If it can't then how is that any different from a theory in the physical sciences which can't be proven false?

Karl Popper famously rejected Evolution based on this premise. It's simply not valid as a rule.


Also, if you are referring to Poppers beliefs on the subject, he believed that it did apply to the social sciences. He did criticize elements of Marxism for being unfalsifiable after all...
That's what the entire thread you ignored was about. I posted 3 or 4 long posts precisely about that topic, most importantly, I discussed an essay which sourced Popper's own inconsistency on the subject of falsifiability in the social sciences.

In short, Popper had a concept of a Rationality Principle which was very similar to the Praxeology of your Austrians. He claimed it to fit in his methodology, but ultimately admitted that it was near-useless and unfalsifiable (or actually false, depending on how you interpret his statements). The fact is that Popper's own "falsifiable social science" was a miserable failure, and it didn't take subsequent critiques to prove this - he made statements to that end himself.

I don't know if you're stupid, willfully ignorant or just a troll. But you come off as the most retarded poster here when a cursory glance at past discussions, or even a careful reading of this exchange would provide information which totally negates your need to "introduce" to me the fact that Popper critized Marx.

[DWI]

I went back and reread the point you're discussing; unfortunately, you're making an error out of ignorance of Marx' LTV:





http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1880879&postcount=18
I didn't miss the post, I just don't see where you attacked any of my examples in it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, your example is better to analyze from the LTV.

The subjective theory of value will point out a couple things:
-You don't use them doesn't mean you don't value them. I don't have the money to buy a new car doesn't mean I don't value one.
-Use-value is not the same as the "subjective value" though it is involved in its realization.

These describe emotional facts stemming from the material.

I forgot that part. :(


The LTV:
-You will not acquire the valued good since it doesn't fit in your scheme of things - by being cumbersome, unnecessary or both. This is unrealized value which has not become an objective value by way of exchange in the market.

This describes an objective economic fact - namely, that you are not engaged in the social economy.

And what's the relationship between unrealized value, objective value, use value, and exchange value again? :confused:

Are the latter two only the two forms of objective value?

[Dean]

I didn't miss the post, I just don't see where you attacked any of my examples in it.
Your examples are irrelevant as per my explanation. The subjective theory of values does not seek to explain extant data - it seeks to justify them.

[Dean]

And what's the relationship between unrealized value, objective value, use value, and exchange value again? :confused:
Unrealized value: potential value - i.e., the value of labor not yet applied.

Objective value: actuated value - labor applied.

Use Value: the value of an object for use. This is both subjective and not uniformly quantifiable (that is, different use values have differing worth to individuals as well as meeting different particular needs) Its absurd to quantify the value of drinking water in terms of bread because they fulfill two different use-values. Where they serve the same approximate use value (say in garnering the favor of a poor population), the use value will still have different maximum fulfillment (different needs for water versus bread) and their relative quantifiability will still be measured in scarcity and therefore labor-quantity and material quantity.

Exchange value: Of course, the value of a commodity in the market. This relies on a number of variables which serve to marginally change the value of a product; however, the underlying value - defined via the relative scarcity of products created for exchange - is based on the scarcity of the labor and the materials.


Are the latter two only the two forms of objective value?
I think you could say that.

[Skooma Addict]

Yep.

Based on what? Surely not America.


We agree that value isn't intrinsic. The rest is semantics - I think we can leave it at that.

Okay fine so I guess i'll just pretend you didn't say this...

"Actually, the labor and material costs, quantified as a measure of labor or materials, are two explicitly intrinsic values."


Well, then, the quote seems to be rejecting marginal utility. But again, the point of the quote is interesting in that the value Menger discusses must be static or otherwise unchanged by the different conditions that humans experience, which is absurd. How can you cite the personal value judgments of individuals as "the source of value" and at the same time deny the value changes that occur to people under different conditions?

Menger isn't rejecting marginal utility, and he does not deny that changes in preferences occur. He was providing a simplified example for the reader to understand the concepts.


He's trying to both endorse and reject subjective value at the same time. You can call it marginal utility (a subjective model of value!) but that doesn't change the incomprehensibility of the point.

Absolutely nowhere in that quote does Menger reject the STV.



Karl Popper famously rejected Evolution based on this premise. It's simply not valid as a rule.


The conclusions you draw from whether or not a theory is falsifiable is not my concern. I don't care if you agree with Popper that a claim must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. I was simply pointing out that test of falsifiability works just as well for the social as it does the physical sciences.


I don't know if you're stupid, willfully ignorant or just a troll. But you come off as the most retarded poster here when a cursory glance at past discussions, or even a careful reading of this exchange would provide information which totally negates your need to "introduce" to me the fact that Popper critized Marx.

Idk if you are a Nord, A Wood Elf, or just a Red Guard. But you come off as an Orc with a High Elf's attitude.

[Dean]

Based on what? Surely not America.



Okay fine so I guess i'll just pretend you didn't say this...

"Actually, the labor and material costs, quantified as a measure of labor or materials, are two explicitly intrinsic values."
I've already addressed that the statement was incorrect, but you merely ignored me and continued on to whine about the "intrinsic" term.


Menger isn't rejecting marginal utility, and he does not deny that changes in preferences occur. He was providing a simplified example for the reader to understand the concepts.

Absolutely nowhere in that quote does Menger reject the STV.
It's not my problem that you don't understand Menger.


The conclusions you draw from whether or not a theory is falsifiable is not my concern. I don't care if you agree with Popper that a claim must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. I was simply pointing out that test of falsifiability works just as well for the social as it does the physical sciences.
I don't care if you agree with Popper, either. And the test doesn't work uniformly, notably it doesn't work on Evolution.

[Skooma Addict]

I've already addressed that the statement was incorrect, but you merely ignored me and continued on to whine about the "intrinsic" term.

Alright so we agree then. Also, I am assuming that you also are saying that your statement regarding inflation and banking was incorrect as well?


It's not my problem that you don't understand Menger.

I understand Menger fine. Nowhere in that quote does he reject the STV or marginal utility. Nowhere.


I don't care if you agree with Popper, either. And the test doesn't work uniformly, notably it doesn't work on Evolution.

What do you mean by "it doesn't work" on evolution? Are you saying that we cannot determine whether or not evolution is falsifiable?

[∞]

You guys do realize these are theories right? I think I'm going to make a thread on how these theories are not observations of one market sytem but really how we should reward labor and price commodities. I'll try to point out the problem with how in Capitalist economies goods are determined by their subjective value. I'll try to point out how certain goods are only looked at as valuabable to a certain class. Since the upper class has more money to spend, it's only natural that the majority of our production goes directly to them. I conclude this is the central thesis behind Marxism, Syndicalism, etc. Not really determining where we can find the labor theory of value, but how we can achieve it.

[Dean]

Also, I am assuming that you also are saying that your statement regarding inflation and banking was incorrect as well?
Nope.


I understand Menger fine. Nowhere in that quote does he reject the STV or marginal utility. Nowhere.
So you say.


What do you mean by "it doesn't work" on evolution? Are you saying that we cannot determine whether or not evolution is falsifiable?
No, I'm saying that there are no tests to confirm that evolution is false. Falsifiability is the ability to execute a test which would prove the subject theory false.

This doesn't mean that evolution is a 'bad' or useless theory, however. And that's the whole point.

Further, the absurdity of popper's social theory is made clear in the other thread. I suggest you read it - it sounds like you don't even know what falsifiability is; otherwise you wouldn't ask the last question you did here. http://www.revleft.com/vb/poppers-critique-marxism-t140392/index.html?t=140392&highlight=marx+popper

[Skooma Addict]

Nope.
In which case I want to know what you are basing this assertion off of. Surely not America.


No, I'm saying that there are no tests to confirm that evolution is false. Falsifiability is the ability to execute a test which would prove the subject theory false.

This doesn't mean that evolution is a 'bad' or useless theory, however. And that's the whole point.

Further, the absurdity of popper's social theory is made clear in the other thread. I suggest you read it - it sounds like you don't even know what falsifiability is; otherwise you wouldn't ask the last question you did here. http://www.revleft.com/vb/poppers-cr...ht=marx+popper (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poppers-critique-marxism-t140392/index.html?t=140392&highlight=marx+popper)Whether or not evolution is falsifiable is debatable. However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is not, that doesn't somehow mean falsifiability somehow doesn't work or does not apply. All that means is that evolution is not falsifiable. So in your example, the test of falsifiability works just fine. So I still do not know what you meant when you claimed that it didn't apply to the social sciences.

[Revolution starts with U]

Maybe I missed something..
How is evolution not falsifiable? If you can show that children are carbon copies of their parents, and therefore differences do not lead to advantages in spreading your genes (which will change how the population looks as a whole), then you just falsified evolution.
It's true that evolution cannot be false, but i dont see how it's not falsifiable.

[Dean]

In which case I want to know what you are basing this assertion off of. Surely not America.
Why not?


Whether or not evolution is falsifiable is debatable. However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is not, that doesn't somehow mean falsifiability somehow doesn't work or does not apply. All that means is that evolution is not falsifiable. So in your example, the test of falsifiability works just fine.
These two statements are markedly contradictory. The test of falsifiability is the test of whether the falseness of something can be tested. If it is not falsifiable, it fails that test.

It sounds like you're talking about a test of "falsification," that is, if a test were executed which might prove it false, it would mean we should throw out the theory. but that has not ever been the argument.


So I still do not know what you meant when you claimed that it didn't apply to the social sciences.
Precisely that the above model (falsifiability) is not the determinant of the value of social theories. If it were, all or nearly all of economics, psychology and sociology (among other fields and specific theories in physics) would need to be thrown out.

That's why the dogmatic approach to theories in terms of falsifiability is absurd.

[DWI]

Your examples are irrelevant as per my explanation. The subjective theory of values does not seek to explain extant data - it seeks to justify them.
You're going around in circles here. The LTV gives wrong answers (eg. if Picasso and I put the same labour-time and raw materials into a painting, they don't come out being worth the same), so it doesn't explain or justify anything.

btw, this isn't meant as a criticism of Marx as such. He was merely using the best knowledge of his time, which was accepted also by his detractors. But we know more now than we did in the 19th century.

[∞]

You're going around in circles here. The LTV gives wrong answers (eg. if Picasso and I put the same labour-time and raw materials into a painting, they don't come out being worth the same), so it doesn't explain or justify anything.

btw, this isn't meant as a criticism of Marx as such. He was merely using the best knowledge of his time, which was accepted also by his detractors. But we know more now than we did in the 19th century.

Now you're referring to art as a commodity, the invested interest is up to each individual consumer. The missing logic you have here is disfranchising the Marxist style of value. That a commodity is not comparable with another, the value of art per say, is in the value of the beholder. However art is not a commodity, it is expression, it serves no physical function than to arouse people.
There will always be metaphysical preferences behind things, but all in all, most goods are measured by how much time it took to make them and the usefulness of an item.

[ZeroNowhere]

You're going around in circles here. The LTV gives wrong answers (eg. if Picasso and I put the same labour-time and raw materials into a painting, they don't come out being worth the same), so it doesn't explain or justify anything.

btw, this isn't meant as a criticism of Marx as such. He was merely using the best knowledge of his time, which was accepted also by his detractors. But we know more now than we did in the 19th century.

If the prices at which commodities exchange for one another are to correspond approximately to their values, nothing more is needed than (1) that the exchange of different commodities ceases to be purely accidental or merely occasional; [...] (3) that, as far as selling is concerned, no natural or artificial monopolies enable one of the contracting parties to sell above value, or force them to sell cheap, below value.Capital vol. III, pg. 279.

Other than that, it is definitely quite a revolutionary and novel discovery that the price of a painting by a famous painter will probably be higher than one by you painted in the same time. We ought to pity those poor 19th Century economists who predated the establishment of this as fact through multiple scientific investigations into the matter. Fortunately, further advances in the science of economics have yielded us this great discovery, and made us immune from their errors. On the other hand, the value of commodities after the production process is greater than the value of the commodities put into it, or a profit could not be made. This, of course, simply reflects that people value things more after they have gone through the production process, which does not at all imply that the production process leads to an increment in value.

[RGacky3]

(eg. if Picasso and I put the same labour-time and raw materials into a painting, they don't come out being worth the same),

I believe skill and creativity are also involved, as they are in the LTV, plus as was said before, its not a commodity.

[anticap]

I can expend the same amount of time, effort and raw materials making a painting as Picasso, and yet it will not be worth the same.

Marx doesn't say that it will be. To the contrary, he says that value is determined by socially-necessary labor time. Because Picasso has a monopoly on being Picasso, we cannot determine the SNLT.

Here's Brendan Cooney explaining it better than I can, in response to one of your fellow doofuses:


The labor theory of value is bunk. Me working one hour painting something is not, NOT equal to picasso’s hour. Equal time inputs are not correlated to equal value.


Well, you bring up a common criticism of the labor theory of value (LTV). It’s actually quite a good question which brings up some key distinctions which help to explain the LTV. So if you are willing to listen to some “bunk” theories, here we go:
The creation of value is a social creation. Things are given value through the exchange process which validates social labor. In other words, if I make a bench myself, it can take me as long as I want to make it. As long as I am keeping the bench myself, it has no economic value, just a use-value for me personally. If I go to sell it, it now is being compared to all those other benches out there. Even if it took me a long time to make, it is still only worth whatever it took all those other benches to get made- there is a socially necessary labor time that went in to their creation. A commodity has a value equal to the amount of labor it takes, in general, in society, to make something. If i take longer than the socially necessary time I am being socially unproductive. I can’t sell my product for more just because I was unproductive.
In a capitalist society, the majority of commodities are produced through capitalist enterprises. Capitalists enterprises make a business of measuring quantities of labor time in an constant effort to maximize output per worker. In so doing they are constantly making labor more efficient and reducing socially necessary labor time in commodities as a whole.

But if I have a specialized skill, I can sell my products for more than the average labor time because: a. I have a monopoly over a skill set and can charge artificial prices and, more importantly, b. Nobody else can duplicate my labor thus establishing a “socially necessary” labor time.

So in the case of Picasso, the high value given to his labor time is a result of the fact that there is no way to establish a social average for Picasso’s labor, because there is only one Picasso. Instead of making the LTV “bunk” this highlights the fact that in a market economy the vast majority of value is a social creation, socially validated, meant to meet social created needs.

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/what-is-capitalism/

[Dean]

You're going around in circles here. The LTV gives wrong answers (eg. if Picasso and I put the same labour-time and raw materials into a painting, they don't come out being worth the same), so it doesn't explain or justify anything.

Marx pointed out that equal labor-hours were not always worth the same value. He referred to skilled labor as standard labor intensified. You'd know this if you read the first post.


btw, this isn't meant as a criticism of Marx as such. He was merely using the best knowledge of his time, which was accepted also by his detractors. But we know more now than we did in the 19th century.
Actually, no critical analysis of so iety on economic terms is taking place today. Marginalist theory, which is accepted today, does not attempt to assess the points Marx assessed. Its a completely different focus.

[Skooma Addict]

Why not?Are you basing it off of America? You made the assertion, and now explain why. He who asserts must prove.


These two statements are markedly contradictory. The test of falsifiability is the test of whether the falseness of something can be tested. If it is not falsifiable, it fails that test.

It sounds like you're talking about a test of "falsification," that is, if a test were executed which might prove it false, it would mean we should throw out the theory. but that has not ever been the argument.You and I are arguing different points. I was saying that the concept of determining whether or not something is falsifiable applies to the social as well as the physical sciences. Although I suppose one could make the argument that no single claim is falsifiable since it also relies on background assumptions. But that is a different topic.

On a side note, for those who are fans of Occams Razor, it is clear that the STV is superior in that regard.

[Dean]

Are you basing it off of America? You made the assertion, and now explain why. He who asserts must prove.
You've been a prime example of the opposite philosophy. I don't intend to indulge you where you won't do the same for me.


You and I are arguing different points. I was saying that the concept of determining whether or not something is falsifiable applies to the social as well as the physical sciences.
Your only substantive rejection of historical materialism was:

I reject Historical materialism for a number of reasons. Mainly because I see no good evidence to believe it. Also, how would you prove it false?
And I have shown that falsification is not a game-changer for theories, by way of the evolution example. You have proven your inability to comprehend the basic facts here:

All that means is that evolution is not falsifiable. So in your example, the test of falsifiability works just fine.
The absurdity is delicious.


Although I suppose one could make the argument that no single claim is falsifiable since it also relies on background assumptions. But that is a different topic.
That is a different topic which doesn't affect the above point.


On a side note, for those who are fans of Occams Razor, it is clear that the STV is superior in that regard.
How so? What are you trying to discover with a value theory? It seems like the only reason STV seems "simple" to you is because you're comfortable with it and have absolutely no knowledge of Marxian economics. It is perhaps as a result of the this that Aristotle's framework (particularly about value) forms the basis for most of Marx's theories, up to and including the basic equivalency factors in the Labor Theory of Value.

I'm reading Capital carefully right now, and just as I learned when reading Theory and History, the absurdity of Marx's detractors is increasingly evident. The character of labor as the starting point and the framework for production is self-evident, but also provable by way of deduction - from the exchange of products to their basic conceptualization.

The Austrian STV primarily serves an idealist propaganda purpose. The MTV serves to explain extant microcosmic phenomena. And The Marxian analysis actually performs a comprehensive assessment of the character of production and social relations - the latter that the first group childishly pretends "don't exist." Your obtuse non-reasoning about falsifiability has only lost you more credibility, Skooma. Keep trying though - something might breach your thick skull one day.

[Skooma Addict]

You've been a prime example of the opposite philosophy. I don't intend to indulge you where you won't do the same for me.

Mhmm. Well then I am just going to assume that you cannot provide evidence for your claim.


And I have shown that falsification is not a game-changer for theories, by way of the evolution example. You have proven your inability to comprehend the basic facts here:

I was curious to know if it could be proven false. I reject HM because the is no good reason whatsoever to believe it. Also, as I said, whether or not evolution can be proven false is debatable.


How so? What are you trying to discover with a value theory? It seems like the only reason STV seems "simple" to you is because you're comfortable with it and have absolutely no knowledge of Marxian economics. It is perhaps as a result of the this that Aristotle's framework (particularly about value) forms the basis for most of Marx's theories, up to and including the basic equivalency factors in the Labor Theory of Value.

I'm reading Capital carefully right now, and just as I learned when reading Theory and History, the absurdity of Marx's detractors is increasingly evident. The character of labor as the starting point and the framework for production is self-evident, but also provable by way of deduction - from the exchange of products to their basic conceptualization.

The Austrian STV primarily serves an idealist propaganda purpose. The MTV serves to explain extant microcosmic phenomena. And The Marxian analysis actually performs a comprehensive assessment of the character of production and social relations - the latter that the first group childishly pretends "don't exist." Your obtuse non-reasoning about falsifiability has only lost you more credibility, Skooma. Keep trying though - something might breach your thick skull one day.

I am trying to discover the origin and nature of value. Like most modern thinkers, I believe value is a disposition and it is purely subjective and agent dependent. That's it.

Also, you really shouldn't really be talking about non-credibility given your complete misinterpretation of Menger.

[anticap]

On a side note, for those who are fans of Occams Razor, it is clear that the STV is superior in that regard.

That's like saying that a pie crust is superior to a whole pie. Marx understood that use-values will be subjectively evaluated, but he believed that there's more to it than that. He believed that in order to understand pie, we need to look at the filling as well as the crust.

Incidentally, what does "the STV" mean to you? In light of your established pattern of posting behavior, I think that it's fair to insist that you clearly explicate that which you are defending.

[Dean]

Mhmm. Well then I am just going to assume that you cannot provide evidence for your claim.
Since you never provide evidence for yours, I don't feel obliged.


I was curious to know if it could be proven false. I reject HM because the is no good reason whatsoever to believe it.
Ah, no evidence. Thanks.


Also, as I said, whether or not evolution can be proven false is debatable.
Not really. I actually investigated this the other day a bit - there are no good tests to be taken; some people who take the question too seriously insist that testing microcosmic cases in evolution can provide a falsification. But anyone that knows about the concept of falsification knows that's absurd - namely, because it wouldn't disprove the theory which is what a falsifying test must be capable of.

Though you have proven by your cognitive dissonance that you know nothing about the issue being presented. And its not about evolution - its about you thinking that a theory which cannot be tested for its falseness "passes the test" of falsification. That's absurd and only serves to underline your piss-poor understanding of the issues at hand.


I am trying to discover the origin and nature of value. Like most modern thinkers, I believe value is a disposition and it is purely subjective and agent dependent. That's it.
And how does that disprove the LTV?


Also, you really shouldn't really be talking about non-credibility given your complete misinterpretation of Menger.
You haven't proven where I misinterpreted him - just where you think I have. Such is your dogmatism.

[ZeroNowhere]

I reject the scientific method because there is no evidence for it.

[Skooma Addict]

Since you never provide evidence for yours, I don't feel obliged.

Okay so there really is no reason for anyone to think that you can back your claim then. I think you were just throwing claims around without really thinking about what they were.


Though you have proven by your cognitive dissonance that you know nothing about the issue being presented. And its not about evolution - its about you thinking that a theory which cannot be tested for its falseness "passes the test" of falsification. That's absurd and only serves to underline your piss-poor understanding of the issues at hand.

Strawman. I believe the exact opposite of that. That has been the entire point of me trying to say that you were incorrect when you said "falsification doesn't really work" for the social sciences. As long as the theories can be tested for falseness, then it works.


And how does that disprove the LTV?


You asked me what I thought, and so I told you.


You haven't proven where I misinterpreted him - just where you think I have. Such is your dogmatism.

Everything was a misinterpretation. Point out specifically where in that quote Menger rejects either the STV or marginal utility, as you claimed he rejects both.

[Skooma Addict]

I reject the scientific method because there is no evidence for it.

Are you trying to somehow show the absurdity of not accepting something because there is no evidence for it? Replace the words "scientific method" with "invisible insensible unicorn." Pretty absurd for not believing in the invisible unicorn too, huh?

Also, there is plenty of evidence in favor of using the scientific method as a means to discover truths about reality.

[Dean]

Okay so there really is no reason for anyone to think that you can back your claim then. I think you were just throwing claims around without really thinking about what they were.
I think you are.


Strawman. I believe the exact opposite of that. That has been the entire point of me trying to say that you were incorrect when you said "falsification doesn't really work" for the social sciences. As long as the theories can be tested for falseness, then it works.
Why did you say this then:

Whether or not evolution is falsifiable is debatable. However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is not, that doesn't somehow mean falsifiability somehow doesn't work or does not apply. All that means is that evolution is not falsifiable. So in your example, the test of falsifiability works just fine.


You asked me what I thought, and so I told you.
So its not contradictory to the LTV?



Everything was a misinterpretation. Point out specifically where in that quote Menger rejects either the STV or marginal utility, as you claimed he rejects both.
I've quoted the text. Without you providing contrary evidence, I see no reason to believe your simple rejection of my argument.

[ZeroNowhere]

Are you trying to somehow show the absurdity of not accepting something because there is no evidence for it? Replace the words "scientific method" with "invisible insensible unicorn." Pretty absurd for not believing in the invisible unicorn too, huh?

Also, there is plenty of evidence in favor of using the scientific method as a means to discover truths about reality.
No, merely pointing out that the scientific method is a method (well, there's no single 'scientific method', but that's not entirely relevant to the point here), and as such cannot be proven or disproven. As it is, proof and disproof take place within certain paradigms, the scientific method being one, and the evidence in favour of the scientific method yielding truths about reality simply boils down to the fact that these truths are the case according to the scientific method, which is how they are judged to be such.

Invisible unicorns of various shades are not methods or ways of looking at things.

[Dean]

No, merely pointing out that the scientific method is a method (well, there's no single 'scientific method', but that's not entirely relevant to the point here), and as such cannot be proven or disproven. As it is, proof and disproof take place within certain paradigms, the scientific method being one, and the evidence in favour of the scientific method yielding truths about reality simply boils down to the fact that these truths are the case according to the scientific method, which is how they are judged to be such.

Uh-oh. Sounds like you might be saying these models have value in their ability to expand our knowledge of reality. You might just make the kid's head explode, since he's stuck in a 19th century model of economic idealism.

[Skooma Addict]

I think you are.


You are the one who made the assertion though. An assertion which you cannot back, and is thus nothing more than an assertion on your part. This is just a fact.


Why did you say this then:

Because that is in in perfect alignment with what I have been saying?

One can determine whether or not evolution is falsifiable, thus the test of falsifiability works just fine.


So its not contradictory to the LTV?

Nowhere in the origin or nature of value does labor come into the picture.



I've quoted the text. Without you providing contrary evidence, I see no reason to believe your simple rejection of my argument.

What "argument?" Can you copy and past the portion where you explain how Menger is rejecting the STV and marginal utility. Once you do that, I will refute the argument.

You claimed that this quote by menger...


No one will deny that the satisfactions that seem assured by the various portions of the available supply of grain are very unequal in importance

....was him somehow rejecting the STV. Even though marginal utility is perfectly compatible with the STV. My guess is that you must have misinterpreted him.


No, merely pointing out that the scientific method is a method (well, there's no single 'scientific method', but that's not entirely relevant to the point here), and as such cannot be proven or disproven. As it is, proof and disproof take place within certain paradigms, the scientific method being one, and the evidence in favour of the scientific method yielding truths about reality simply boils down to the fact that these truths are the case according to the scientific method, which is how they are judged to be such.

Invisible unicorns of various shades are not methods or ways of looking at things.

Right, the scientific method cannot be "proven or disproven," as it is not making an argument. Some methods are still better than others at increasing our knowledge of the world.


Uh-oh. Sounds like you might be saying these models have value in their ability to expand our knowledge of reality. You might just make the kid's head explode, since he's stuck in a 19th century model of economic idealism.

The LTV is pretty 19th century. Nowadays it is pretty much dead.

[Dean]

You are the one who made the assertion though. An assertion which you cannot back, and is thus nothing more than an assertion on your part. This is just a fact.



Because that is in in perfect alignment with what I have been saying?

One can determine whether or not evolution is falsifiable, thus the test of falsifiability works just fine.
Am I to think that you now reject evolution, then?


Nowhere in the origin or nature of value does labor come into the picture.
Name one commodity which doesn't incorporate labor.




What "argument?" Can you copy and past the portion where you explain how Menger is rejecting the STV and marginal utility. Once you do that, I will refute the argument.

You claimed that this quote by menger...



....was him somehow rejecting the STV. Even though marginal utility is perfectly compatible with the STV. My guess is that you must have misinterpreted him.
You missed part of the quote - namely, where he indicates that the value remains the same despite differences in the subjective value applied to the commodity by the individual in his conditions.


Right, the scientific method cannot be "proven or disproven," as it is not making an argument. Some methods are still better than others at increasing our knowledge of the world.



The LTV is pretty 19th century. Nowadays it is pretty much dead.
Not really. Labor is still required, just as ever, in the creation of value.

[Skooma Addict]

Am I to think that you now reject evolution, then?


No.



Name one commodity which doesn't incorporate labor.


Assume I can't. What does this prove?


You missed part of the quote - namely, where he indicates that the value remains the same despite differences in the subjective value applied to the commodity by the individual in his conditions.

Quote specifically what you are referring to.



Not really. Labor is still required, just as ever, in the creation of value.

Value a disposition, and so idk what you mean when you say labor is required for its creation.

[∞]

No.



Assume I can't. What does this prove?



Quote specifically what you are referring to.



Value a disposition, and so idk what you mean when you say labor is required for its creation.

Can you just read up on the LTV? All of your points have been refuted countless times.

[Dean]

Assume I can't. What does this prove?
That labor is a commensurable value to which each commodity can be broken down to.

This is why all services and commodities - most evident in things like laundry and housekeeping - are exchangeable insofar as they represent labor that one would rather purchase than engage in (including the skill acquisition, which is translated into the cost - think doctors).


Quote specifically what you are referring to.
No. I already have. Quit being lazy - you refuse to read any of my quotes and then expect me to repeat them. I'm not going to baby you.


Value a disposition, and so idk what you mean when you say labor is required for its creation.
The value of something is proven in trade to be an objective fact.

[Skooma Addict]

That labor is a commensurable value to which each commodity can be broken down to.

This is why all services and commodities - most evident in things like laundry and housekeeping - are exchangeable insofar as they represent labor that one would rather purchase than engage in (including the skill acquisition, which is translated into the cost - think doctors).

Labor is a value only to those who perceive it to be. All value can be traced back to subjective preferences. Labor is not somehow more special than anything else people can value.

But the division of labor occurs mainly due to comparative advantage.



No. I already have. Quit being lazy - you refuse to read any of my quotes and then expect me to repeat them. I'm not going to baby you.

Odd since I just did quote you on this subject in my previous post...

Also, I was asking you to point out where Menger

"indicates that the value remains the same despite differences in the subjective value applied to the commodity by the individual in his conditions."


The value of something is proven in trade to be an objective fact.


No it isn't, given that the two people exchanging goods value each of the two goods differently. This would only make sense if goods had some kind of inherent value, and you agreed that this is not the case.

[RGacky3]

Labor is not somehow more special than anything else people can value.


Labor is different from commodity or tangible value, labor is not valued in of itself its valued in the sense that it creates a tangible commodity, so yeah, its different.

[Dean]

Labor is a value only to those who perceive it to be. All value can be traced back to subjective preferences. Labor is not somehow more special than anything else people can value.

But the division of labor occurs mainly due to comparative advantage.
Labor is special because, unlike gold, wood or plant matter, it is tied up in the particular creation of all commodities, exists in the furtherance of creating this value, and (excluding the presence of capital, but including the acquisition of skills) serves as a trade-off: I can learn to weave or purchase woven goods.

If you value commodities, your value is tied to the labor taken up in them. The only way to disassociate your valuation from labor is to return to the wild. Maybe you and another person could even develop some quantifiable sense of value by trading stones or something.


Odd since I just did quote you on this subject in my previous post...

Also, I was asking you to point out where Menger

"indicates that the value remains the same despite differences in the subjective value applied to the commodity by the individual in his conditions."
Well, I've already quoted the particular portion where he goes over that fact. Just because you quoted a quote of mine from him doesn't mean that it was the same one.


No it isn't, given that the two people exchanging goods value each of the two goods differently. This would only make sense if goods had some kind of inherent value, and you agreed that this is not the case.
The social reality of the value is realized in trade. You can whine about subjective value until you're blue in the face, but there is no hard, material evidence of it (though we know it exists - as an idea). There is evidence of value insofar as it is socially realized, however.

[Skooma Addict]

If you value commodities, your value is tied to the labor taken up in them. The only way to disassociate your valuation from labor is to return to the wild. Maybe you and another person could even develop some quantifiable sense of value by trading stones or something. If you value commodities, your value it "tied" to a lot of things. My value could be "tied" to the soil in Argentina where the sugar I purchased was grown. This doesn't prove anything.

However, I could value a commodity and not value the labor which went into producing that commodity. It also sounds like you are trying to argue that labor has inherent value. That is the impression you are giving.


Well, I've already quoted the particular portion where he goes over that fact. Just because you quoted a quote of mine from him doesn't mean that it was the same one.No, you quoted a portion where he discusses marginal utility. Then you claimed that he rejected the STV, and then claimed that he rejected marginal utilty when in fact he was just explaining marginal utility.

You are just flat out refusing to expand on your assertions, but you cannot find it in you to admit that you were incorrect. It would just kill you.

"No one will deny that the satisfactions that seem assured by the various portions of the available supply of grain are very unequal in importance,** ranging from an importance of 10 to an importance of 1 in terms of our earlier designations. Yet no one will be able to maintain that some bushels of grain (those, for instance, with which the farmer will nourish himself and his family till the next harvest) will have a higher value to him than other bushels of the same quality** (those, for instance, from which he will make luxury beverages)."


**In these samples, Menger directly rejects the notion of subjective value, unless he were to make the (rather absurd) claim that humans value things on a homogeneous basis, that is to say that the value 'Bob' places on commodity X is fixed through different conditions - conditions which, per the above, vary in the particular relevance of the commodity X.In the first bold portion, Menger is simply saying that some satisfactions which a good can offer a person valued more highly than others. In no way is this inconsistent with the STV.

The second part is Menger saying that two goods which are viewed by the subject as homogeneous will have the same value to that person. Again, not incompatible with the STV.

None of this is incompatible with marginal utility, as the entire quote is Menger explaining marginal utility.


The social reality of the value is realized in trade. You can whine about subjective value until you're blue in the face, but there is no hard, material evidence of it (though we know it exists - as an idea). There is evidence of value insofar as it is socially realized, however. The "social reality of the value is realized through trade." That just seems like meaningless babbling which means nothing. As I said, the two people exchanging the goods value them each differently. That is the "social reality" of the situation.

[Revolution starts with U]

It made perfect sense to me. There are no "things" to be traded, if someone didn't find/create them. Labor > Market

[Dean]

If you value commodities, your value it "tied" to a lot of things. My value could be "tied" to the soil in Argentina where the sugar I purchased was grown. This doesn't prove anything.

However, I could value a commodity and not value the labor which went into producing that commodity. It also sounds like you are trying to argue that labor has inherent value. That is the impression you are giving.

No, you quoted a portion where he discusses marginal utility. Then you claimed that he rejected the STV, and then claimed that he rejected marginal utilty when in fact he was just explaining marginal utility.

You are just flat out refusing to expand on your assertions, but you cannot find it in you to admit that you were incorrect. It would just kill you.

"No one will deny that the satisfactions that seem assured by the various portions of the available supply of grain are very unequal in importance,** ranging from an importance of 10 to an importance of 1 in terms of our earlier designations. Yet no one will be able to maintain that some bushels of grain (those, for instance, with which the farmer will nourish himself and his family till the next harvest) will have a higher value to him than other bushels of the same quality** (those, for instance, from which he will make luxury beverages)."

In the first bold portion, Menger is simply saying that some satisfactions which a good can offer a person valued more highly than others. In no way is this inconsistent with the STV.

The second part is Menger saying that two goods which are viewed by the subject as homogeneous will have the same value to that person. Again, not incompatible with the STV.
This is wrong and indicates a misreading of the quote.


None of this is incompatible with marginal utility, as the entire quote is Menger explaining marginal utility.
Its completely incompatible.


The "social reality of the value is realized through trade." That just seems like meaningless babbling which means nothing. As I said, the two people exchanging the goods value them each differently. That is the "social reality" of the situation.
Its not surprising that you view material expressions of value as "babble" and idealistic, immeasurable notions of value as "correct."

[Skooma Addict]

This is wrong and indicates a misreading of the quote.Um no, I actually am reading the quote correctly. This is why everyone in the economics profession does not believe that Menger rejected the STV. HOw exactly am I misreading the quote?


Its completely incompatible.
Do you understand that the quote you provided is Menger explaining marginal utility? Do you know what marginal utility is?


Its not surprising that you view material expressions of value as "babble" and idealistic, immeasurable notions of value as "correct." You are just throwing around meaningless phrases and then you attempt to make them sound scientific by claiming they are "material." You then say what I believe is "idealistic" and what a surprise again you misuse the word.

You still have not explained how I am incorrect when I said this claim...

"The value of something is proven in trade to be an objective fact."

...was incorrect because the two people trading goods valued each good differently. Thus the value of the good is not an objective fact.

[Dean]

Um no, I actually am reading the quote correctly. This is why everyone in the economics profession does not believe that Menger rejected the STV. HOw exactly am I misreading the quote?
By drawing the wrong conclusions.


Do you understand that the quote you provided is Menger explaining marginal utility? Do you know what marginal utility is?
Yes.


You are just throwing around meaningless phrases and then you attempt to make them sound scientific by claiming they are "material." You then say what I believe is "idealistic" and what a surprise again you misuse the word.

You still have not explained how I am incorrect when I said this claim...

"The value of something is proven in trade to be an objective fact."

...was incorrect because the two people trading goods valued each good differently. Thus the value of the good is not an objective fact.
The only testable manifestation of that value is expressed in their exchange.

[∞]

Labor is a value only to those who perceive it to be. All value can be traced back to subjective preferences. Labor is not somehow more special than anything else people can value.

But the division of labor occurs mainly due to comparative advantage.


If a commodity is "traced back into it's subjective preferences" the value of the commodity can only be in the eye of the beholder. Take if someone finds a pond with water, and that person doesn't need it since he has enough to drink.
To him its worthless, but if he puts in the required labor he can turn it into something that has use value and can be sold. Of course as an Anarchist I believe he has no entitlement to the lake, but even if he doesn't enhance the lake's physical properties, he still has to go through the labor of presenting it.
Even though he won't make much or any money in the process, that depends on a metaphysical definition of what labor is.

[Dean]

Skooma was careful to ignore the following:

Labor is special because, unlike gold, wood or plant matter, it is tied up in the particular creation of all commodities, exists in the furtherance of creating this value, and (excluding the presence of capital, but including the acquisition of skills) serves as a trade-off: I can learn to weave or purchase woven goods.

[Skooma Addict]

Skooma was careful to ignore the following:

Labor is special because, unlike gold, wood or plant matter, it is tied up in the particular creation of all commodities, exists in the furtherance of creating this value, and (excluding the presence of capital, but including the acquisition of skills) serves as a trade-off: I can learn to weave or purchase woven goods.

It doesn't prove anything. Matter is tied up in the creation of all commodities too. Labor is required to create commodities. It does not "create value" since value is agent dependent. The trade off you are referring to is simply comparative advantage, and comparative advantage is not an argument in favor of the LTV.

[Dean]

How poignant is the following for the discussion at hand:

Nothing could be more foolish than the dogma that because every sale is a purchase, and every purchase a sale, the circulation of commodities necessarily implies an equilibrium between sales and purchases.



There are two points here which are characteristic of the method of the bourgeoisie's economic apologists. The first is the identification of commodities with the direct exchange of products, achieved simply by abstracting from their differences.The second is the attempt to explain away the contradictions of the capitalist process of production by dissolving the relations between persons engaged in that process of production into the simple relations arising out of the circulation of commodities. The production and circulation of commodities are however phenomena which are to be found in the most diverse modes of production, even if they vary in extent and importance. If we are only familiar with the abstract categories of circulation, which are common to all of them, we cannot know anything of their differentia specifica, and we cannot therefore pronounce judgment on them. In no science other than political economy does there prevail such a combination of great self-importance with the mouthing of elementary commonplaces. For instance, J.B. Say sets himself up as judge of crises because he knows that a commodity is a product.*

*'The conception adopted by Ricardo from the tedious Say, that over-production is not possible or at least that no general glut of the market is possible, is based on the proposition that products are exchanged against products.
The emboldened portion here refers to the childish repetition of the subjective character of value - a completely non-testable mysticism which provides absolutely no platform for the critical assessment of economic models. One might just as well ask the subjectivists how much they might sell a commodity to themselves. It's an unfeasible question because value is determined by a relationship of exchange, which makes it social.

[Kiev Communard]

It doesn't prove anything. Matter is tied up in the creation of all commodities too. Labor is required to create commodities. It does not "create value" since value is agent dependent. The trade off you are referring to is simply comparative advantage, and comparative advantage is not an argument in favor of the LTV.

This book (http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Pf9Jd1sIMJ0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Proofs+of+Labour+theory+of+value&source=bl&ots=kqWuoW2Ko0&sig=_c7n8l0nz9CbYRE1taXmwnSqIe8&hl=uk&ei=FE2sTIKhC4HGswae3pSjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Proofs%20of%20Labour%20theory%20of%20value&f=false), specifically pages 12-21, provides quite a meaningful account of Marxian law of value and LTV that explains an idea of "socially necessary labour" in quite intelligible way.

[anticap]

This book (http://books.google.com.ua/books?id=Pf9Jd1sIMJ0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=Proofs+of+Labour+theory+of+value&source=bl&ots=kqWuoW2Ko0&sig=_c7n8l0nz9CbYRE1taXmwnSqIe8&hl=uk&ei=FE2sTIKhC4HGswae3pSjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Proofs%20of%20Labour%20theory%20of%20value&f=false), specifically pages 12-21, provides quite a meaningful account of Marxian law of value and LTV that explains an idea of "socially necessary labour" in quite intelligible way.

The book is available at MIA here (http://marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/). To read the parts corresponding to those page numbers, begin here (http://marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/ch01.htm) and scroll down to "The Law of Value" then read to the end of the page. To skip ahead to the "proofs," you could click here (http://marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/ch01.htm#s8) and jump to it directly, but anonym.to removes anchors from links.* So you'll have to scroll down to "The Validity of the Labor Theory of Value" or just read it below:


To conclude, we present three traditional proofs of the labor theory of value.


The first of these is the analytical proof, which proceeds by breaking down the price of a commodity into its constituent elements and demonstrating that if the process is extended far enough, only labor will be found.

The price of every commodity can be reduced to a certain number of components: the amortization of machinery and buildings, which we call the renewal of fixed capital; the price of raw materials and accessory products; wages; and finally, everything which is surplus value, such as profit, rent, taxes, etc.

So far as the last two components are concerned, wages and surplus value, it has already been shown that they are labor pure and simple. With regard to raw materials, most of their price is largely reducible to labor; for example, more than 60 per cent of the mining cost of coal consists of wages. If we start by breaking down the average manufacturing cost of commodities into 40% for wages, 20% surplus value, 30% for raw materials and 10% in fixed capital; and if we assume that 60% of the cost of raw materials can be reduced to labor, then we already have 78% of the total cost reduced to labor. The rest of the cost of raw materials breaks down into the cost of other raw materials – reducible in turn to 60% labor – plus the cost of amortizing machinery.

The price of machinery consists to a large degree of labor (for example, 40%) and raw materials (for example, 40% also). The share of labor in the average cost of all commodities thus passes successively to 83%, 87%, 89.5%, etc. It is obvious that the further this breakdown is carried, the more the entire cost tends to be reduced to labor, and to labor alone.


The second proof is the logical proof, and is the one presented in the beginning of Marx’s Capital. It has perplexed quite a few readers, for it is certainly not the simplest pedagogical approach to the question.

Marx poses the question in the following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are interchangeable, which means that they must have a common quality, because everything which is interchangeable is comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common are, by definition, not comparable with each other.

Let us inspect each of these commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length, density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value. Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity.

A common quality must be found in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities which is not physical is their quality of being the products of human labor, of abstract human labor.

Human labor can be thought of in two different ways. It can be considered as specific concrete labor, such as the labor of the baker, butcher, shoemaker, weaver, blacksmith, etc. But so long as it is thought of as specific concrete work, it is being viewed in its aspect of labor which produces only use values.

Under these conditions we are concerning ourselves only with the physical qualities of commodities and these are precisely the qualities which are not comparable. The only thing which commodities have in common from the viewpoint of exchanging them is that they are all produced by abstract human labor, that is to say, by producers who are related to each other on a basis of equivalence as a result of the fact that they are all producing goods for exchange. The common quality of commodities, consequently, resides in the fact that they are the products of abstract human labor and it is this which supplies the measure of their exchange value, of their exchangeability. It is, consequently, the quality of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities which determines their exchange value.

Let us immediately add that Marx’s reasoning here is both abstract and difficult and is at least subject to questioning, a point which many opponents of Marxism have seized upon and sought to use, without any marked success, however.

Is the fact that all commodities are produced by abstract human labor really the only quality which they have in common, apart from their natural qualities? There are not a few writers who thought they had discovered others. In general, however, these have always been reducible either to physical qualities or to the fact that they are products of abstract labor.


A third and final proof of the correctness of the labor theory of value is the proof by reduction to the absurd. It is, moreover, the most elegant and most “modern” of the proofs.

Imagine for a moment a society in which living human labor has completely disappeared, that is to say, a society in which all production has been 100 per cent automated. Of course, so long as we remain in the current intermediate stage, in which some labor is already completely automated, that is to say, a stage in which plants employing no workers exist alongside others in which human labor is still utilized, there is no special theoretical problem, since it is merely a question of the transfer of surplus value from one enterprise to another. It is an illustration of the law of equalization of the profit rate, which will be explored later on.

But let us imagine that this development has been pushed to its extreme and human labor has been completely eliminated from all forms of production and services. Can value continue to exist under these conditions? Can there be a society where nobody has an income but commodities continue to have a value and to be sold? Obviously such a situation would be absurd. A huge mass of products would be produced without this production creating any income, since no human being would be involved in this production. But someone would want to “sell” these products for which there were no longer any buyers!

It is obvious that the distribution of products in such a society would no longer be effected in the form of a sale of commodities and as a matter of fact selling would become all the more absurd because of the abundance produced by general automation.

Expressed another way, a society in which human labor would be totally eliminated from production, in the most general sense of the term, with services included, would be a society in which exchange value had also been eliminated. This proves the validity of the theory, for at the moment human labor disappears from production, value, too, disappears with it.

*I really hate that this forum imposes that link-breaking piece of shit on us all. If anyone is truly concerned that RevLeft will show up as their referrer in a site's logs, then they're probably savvy enough to run Firefox with the RefControl add-on. /rant

[anticap]

The houses value is completely agent dependent and varies from person to person.

We've been over this before (that's probably why you're not responding to my posts: you want to go over the same things repeatedly, while pretending that every thread is your first encounter with these concepts, because you are a troll), but I'll ask you again never to use "value" in isolation. Instead, always tell us what sense of "value" you're using. Above, you're using what we would call "use-value." While a house has a definite use-value, you are correct that individuals will weigh it differently. However, that tells us nothing about its exchange-value.

Forget labor for the moment. I assume that you will not deny that a house has certain amounts of various inputs embodied in it. These will account for its exchange ratio to different commodities. No matter how little you may value the house, you're not going to get it for less than the cost of its inputs. If we begin there, then we can discuss which of these inputs the rest reduce to.

[anticap]

There is no such thing as "intrinsic value."

Not outside human experience, no.


Idk what you mean when you say "the labor still exists within the product."

Perhaps you're taking it too literally. I've never cared for Marx's phrasing myself, because of this very problem. Think of it this way: a commodity represents a certain amount of labor. Nobody (certainly not Marx) is suggesting that you could break open a commodity and see 'labor' inside, although it does sometimes sound that way, unfortunately.


Also, just because something "exists within a product" does not mean it has intrinsic value.

If a commodity represents a certain amount of labor, and if labor is the ultimate source of a commodity's exchange-value, then, within the scope of human experience, that commodity does have an intrinsic value in exchange. You cannot subjectively wish away the amount of labor represented by that commodity.

[anticap]

no critical analysis of so iety on economic terms is taking place today. Marginalist theory, which is accepted today, does not attempt to assess the points Marx assessed. Its a completely different focus.

Skooma Addict & co. may want to read Perlman's introduction (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm) to Rubin's Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. It touches on how eager some are not to look at the whole picture. Marx was interested in understanding all of political economy; modern economists would prefer to jettison most of it. That's really almost tangential to the point of the piece, but the rest of it is worth reading as well.

[Dean]

It doesn't prove anything. Matter is tied up in the creation of all commodities too. Labor is required to create commodities. It does not "create value" since value is agent dependent. The trade off you are referring to is simply comparative advantage, and comparative advantage is not an argument in favor of the LTV.
That is the division of labor, not comparative advantage - though one aspect of that is explained by Marx:


But without the leave, and behind the back, of our weaver, the old-fashioned mode of weaving undergoes a change. The labour-time that yesterday was without doubt socially necessary to the production of a yard of linen, ceases to be so to-day, a fact which the owner of the money is only too eager to prove from the prices quoted by our friend’s competitors. Unluckily for him, weavers are not few and far between. Lastly, suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labour-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all these pieces taken as a whole, may have had superfluous labour-time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total labour of the community has been expended in the form of weaving.

You haven't provided any argument, merely an impotent tautology which does nothing to discredit the value that labor creates.

[Skooma Addict]

One might just as well ask the subjectivists how much they might sell a commodity to themselves. It's an unfeasible question because value is determined by a relationship of exchange, which makes it social.I am sorry but this has to be one of the stupidest critiques of the STV that I have ever seen. The reason why it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself has nothing to do with the LTV or the STV at all. It doesn't make sense due to the definition of the word "sell."


We've been over this before (that's probably why you're not responding to my posts: you want to go over the same things repeatedly, while pretending that every thread is your first encounter with these concepts, because you are a troll), but I'll ask you again never to use "value" in isolation. Instead, always tell us what sense of "value" you're using. Above, you're using what we would call "use-value."If it will help you I will refer to an items "value" (which is agent dependent and subjective) and an items "exchange ratio" which is it's price or what it can be exchanged for (which will also vary by person, place, and time).


While a house has a definite use-value, you are correct that individuals will weigh it differently. However, that tells us nothing about its exchange-value.Whether or not a house has a "use value" will depend on the person. It is not inconceivable that to some person the house would have no use value. It's "exchange value" will depend on other peoples subjective value judgments, not anything to do with labor.


Forget labor for the moment. I assume that you will not deny that a house has certain amounts of various inputs embodied in it. These will account for its exchange ratio to different commodities. No matter how little you may value the house, you're not going to get it for less than the cost of its inputs. If we begin there, then we can discuss which of these inputs the rest reduce to. Less than the current cost of its inputs or less than the current market price of its inputs? These inputs reduce to atoms.


Perhaps you're taking it too literally. I've never cared for Marx's phrasing myself, because of this very problem. Think of it this way: a commodity represents a certain amount of labor. Nobody (certainly not Marx) is suggesting that you could break open a commodity and see 'labor' inside, although it does sometimes sound that way, unfortunately.
I agree Marx is a very bad writer. But why should I think a commodity "represents" a certain amount of labor? Just for practical purposes?


If a commodity represents a certain amount of labor, and if labor is the ultimate source of a commodity's exchange-value, then, within the scope of human experience, that commodity does have an intrinsic value in exchange. You cannot subjectively wish away the amount of labor represented by that commodity. A commodity does not represent a claim to a certain amount of labor, and labor is not the ultimate source of a commodities exchange value. The exchange value depends entirely on individuals subjective preferences. It doesn't matter how much labor you put into a product if nobody wants it. Also, if you admit that value is agent dependent, than you cannot believe in intrinsic value.


That is the division of labor, not comparative advantageThe person must necessarily have a comparative advantage in one of the two activities. Anyways, the division of labor is not an argument for the LTV either.

[∞]

I am sorry but this has to be one of the stupidest critiques of the STV that I have ever seen. The reason why it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself has nothing to do with the LTV or the STV at all. It doesn't make sense due to the definition of the word "sell."

I'm not sure what this a response to.


If it will help you I will refer to an items "value" (which is agent dependent and subjective) and an items "exchange ratio" which is it's price or what it can be exchanged for (which will also vary by person, place, and time).

How about exchange value? The value of an item after it's production or composition....


Whether or not a house has a "use value" will depend on the person. It is not inconceivable that to some person the house would have no use value. It's "exchange value" will depend on other peoples subjective value judgments, not anything to do with labor

You are giving the consumer way too much power here. If I go to a store and ask the clerk that I'll purchase a $20 sweater for $15, I'm 100% positive he will not let me buy it for that price. The value of the good has already
been determined by the labor put into an item.



I agree Marx is a very bad writer. But why should I think a commodity "represents" a certain amount of labor? Just for practical purposes?

Try reading him. Try coming up with an example where labor isn't determining value aswell.


A commodity does not represent a claim to a certain amount of labor, and labor is not the ultimate source of a commodities exchange value. The exchange value depends entirely on individuals subjective preferences. It doesn't matter how much labor you put into a product if nobody wants it. Also, if you admit that value is agent dependent, than you cannot believe in intrinsic value

Intrinsic value can be determined by any particular, traits, uses, preferences, and overall demand. A commodity without labor would only have a value if it is scarce in a sense, but one would have to labor to get it. The labor put into a commodity can determine, use value, and is reflection of the craftsmanship of said item. There is a reason why we admire custom-wooden-rocking chairs more than office chairs, we can see the effort and detail put into it.


The person must necessarily have a comparative advantage in one of the two activities. Anyways, the division of labor is not an argument for the LTV either.

Try reading what Marx wrote for a change, maybe then you'll know what you're attacking ;)

THE ALIENATION OF LABOR


In political economy 2 and its terminology, we have shown that the laborer sinks to the level of a commodity and indeed becomes the most miserable commodity possible, that the misery of the laborer stands in an inverse relationship to the power and size of his production, that the natural result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, which is the most frightening type of monopoly, that finally the difference between the ground-rentier 3 and the capitalist 4 as well as the difference between the farmer-renter and the factory laborer disappears and the entire society must fall into two classes: those with property and those propertyless souls who labor.
Political economy begins with the fact of private property. It does not explain this fact to us. It describes the material process of private property--by which it actually passes from hand to hand--in general, abstract formulas, which it then raises to the status of laws . It does not understand these laws, that is, it does not show how the existence of private property comes about. Political economy gives no explanation concerning the foundation of the division between labor and capital and between capital and land. When, for instance, it describes the relationship between wage-labor and the profit of capital, its fundamental point of departure is the interest of the capitalist, that is, it accepts as given what it should be explaining. In the same way, competition is used to explain everything. It is explained using external circumstances. How far these external, seemingly magical circumstances originate in a necessary process, political economy teaches us nothing. We have seen, that exchange itself appears to be some magical occurrence. The only wheels which political economy sets in motion and greed and the war between the greedy: competition. . . .

We have now to explain the real connections between private property, greed, the division of labor, capital, and land, the connection between exchange and competition, between value and the devaluation of humans, between monopoly and competition, etc., and between this entire estrangement and the money system. . . .

We must start our investigation from a real fact of political economy.

The laborer becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, indeed, the more powerful and wide-ranging his production becomes. The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increase in value of the world of things arises in direct proportion the decrease of value of human beings. Labor does not only produce commodities, it produces itself and the laborer as a commodity , and in relation to the level at which it produces commodities. 5

This fact defines more than this: the object, which labor produces, its product, confronts the laborer as a strange thing, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor, which fixes itself in the object, it becomes a thing, it is the objectification 6 of labor. The "making real," or realization, 7 of labor is its objectification. The realization of labor appears in political economy as the "making unreal," or loss of reality 8 of, the laborer, objectification as the loss of and slavery to the object , appropriation as estrangement , as alienation .

The realization of labor manifests itself so much as a loss of reality, that the worker becomes unreal to the point that he starves to death. The objectification of labor manifests itself so much as a loss of objects, that the laborer is robbed of the most necessary objects, not only to maintain his own life, but even objects to labor with. Indeed, labor itself becomes an object, which only with the greatest effort and with random interruptions can be acquired. Appropriation of objects manifests itself so much as estrangement, that, the more objects the laborer produces, the fewer he can own and so he plunges deeper under the mastery of his product: capital.

In this definition--that the laborer is related to the product of his labor as a strange, foreign object, lies all these consequences. For from this hypothesis the following becomes clear: the more the laborer labors, as well as the more powerful the alien, object world which he builds over himself becomes, the poorer he himself becomes, that is, his inner world, as he owns less. The same thing occurs in religion. The more people place in God, the less they retain in themselves. The laborer places his life in the object; but now it [his life] belongs less to him than to the object. Therefore, the more this happens, the more deprived of objects the laborer becomes. What the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less he becomes. The alienation of the laborer in his product has this significance: since his labor is an object, not only does this labor become a separate existence, but it is also separate from him, independent, alien to his existence and a self-sufficient power which exists above him, that the life, which he has bestowed on the object, confronts him as something hostile and strange.

XXIII. Let us now treat more closely objectification, the production of the laborer and its estrangement, the loss of objects, its products.

The laborer can create nothing without nature, without the sensual, material world. It is the stuff on which labor realizes itself, on which it acts, and from which and with which it produces.

Just as nature provides the means of life for labor, in the sense that labor cannot live without objects, which it uses, but also it provides the means of life in a narrower sense, namely the means to sustain the physical existence of the laborer .

Therefore, the more the laborer through his labor appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in this double meaning: first, more and more the sensuous external world stops being an object proper to his labor, that is, to be a means of life to his labor; second: more and more the sensuous, external world stops being a means of life in the second sense: means to sustain the physical existence of the laborer.

In this double sense the worker becomes a slave to his objects; first: he receives an object of labor , that is, labor ; and second: he receives a means of subsistence . In the first instance, he can exist as a laborer; in the second instance, he can exist as a physical subject . The result of this slavery is that he can maintain himself as a physical subject only if he is a laborer , and that he can maintain himself as a laborer only if he is a physical subject. . . .

Political economy hides completely the estrangement of labor in its real existence in that it does not treat the direct, unmediated relationship between the laborer (labor) and production . Labor produces wonderful works for the rich, but it produces poverty for the worker. It produces palaces, but hovels for the laborer. It produces beauty, but deformity for the laborer. It replaces labor with machines, but at the same time it throws the laborer into the most barbarous labor and at the same time makes the laborer into a machine. It produces intelligence and culture, but it produces senselessness and cretinism for the laborer.

The direct, unmediated relationship between labor and its product is the relationship between laborers and the objects of their production . The relationship between the wealthy man and the objects of production and to production itself is only a consequence of these primary relationships. And it, in fact, proves these primary relationships. We will treat these in later pages. Therefore, when we ask what the essential relationship of labor is, we are asking about the relationship of labor to production.

Up until this point, we have been treating the estrangement, the alienation of the laborer in only one sense, that is, his relationship to the products of his labor . But this estrangement displays itself not only in the products, but also in the act of production , in the producing activity itself. How can it happen that the laborer becomes estranged from the product of his activity if in the act of production he does not become estranged from himself? The product is only the sum of the activity, that is, production. If the product of labor is alienation, then production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of alienation. In the estrangement of the objects of labor is summed up the estrangement, the alienation of the laboring activity itself. What then makes up the alienation of labor?

First, that labor is alien to the laborer, that is, that it does not make up his existence, that he does not affirm himself in his labor, but rather denies himself; he does not feel happy, but rather unhappy; he does not grow physically or mentally, but rather tortures his body and ruins his mind. The laborer feels himself first to be other than his labor and his labor to be other than himself. He is at home when he is not laboring, and when he is laboring he is not at home. His labor is not voluntary, but constrained, forced labor . Therefore, it does not meet a need, but rather it is a means to meet some need alien to it. Its estranged character becomes obvious when one sees that as soon as there is no physical or other coercion, labor is avoided like the plague. This alienated labor, this labor, in which human beings alienate themselves from themselves, is a labor of self-denial and self-torture. Finally, the alienation of labor manifests itself to the laborer in that this labor does not belong to him, but to someone else; it does not belong to him; while he is doing it he does not belong to himself, but to another. . . . the activity of the laborer is not his own activity. It belongs to someone else, it is the loss of his self.

The result, therefore, is that the human being (the laborer) does not feel himself to be free except in his animal functions: eating, drinking, and reproducing, at his best in his dwelling or in his clothing, etc., and in his human functions he is no more than an animal. The animal becomes human and the human becomes animal.

Eating, drinking, and reproducing, etc., are real human functions. However, in the abstraction which draws them out of the circle of other human activities and makes them the sole activity to be sought after, they are animal.

We have treated the act of the estrangement of practical, human activity, labor, as having two senses: 1. The relationship of the laborer to the product of labor as a strange object having power over the laborer. This relationship is moreover a relationship to the sensuous, external world, in which the objects of nature confront the laborer as a dominating, strange, and hostile world. 2.) The relationship of labor as an act of production within labor itself. This relationship is a relationship of the laborer to his activity as if it were estranged, as if it didn't belong to him, activity as sorrow, strength as weakness, producing as emasculation, the laborer's own physical and mental energy, his individual life--what is life without activity?--is an activity which turns against him, does not depend on him, does not belong to him. This is self-alienation , where before we had the estrangement of the thing .

XXIV. We have now to demonstrate how a third aspect of estranged labor derives from these two.

Human beings are a species being . . . because they believe themselves to represent the real, living species, in that they believe themselves to be universal ; they believe themselves to represent, therefore, a free being.

The life of the species, which applies to both humans and animals, consists in the physical, in which humans, just as animals, derive their life from inorganic nature, and the more universal man is in comparison to animals, the more universal is the sphere of inorganic nature, on which he lives. . . . Physically, human beings live only on the products of nature, whether they might appear in the form of food, heating, clothing, dwellings, etc. The universality of humanity manifests itself practically even in this universality, in which the whole of nature becomes the inorganic body of human beings, both inasmuch as 1.) it is an direct means for life, and 2.) the material, the object and the instrument of humanity's life-activity. Nature is the inorganic body of humanity insofar as it is not a human body. Humanity lives on nature, which means that nature is humanity's body with which it must remain in objective dialogue with or else perish. That the physical and mental life of human beings depends on nature has another sense: nature depends on itself since human beings are part of nature.

Estranged labor estranges human beings from 1.) nature and 2.) from themselves in their own active function, their life-activity, and from this, it estranges human beings from their species ; estranged labor makes the species being only the means for the individual life. First, it estranges the species life from the individual life, and second, it makes the individual life in its abstraction the purpose of the species life, even in its abstracted and estranged form.

First, labor appears to human beings, labor which is the life-activity , the productive life itself, only as a means to meet some need, the need of maintaining physical existence. The productive life is also the species life. It is life engendering life. In the art of life-activity lies the entire character of the species, its species-character, and the species-character of humanity consists of free, conscious activity. Life itself manifests itself as a means of life .

The animal is its own life-activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is it . Humanity makes its life-activity itself an object of will and consciousness. It has conscious life-activity. . . . Conscious life-activity distinguishes human beings from animals. . . . human life is an object that belongs to humanity, this is its species-being. For this reason its activity is free activity. Estranged labor reverses this relationship, so that human beings, because they have conscious being, make their life-activity, their existence , a means for existence. . . .

Estranged labor works thus:

3.) the species being of humanity , in that nature and its mental species-property, confronts humanity as a strange existence, as a means to its individual existence . It estranges humanity from its own body, as it does the external, natural world, as it does his mental existence, his human existence.

4.) A direct consequence of the estrangement of the humans from the product of their labor, from their life-activity, from their species-being, is the estrangement of humans from humans . When a human confronts himself as a stranger, so he confronts another human as a stranger. The relationship of humans to their labor, to the product of their labor, and to themselves, is also the relationship of humans to each other, and to the labor of others and to the objects of others.

Moreover, this fact, that the individual is estranged from his species being means that the individual is estranged from other individuals, since each of them is estranged from their own species being.

The self-estrangement of individuals, in fact, every relationship in which individuals in which individuals stand in relationship to themselves, is first realized in the relationship that individuals have with other individuals. Therefore, within the relationship of estranged labor, each individual treats others with the same standard and relative position that he finds himself in.

XXV. We began with a fact of political economy, the estrangement of the laborer and his production. We have produced the idea of this fact: estranged, alienated labor. We have analyzed this idea, therefore, we have analyzed a fact of political economy.

We must now see how this idea of estranged, alienated labor expresses and produces itself in actuality.

If the product of labor is foreign to me, if it confronts me as a foreign power, to whom, then, does it belong?

When my own activity does not belong to me, when it is a coerced activity, to whom then does it belong?

It belongs to a being other than myself.

Who is this being? . . .

This foreign being, to whom labor and the product of labor belong, in whose service labor and in whose benefit the product of labor is brought into existence, can only be another human being .

When the product of labor does not belong to the laborer, when a strange, foreign power confronts and dominates him, this can only be possible if it belongs to a human being other than the laborer . When his activity is agony to the laborer, it can only be a delight and joy to another. Not gods, not nature, but only human beings themselves can be this strange, foreign power over other human beings.

One should consider that in the proposition stated above man's relationship to himself is first and foremost an objective, actual relationship only through his relationship to other men. Therefore, if the product of his labor, of his labor turned into an object, is in relation to him to him a foreign, hostile , powerful, independent object, then his relation to it is such that it is an object mastered by a man foreign, hostile, powerful, and independent of him. If his own activity is for him an unfree activity, then he sees his activity as being done in the service, under the lordship, under the coercion and under the yoke of another man.

Every self-estrangement of people from themselves and from nature manifests itself in the relationship they establish between themselves, nature, and other humans differentiated from themselves. . . . In the practical, real world, self-estrangement can only manifest itself in the practical, real relationships between other people. The medium, through which estrangement arises, is itself practical . Through estranged labor, humans not only produce their relationship to the object and to the act of production as a power foreign and hostile to them, they produce also the relationship in which their production and their product stands in relationship to other humans as well as the relationship between themselves and other men. Just as the laborer gives birth to his own production as his reality, as his strife, just as he gives birth to his own product as a loss, as a product not to be owned by him, so he gives birth to the mastery of that man, who has produced nothing, over production and over the product. Just as he estranges himself from his own activity, so he confers ownership to a stranger over this activity which does not really belong to him.

We have until now treated only this relationship from the side of the laborer, and we shall later treat this relationship from the side of the non-laborer.

Therefore, through estranged, alienated labor the laborer gives birth to his relationship to his labor as something alien and external to him. This relationship of the laborer to his labor gives birth to the relationship of that labor to the capitalist, or whatever one wishes to name the "labor-master." Private property is also the product, the result, the natural consequence of alienated labor , of the alienated relationship of the laborer to nature and to himself.

Therefore, private property arises from the analysis of the idea of alienated labor , that is, of alienated humanity , of estranged labor, of estranged life, of estranged humanity.

In political economy we have derived this idea of alienated labor (of alienated life ) as a result of the circulation of private property . But it is manifest in the analysis of this idea that even though private property appears as the ground, as the foundation of alienated labor, it is rather the consequence of it . . .

This explanation can shed light on several conflicts unsolved until now:

1.) Political economy begins with the notion that labor is the soul of production, yet it gives nothing to labor and everything to private property. . . . We now see, however, that this blatant contradiction is a contradiction of estranged labor with itself and that political economy only has drawn out the laws of estranged labor.

We can also see that wages and private property are identical: wages, which is the product, the object of labor, for which labor sells itself, are the necessary consequence of the estrangement of labor, just as in wage labor work itself is not an end in itself, but rather appears as a servant of the wage. . . .

XXVI. A coerced rise in wages , therefore . . . is nothing more than a better salary for slaves and would not recover for the laborer or for labor its human meaning and dignity.

Indeed, the equality of salaries . . . would only change the relationship of each laborer to his labor into the relationship of all humans to their labor. Society would then become an abstract capitalist.

Wages are an unmediated, direct result of estranged labor, and estranged labor is the unmediated, direct source of private property. If the one falls, the other must fall.

2.) From the relationship of estranged labor to private property follows the conclusion that the liberation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, expresses its political form in the emancipation of the laborer , and not only the emancipation of the laborer, for in the emancipation of the laborer is contained the emancipation of all humanity, and it contains this because the entirety of human servitude is involved in the relationship of the laborer to production and all relationships of servitude are only modifications and consequences of this primary relationship. . . .

Translated from the German by Richard Hooker
endnotes

1 A note on terminology: Marx uses two terms to describe this phenomenon: Entfremdung (estrangement) and Entaüsserung (alienation); these words are by and large interchangeable (the real title of this essay is the estrangement of labor). Estrangement means "dividing, separating" or "making strange or unfamiliar"; alienation means "making alien, making foreign." Estrangement of labor means "separating" labor from the laborer, separating the product of labor from the laborer, etc. Alienation of labor can be understood in largely the same terms: "making labor something foreign to the laborer," "making the product of labor something alien to the laborer."
2 "Political economy" (in German: Nationalökonomie : "the economy of nations") is what we would call "macroeconomics," that is economics of large systems. The principle authors of political economy for Marx are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, David Hume and Thomas Malthus.
3 A "ground-rentier" for Marx is a person in largely a pre-industrial society who owns land and rents it out to people who produce goods from that land. Historically, in pre-industrial societies land tends to accumulate in only a very few hands, and the bulk of people within these societies are renters. A ground-rentier is the prototype for the "capitalist" in an industrial society.
4 The capitalist in European economics is understood as a person who accumulates the material of production, factories, raw materials, etc., and who pays laborers wages in order to produce various goods. The capitalist is essentially rational: he or she calculates the acquisition and disposal of materials and wage-labor in order to produce extra wealth, profit, which accumulates to the capitalist as a reward for accurate calculation.
5 What Marx is arguing is that wage-labor becomes something that can be bought and sold just like any other object. The more important products become, the less important humans as laborers become.
6 (German: Vergegenständlichung , often translated as "reification": "the making into a thing"), that is, labor turned into an object. Labor becomes an object rather than a thing people do; as a result, the laborer becomes an object rather than a human being.
7 (German: Verwirklichung ): this literally means "the making real"; this is what the word "realization" means, that is, "making real."
8 (German: Entwirklichung ): "making unreal"; this is the opposite of Verwirklichung, "the making real." In other words, labor "made real" in its product "makes unreal" the laborer, in other words, the laborer is no longer a person who is laboring, he or she becomes rather, the products he or she produces. The products are more "valuable" than the people who produce them.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm not sure what this a response to. It is a response to the portion I quoted above it?



How about exchange value? The value of an item after it's production or composition....
Because the value of an item after its production is subjective and agent dependent. The item might be selling for a specific price, however that does not mean the items is objectively worth that amount of money.


You are giving the consumer way too much power here. If I go to a store and ask the clerk that I'll purchase a $20 sweater for $15, I'm 100% positive he will not let me buy it for that price. The value of the good has already
been determined by the labor put into an item.OK, well I personally have sold 20 dollar shirts for 15 dollars so...

Also, stores do not determine how much they will sell a good for by the amount of labor that went into producing them.


Try reading him. Try coming up with an example where labor isn't determining value as well. I could come up with a million examples. How about a giant sculpture of a piece of poop which took years of hard labor to make? If labor were the determining value, then obsolete products which require a lot of labor to produce should be valuable.


Intrinsic value can be determined by any particular, traits, uses, preferences, and overall demand. A commodity without labor would only have a value if it is scarce in a sense, but one would have to labor to get it. The labor put into a commodity can determine, use value, and is reflection of the craftsmanship of said item. There is a reason why we admire custom-wooden-rocking chairs more than office chairs, we can see the effort and detail put into it. What do you mean we? I value an office chair more than a custom rocking chair.

[anticap]

If it will help you I will refer to an items "value" ... and an items "exchange ratio" which is it's price or what it can be exchanged for ....

That doesn't help unless you explain what you mean by "value." Since you've just established that you do not mean "exchange ratio" (why you refuse to use "exchange value" remains a mystery; I suspect that it's merely an aesthetic distaste for Marxian terms), I will assume that you mean something to the effect of "use value" (though you'll probably call it something else).

It is important that we nail this down. Most of the time our two sides are talking past each other because we're not using the same sense of the word. But of course you know this; it's part of your shtick.


Whether or not a house has a "use value" will depend on the person. It is not inconceivable that to some person the house would have no use value.

A commodity has use value whether you decide to make use of it or not.


It's "exchange value" will depend on other peoples subjective value judgments, not anything to do with labor.

Repeating 'nuh-uh' gets us nowhere.


Less than the current cost of its inputs or less than the current market price of its inputs?

Let's begin with a simple abstraction, a la Marx.


These inputs reduce to atoms.

As does the brain activity that determines your subjective preferences. Again, your silliness gets us nowhere.


I agree Marx is a very bad writer.

You've misunderstood me if you think I meant to suggest that. I think Marx is a wonderful writer. I just know from experience that his choice of phrasing in that one regard is incredibly confusing for subjectivists. The same people who use the "mud pie" argument are also likely to think that Marx meant to suggest that there are literally crystals of labor inside of things.


But why should I think a commodity "represents" a certain amount of labor? Just for practical purposes?

To avoid confusion when we're discussing Marx and what he wrote.


A commodity does not represent a claim to a certain amount of labor, and labor is not the ultimate source of a commodities exchange value.

Yuh-huh.


The exchange value depends entirely on individuals subjective preferences.

Nuh-uh.


It doesn't matter how much labor you put into a product if nobody wants it.

Yuh-huh.

Hey! Now I understand why you do it! It's because we're at an impasse!

So why do you keep posting?


Also, if you admit that value is agent dependent, than you cannot believe in intrinsic value.

I conceded nothing to you in the quote to which you are responding. Whether you make use of a use-value is your decision, but that's far from what you're trying to make of it.

P.S. For the umpteenth time: Don't expect a response from me unless you quote me properly so that I'm sure to see it. Otherwise it'll be hit-or-miss. I just happened to recognize some of my own words in your jumble of quotes, but normally I search the page for my name because I can't always take the time to read entire threads.

[anticap]

I could come up with a million examples. How about a giant sculpture of a piece of poop which took years of hard labor to make? If labor were the determining value, then obsolete products which require a lot of labor to produce should be valuable.

Ah, the classic mud-pie argument. Proof positive that a person hasn't got the slightest understanding of Marx's LTV.

UltE6U4t8Vc

Ujk7T3hjUY0

[∞]

It is a response to the portion I quoted above it?

Because the value of an item after its production is subjective and agent dependent. The item might be selling for a specific price, however that does not mean the items is objectively worth that amount of money.

And why not?


OK, well I personally have sold 20 dollar shirts for 15 dollars so...

Also, stores do not determine how much they will sell a good for by the amount of labor that went into producing them.

They carry out the shirts which they bought at a particular price, now they carry them for profit. Those factories which sold the shirts sold them at their worth which I determine as cost+labor=worth.


I could come up with a million examples. How about a giant sculpture of a piece of poop which took years of hard labor to make? If labor were the determining value, then obsolete products which require a lot of labor to produce should be valuable. Oh gawd, not this argument. The poop has no social value. One thing it is art, and we already defined how art is not a commodity. Vincent Van Gough's paintings were worthless at his time. Art is no commodity (http://www.marxist.com/ArtAndLiterature-old/marxism_and_art.html). Art is expression. The poop was not made from any kind of useful labor, the poop was likely to have been made by a dumbass artist. Marx said all labor, made for exchange is useful, otherwise it is wasted labor. Or not labor at all, actually.




What do you mean we? I value an office chair more than a custom rocking chair.
And you'll get it at a cheaper price.

P.S. Read the Marx I posted, it explains the exact functions of production and exchange

[Dean]

I am sorry but this has to be one of the stupidest critiques of the STV that I have ever seen. The reason why it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself has nothing to do with the LTV or the STV at all. It doesn't make sense due to the definition of the word "sell."
Yes, exchange indicates more than one person, which reflects that it is a social fact.


If it will help you I will refer to an items "value" (which is agent dependent and subjective) and an items "exchange ratio" which is it's price or what it can be exchanged for (which will also vary by person, place, and time).
There is no measurable magnitudal value in the judgments made by individuals outside the context of exchange. If we are discussing economics and/or exchange (rather than use-value) you must have a social relationship to describe:


"Theory of value" is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) that attempt to explain the exchange value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value) or price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price) of goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29).
Sorry, but your attempt to dissassociate value from exchange value is nothing but dogmatic posturing.


The person must necessarily have a comparative advantage in one of the two activities. Anyways, the division of labor is not an argument for the LTV either.
Having a comparative advantage does not make the disparity in my example an example of one. I guess you're assuming that each person varies in their efficiency, which isn't the point at all - that may describe one aspect of why people choose to purchase, rather than to engage in labor for particular means. But its not necessarily the reason.

The point is that labor is the regulatory factor in all commodity exchange, and your rejection of this premise has had provided no logical argumentagainst the point, and you've not shown where STV is meaningful in the critique of economics - the thesis of this thread.

[anticap]

Incidentally, what does "the STV" mean to you? In light of your established pattern of posting behavior, I think that it's fair to insist that you clearly explicate that which you are defending.

I'm still waiting on this, Skooma Addict.

You've done plenty of posturing in defense of "the STV," but you haven't yet said what you mean by it, unless I missed that post. You've been given several overviews of Marx's LTV in several threads over the course of several months, and the search function will reveal several more. So why don't you give us at least the bullet-points version of "the STV" according to you. Don't send me to the Wikipedia article or to Mises.org. Tell me in your own words what you mean when you say it.

[Skooma Addict]

That doesn't help unless you explain what you mean by "value." Since you've just established that you do not mean "exchange ratio" (why you refuse to use "exchange value" remains a mystery; I suspect that it's merely an aesthetic distaste for Marxian terms), I will assume that you mean something to the effect of "use value" (though you'll probably call it something else).

It is important that we nail this down. Most of the time our two sides are talking past each other because we're not using the same sense of the word. But of course you know this; it's part of your shtick.

I don't use the term exchange value because it is misleading. If exchange value is being defined as what one can receive in exchange for something, then it is better to refer to it as a ratio, as calling a "value" can cause the misconception that the object has an objective value.

And so what if I don't use Marx's terms? Do you use Mises' terms? No.


A commodity has use value whether you decide to make use of it or not.


This doesn't make sense. If I have no use for something, then it doesn't have a use value to me. Maybe it does for someone else, or maybe it doesn't.


Yuh-huh.

Hey! Now I understand why you do it! It's because we're at an impasse!

So why do you keep posting?

You think that somehow the amount of labor you put into a product does matter even if nobody wants it? So how is this amount of labor significant? Nobody values the commodity.



P.S. For the umpteenth time: Don't expect a response from me unless you quote me properly so that I'm sure to see it. Otherwise it'll be hit-or-miss. I just happened to recognize some of my own words in your jumble of quotes, but normally I search the page for my name because I can't always take the time to read entire threads.

Idc really given the lack of effort you put into your posts.


And why not?


Because "worth X" is not a property of a good.


They carry out the shirts which they bought at a particular price, now they carry them for profit. Those factories which sold the shirts sold them at their worth which I determine as cost+labor=worth.

Cost+Labor=worth? lol.

Wow so then I guess we should just get rid of trains and transport things by hand in order to make them worth more?


Oh gawd, not this argument. The poop has no social value. One thing it is art, and we already defined how art is not a commodity. Vincent Van Gough's paintings were worthless at his time. Art is no commodity (http://www.marxist.com/ArtAndLiterature-old/marxism_and_art.html). Art is expression. The poop was not made from any kind of useful labor, the poop was likely to have been made by a dumbass artist. Marx said all labor, made for exchange is useful, otherwise it is wasted labor. Or not labor at all, actually.

Idk what it means for something to have no "social value."

Also, I can come up with more example anyways. The labor that goes into making candy obviously doesn't determine the candies value.


And you'll get it at a cheaper price.



How do you know? Maybe I will, maybe I won't. It is certainly not some law that I will.

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, exchange indicates more than one person, which reflects that it is a social fact.
Oh I got it. It is not fact, it is a social fact. Wait, what exactly does that mean again?

Anyways, I am glad you see why the concept of selling something to yourself does not make sense for reasons completely unrelated to the STV.


There is no measurable magnitudal value in the judgments made by individuals outside the context of exchange. If we are discussing economics and/or exchange (rather than use-value) you must have a social relationship to describe
Ok, here is the social relationship.

Mr.A perceives the value of Good Y to be greater than Good X. Mr.B perceives the value of good X to be greater than good Y. Mr. A and Mr. B exchange goods in alignment with their preferences. But yes you cannot cardinally measure value.


The point is that labor is the regulatory factor in all commodity exchange, and your rejection of this premise has had provided no logical argumentagainst the point, and you've not shown where STV is meaningful in the critique of economics - the thesis of this thread. Idk what the bold portion of your quote means. Very little labor goes into exchanging goods.

[anticap]

If exchange value is being defined as what one can receive in exchange for something, then it is better to refer to it as a ratio

Fine then, call it "exchange ratio." But you're still avoiding defining what you mean by simply "value." Do you mean something like 'usefulness'? Help me to drag this out of you.


If I have no use for something, then it doesn't have a use value to me. Maybe it does for someone else, or maybe it doesn't.

You're missing the point. Your keyboard has use value. You may decide to make use of that use-value to respond to this post, or you may not, but that's not the same as it having or not having use-value.

Every two-year-old understands this concept. When they say 'mine' and grab more of something than they can immediately use, they are demonstrating the fact that the thing in question has use value, which they plan to make use of later.


You think that somehow the amount of labor you put into a product does matter even if nobody wants it? So how is this amount of labor significant? Nobody values the commodity.

I was playing your game of simply saying the opposite of everything as though it were an argument.

I'm not about to rehash this; it's been explained to you plenty of times. (It's even explained in the videos I posted above.)


Idc really given the lack of effort you put into your posts.

That's rich coming from a guy who can't be bothered to click the handy quote buttons or even to differentiate between posters in his responses. Your laziness makes things more difficult for others.

Oh, and aren't you the guy who can't be bothered to define his own terms? Why, yes, you are. Good effort, champ.

[Dean]

Oh I got it. It is not fact, it is a social fact. Wait, what exactly does that mean again?

Anyways, I am glad you see why the concept of selling something to yourself does not make sense for reasons completely unrelated to the STV.
I'm not particularly surprised that common knowledge eludes you.


Ok, here is the social relationship.

Mr.A perceives the value of Good Y to be greater than Good X. Mr.B perceives the value of good X to be greater than good Y. Mr. A and Mr. B exchange goods in alignment with their preferences. But yes you cannot cardinally measure value.
How do you know what A and B are thinking?


Idk what the bold portion of your quote means. Very little labor goes into exchanging goods.
Irrelevant.

You ignored this:

"Theory of value" is a generic term which encompasses all the theories within economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) that attempt to explain the exchange value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value) or price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price) of goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) and services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_%28economics%29

[∞]

And so what if I don't use Marx's terms? Do you use Mises' terms? No.

If you are going to attack Marxian economics on a leftist forum, at least use terms we are familiar with.


This doesn't make sense. If I have no use for something, then it doesn't have a use value to me. Maybe it does for someone else, or maybe it doesn't.

Did I say it did? It has use, maybe not for you.


You think that somehow the amount of labor you put into a product does matter even if nobody wants it? So how is this amount of labor significant? Nobody values the commodity.

Look up "socially necessary labor time".




Cost+Labor=worth? lol.

Wow so then I guess we should just get rid of trains and transport things by hand in order to make them worth more?

...Look up "socially necessary labor time". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time)




Idk what it means for something to have no "social value."
Then you didn't bother checking the vid anticap posted.



Also, I can come up with more example anyways. The labor that goes into making candy obviously doesn't determine the candies value.

Candy is cheap, candy is easily made through machines, a worker who operates these machines makes alot of candy. Yet again, another failed example. Keep going.




How do you know? Maybe I will, maybe I won't. It is certainly not some law that I will.

Yes its called the labor theory of value. Read up on it pl0x.

[Dean]

Labor refers to the human effort put forth in obtaining things of value. If candy fell from the sky in bulk, it would cease to have exchange value, though it would have use value (like air). Scarcer objects require more effort to obtain and subsequently cost more. Teaching requires more labor than digging a trench - the skills usually require time to hone and are scarcer than the ability to dig trenches.

If we were a society of frailer creatures, it might be just the opposite, in which case trenching would probably develop greater social value. These actually aren't hard concepts to grasp.

[Skooma Addict]

Fine then, call it "exchange ratio." But you're still avoiding defining what you mean by simply "value." Do you mean something like 'usefulness'? Help me to drag this out of you.I am talking about value the disposition. Value is a disposition which is completely agent dependent. So things have value insofar as people desire them, and nothing has inherent value.


You're missing the point. Your keyboard has use value. You may decide to make use of that use-value to respond to this post, or you may not, but that's not the same as it having or not having use-value.

Every two-year-old understands this concept. When they say 'mine' and grab more of something than they can immediately use, they are demonstrating the fact that the thing in question has use value, which they plan to make use of later.My keyboard may have use value or it may not. It is not some metaphysical property of a keyboard that it has "use value." Anything could have use value. It is not like a keyboard inherently has anymore use value than a piece of grass. Depending on the situation, the keyboard could have a "use value" as a hammer. But this just means that whether or not something has use value depends on the person. If you disagree, then I assume you believe everything has use value since pretty much everything could conceivably be used for something.

What a kid says "mine" they just mean that they want it. That doesn't mean the object has some inherent use value.



I was playing your game of simply saying the opposite of everything as though it were an argument.

I'm not about to rehash this; it's been explained to you plenty of times. (It's even explained in the videos I posted above.)I am not going to read your video or your links when you give me a long series of one word replies.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm not particularly surprised that common knowledge eludes you.Believe it or not the idea that it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself because of anything to do with STV is not common knowledge. It is just an incorrect claim.


How do you know what A and B are thinking?Because they are hypothetical people which I made up? And they are doing the same thing that people do all the time. So there you go, I provided the "social character" to exchange.

[Skooma Addict]

Did I say it did? It has use, maybe not for you.Do you think it necessarily has use value. If nobody values it, it has no use value, right?

Also, if I don't value it and somebody else does then for me it has no use value, and for that other person it does. It is not like the object metaphysically has some use value which the other person is deciding to exploit. Having use value is not some kind of property of the good. Thus it makes perfect sense for me to say that an object can have use value for one person, but no use value for another.



Look up "socially necessary labor time". Define it yourself. The term itself makes no sense, but maybe you can provide a definition that does.


Candy is cheap, candy is easily made through machines, a worker who operates these machines makes alot of candy. Yet again, another failed example. Keep going.You didn't prove anything. Yea, candy is usually easy to make. However, a candies value is still not determined by how much labor goes into it. The value is generally determined by how good the candy tastes. This for the most part determines that candies use and exchange value. If candy Y requires less labor to produce than candy X, but most people believe candy Y tastes a lot better, are you going to say that candy X will have a higher exchange value because it took longer to produce? Assume even supplies.


Yes its called the labor theory of value. Read up on it pl0x.Whether or not I will get the office chair for the cheaper price depends on supply and demand. Do you reject this?


Labor refers to the human effort put forth in obtaining things of value. If candy fell from the sky in bulk, it would cease to have exchange value, though it would have use value (like air). Scarcer objects require more effort to obtain and subsequently cost more. Teaching requires more labor than digging a trench - the skills usually require time to hone and are scarcer than the ability to dig trenches.
Are you sure that you reject inherent value? Doesn't sound like it.

[anticap]

I am talking about value the disposition. So things have value insofar as people desire them

The sense that you're using implies usefulness. People are disposed to desire things because they have use value, i.e., they are useful.


My keyboard may have use value or it may not. It is not some metaphysical property of a keyboard that it has "use value."

Nobody's talking metaphysics, so put that slur back in your pocket.

You're still not getting it: A keyboard is built for a purpose. Sure, one might use it for some other purpose, but that's not what the concept of use-value addresses. What I mean when I say that an item has use value is that it has a use built into it by design; or, if the item occurs naturally, that it has some natural use.


What a kid says "mine" they just mean that they want it. That doesn't mean the object has some inherent use value.

As I said above, desire for an object implies that it has use value.


I am not going to read your video or your links when you give me a long series of one word replies.

Again, that's rich coming from you. Not only are you notorious for one-liners, but when you do go into greater detail it generally amounts to what could have been said in one line, as in the case of this last reply of yours, where you essentially just said the opposite of what I did, yet again. We could go back-and-forth like that forever, but what would it accomplish? We both know where the other stands; the point now is to present convincing arguments in support of our positions. You haven't even attempted to do that, and I can't do it when all you give me to respond to is repeated assertions. Still, I've done my best to steer you in a fruitful direction. It would be nice if you followed along so that we might eventually get somewhere.

[∞]

Define it yourself. The term itself makes no sense, but maybe you can provide a definition that does.

Say I work at factory A, and it takes me 30min to make a widget. But Steve has a factory with greater technology. However Steve must complete his work day and in turn make more widgets. It required him less labor per one widget, but the same time and effort was ut in his work day. This is socially necessary labor time.


You didn't prove anything. Yea, candy is usually easy to make. However, a candies value is still not determined by how much labor goes into it. The value is generally determined by how good the candy tastes. This for the most part determines that candies use and exchange value. If candy Y requires less labor to produce than candy X, but most people believe candy Y tastes a lot better, are you going to say that candy X will have a higher exchange value because it took longer to produce? Assume even supplies.
:laugh::laugh:
You proved yourself wrong here. Lets say Hersheys requires less labor to make than Almond Joy. You'll find 1. they are the same price 2. There is more Hersheys than Almond Joy. (try it in any convenience store), there is always more Hersheys available than Almond Joy. Therefore the Hersheys factory can 100 Hersheys in x time. While an almond joy factory might make 70 almond joy in that amount of time. When Hershey's has 30 Hershey's remaining they can sell those (in some cases a little cheaper) to make more profit than they had before.


Whether or not I will get the office chair for the cheaper price depends on supply and demand. Do you reject this?

In no cases will a hand crafted chair be worth less than an office chair. Currently there is more demand for office chairs, but are custom chairs cheaper? http://www.rockingchairs.net/Pages/rocking_chair_1.html

Guess how much those bad-boys cost.
This much: http://www.rockingchairs.net/Pages/Sizes_and_Pricing.html

[Skooma Addict]

The sense that you're using implies usefulness. People are disposed to desire things because they have use value, i.e., they are useful.

You just repeated yourself. Are yo saying that an item can be inherently useful, because that is what it sounds like. People desire something because they perceive it to be useful, agreed? It is not like some items themselves are useful while others are not useful. Whether or not it is useful is agent dependent. Agreed?



You're still not getting it: A keyboard is built for a purpose. Sure, one might use it for some other purpose, but that's not what the concept of use-value addresses. What I mean when I say that an item has use value is that it has a use built into it by design; or, if the item occurs naturally, that it has some natural use.

If what you mean by use if that the creator intended it to have some use, then yes some items could have use value. Although I still don't understand how this would work for natural resources. However, the fact that you believe natural resources could have use value makes me believe that you need a different definition of use value, as no creator willfully built a use into them by design.


As I said above, desire for an object implies that it has use value.


Lets use your above definition.

Say a kid wants something and says "mine." It does not follow that the item "has a use built into it by design." Even if the child does want something which was made for a specific purpose, the child could want the item for something completely unrelated to its use value, in which case, it still would not logically follow (say a kid wants a hammer to use as a toy for example).

[Dean]

Believe it or not the idea that it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself because of anything to do with STV is not common knowledge. It is just an incorrect claim.
It proves that exchange value only exists socially.


Because they are hypothetical people which I made up? And they are doing the same thing that people do all the time. So there you go, I provided the "social character" to exchange.
No, you just asserted a completely unfounded psychological model onto what "people do all the time." This neither discredits any argument about the social character of value, nor extrapolates the particulars of transference of value from exchange relations.

[Dean]

Say a kid wants something and says "mine." It does not follow that the item "has a use built into it by design." Even if the child does want something which was made for a specific purpose, the child could want the item for something completely unrelated to its use value, in which case, it still would not logically follow (say a kid wants a hammer to use as a toy for example).
:laugh: That is use-value, by the very language you use to describe it!

[Skooma Addict]

Say I work at factory A, and it takes me 30min to make a widget. But Steve has a factory with greater technology. However Steve must complete his work day and in turn make more widgets. It required him less labor per one widget, but the same time and effort was ut in his work day. This is socially necessary labor time.

I don't understand what in this example is socially necessary labor time. Can you just provide a definition?


You proved yourself wrong here. Lets say Hersheys requires less labor to make than Almond Joy. You'll find 1. they are the same price 2. There is more Hersheys than Almond Joy. (try it in any convenience store), there is always more Hersheys available than Almond Joy. Therefore the Hersheys factory can 100 Hersheys in x time. While an almond joy factory might make 70 almond joy in that amount of time. When Hershey's has 30 Hershey's remaining they can sell those (in some cases a little cheaper) to make more profit than they had before.

Are you like combing a hypothetical example with a real life example? This is really confusing. First, I am not going to take your word for it that there is more Hersheys than almond joy at any convenience store.

Anyways, I am not sure how this refutes anything I said. People do not care about how much labor went into making a candy bar. Thus, the demand for candy bars has nothing to do with labor. Thus, a crucial factor in the exchange value of candy bars has absolutely nothing to do with labor. The only way you could reject this is if you reject supply/demand.


In no cases will a hand crafted chair be worth less than an office chair. Currently there is more demand for office chairs, but are custom chairs cheaper?

It seems to me like you do not understand the concept of supply and demand. There is more demand for office chairs, but there is also a far far greater supply. I am also pretty sure you are unjustified in saying that under no cases will a hand crafted chair demand a higher price than an office chair.

If anyone is going to say that labor determines price, then that is at odds with saying that supply/demand determines price. So do you reject supply/demand?

[Skooma Addict]

It proves that exchange value only exists socially.

Right, prices can only form when there is more than one person. How is this relevant to anything?


No, you just asserted a completely unfounded psychological model onto what "people do all the time." This neither discredits any argument about the social character of value, nor extrapolates the particulars of transference of value from exchange relations.

People do trade all the time believe it or not. At the time of the exchange they value what they recieve more than what they are giving up. You provided no argument about the "social character of value." You just said that it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself. Well yea no duh...



:laugh: That is use-value, by the very language you use to describe it!

Well then you and anticap have different definitions of use value. Not my problem.

Also, Dean, just to be clear, you do not believe labor has intrinsic value, correct?

[∞]

I don't understand what in this example is socially necessary labor time. Can you just provide a definition?

"Socially necessary labour time in Marx's critique of political economy is what regulates the exchange value of commodities in trade and consequently guides producers in their attempt to economise on labour.
Unlike individual labour hours in the classical labour theory of value formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the Marxian value is conceived as a fraction (or 'aliquot part') of society's labour-time.
Marx did not define this concept in mathematically exact terms, and he suggests it may be interpreted in various ways, because it connects average levels of labour productivity to social needs expressed as monetarily effective market demand for products. In addition, the precise ways in which labour costs determine product values may not be all identical, i.e. the specific mode of regulation of the values of different types of products may in fact vary somewhat, due to social, physical or technical circumstances."




Are you like combing a hypothetical example with a real life example? This is really confusing. First, I am not going to take your word for it that there is more Hersheys than almond joy at any convenience store.

It is a real example.


Anyways, I am not sure how this refutes anything I said. People do not care about how much labor went into making a candy bar. Thus, the demand for candy bars has nothing to do with labor. Thus, a crucial factor in the exchange value of candy bars has absolutely nothing to do with labor. The only way you could reject this is if you reject supply/demand.

It doesn't matter what people care about. The price is the same, the value varies. According to you, admiring the labor put in a commodity is impossible. I'm saying it depends on who is buying what.




It seems to me like you do not understand the concept of supply and demand. There is more demand for office chairs, but there is also a far far greater supply. I am also pretty sure you are unjustified in saying that under no cases will a hand crafted chair demand a higher price than an office chair.

Well if there was one office chair and one hand-crafted chair on the market, the hand-crafted chair would still cost more...


If anyone is going to say that labor determines price, then that is at odds with saying that supply/demand determines price. So do you reject supply/demand?

No, I'm saying they both play each other. Markets are usually aware of supply and demand, and the market production will always fluctuate back into equilibrium.

[anticap]

You just repeated yourself.

It's all that I can do, because it's all that you do!


Are yo saying that...

See, now you're even inviting me to repeat myself!

I said exactly what I meant. Read it again.


I still don't understand how this would work for natural resources.

As humans, we have certain needs. Air, for example, has use value for us.


:laugh: That is use-value, by the very language you use to describe it!

:thumbup1:


Well then you and anticap have different definitions of use value.

Wrong; you just don't understand either one of us.

[Dean]

Right, prices can only form when there is more than one person. How is this relevant to anything?



People do trade all the time believe it or not. At the time of the exchange they value what they recieve more than what they are giving up. You provided no argument about the "social character of value." You just said that it doesn't make sense to sell something to yourself. Well yea no duh...
So value is social, we agree. Glad you've finally come around.


Well then you and anticap have different definitions of use value. Not my problem.
It is your problem that a "non-use-value" example of yours specifically refers to a use value in your explanation.


Also, Dean, just to be clear, you do not believe labor has intrinsic value, correct?
Well, it depends. Marx defines labor as "work which creates value." But I think you're referring to work in general, in whicha case you'd be correct.

But this is another one of your unnecessary tautologies. Whether a value is "intrinsic" or not cannot discount the relations of production and exchange insofar as they prove themselves in the market.

[anticap]

Can you just provide a definition?

Can you?


Marx defines labor as "work which creates value."

The videos I posted earlier in the thread speak directly to this, if Skooma Addict would only watch them.

[Skooma Addict]

Socially necessary labour time in Marx's critique of political economy is what regulates the exchange value of commodities in trade and consequently guides producers in their attempt to economise on labour.
Unlike individual labour hours in the classical labour theory of value formulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the Marxian value is conceived as a fraction (or 'aliquot part') of society's labour-time.
Marx did not define this concept in mathematically exact terms, and he suggests it may be interpreted in various ways, because it connects average levels of labour productivity to social needs expressed as monetarily effective market demand for products. In addition, the precise ways in which labour costs determine product values may not be all identical, i.e. the specific mode of regulation of the values of different types of products may in fact vary somewhat, due to social, physical or technical circumstances."

I don't see how this is a definition.


It doesn't matter what people care about. The price is the same, the value varies. According to you, admiring the labor put in a commodity is impossible. I'm saying it depends on who is buying what.

It does matter what people care about, as there is a demand side to supply/demand. The price will change depending upon what people care about. In the case of candy, nobody cares about socially necessary labor time, as most people don't even know what that term even means. People care about the taste generally. The taste of the candy will have an effect on the price, as the seller will be able to sell it for a higher price than a candy which few people like even though it may have required more labor to produce.



Well if there was one office chair and one hand-crafted chair on the market, the hand-crafted chair would still cost more...

Which market, what point in time, and where? Not sure how you could claim to know this...


No, I'm saying they both play each other. Markets are usually aware of supply and demand, and the market production will always fluctuate back into equilibrium.

What do you mean they play at each other? They work in conjunction to determine price?

[Skooma Addict]

See, now you're even inviting me to repeat myself!

I said exactly what I meant. Read it again.I did, so now to make sure I don't misinterpret you...

"Are you saying that an item can be inherently useful, because that is what it sounds like. People desire something because they perceive it to be useful, agreed? It is not like some items themselves are useful while others are not useful. Whether or not it is useful is agent dependent. Agreed?"


As humans, we have certain needs. Air, for example, has use value for us.Right, everyone who values life will value air (so it is not true that everyone must necessarily value air). Something like a pineapple could have use value for some of us, and no use value for others. However, you purposely missed my point.

"If what you mean by use if that the creator intended it to have some use, then yes some items could have use value. Although I still don't understand how this would work for natural resources. However, the fact that you believe natural resources could have use value makes me believe that you need a different definition of use value, as no creator willfully built a use into them by design."

Air apparently does not fit your definition of use value, as it was not created for any intended purpose.

Also, you missed this point....

Say a kid wants something and says "mine." It does not follow that the item "has a use built into it by design." Even if the child does want something which was made for a specific purpose, the child could want the item for something completely unrelated to its use value, in which case, it still would not logically follow (say a kid wants a hammer to use as a toy for example).

...This is a refutation of your point which you haven't addressed.

[Skooma Addict]

So value is social, we agree. Glad you've finally come around.

No, we don't. Value is strictly agent dependent and subjective. there is nothing social about it. The fact that prices require more than one person to develop does not prove your point at all, and I am wondering how you could possibly think otherwise.


It is your problem that a "non-use-value" example of yours specifically refers to a use value in your explanation.


So you are defining use value as something which a person perceives a use for? In that case, and object can have use value for one person and no use value for another. This is what I have been saying the whole time.


Well, it depends. Marx defines labor as "work which creates value." But I think you're referring to work in general, in whicha case you'd be correct.

But this is another one of your unnecessary tautologies. Whether a value is "intrinsic" or not cannot discount the relations of production and exchange insofar as they prove themselves in the market.

The fact that you say "depends" gives the impression that you believe inherent value does exist. So, do you believe inherent value exists?

[Skooma Addict]

Also, the STV is more general than the LTV, and it is far simpler, and so anyone who abides by Occams Razor should remember that. This conversation really emphasizes that point.

[∞]

The taste of the candy will have an effect on the price

Have you noticed that there is no such thing as a candy nobody likes?
Markets are aware what consumers like...
Theres always a target consumer, different tastes come at relatively the same price.
Most people like Reeses better than Almond Joy, they cost the same. So no, the value of an object is it's use and exchange value. + The labor put into it. Only with a horizon of all factors of the commodity can we analyze that the commodity has value. Thats why there is less Almond Joy than Hershey bars, they appeal to less people. Still maintaining supply and demand.

[anticap]

Skooma Addict, I said what I meant, and it's as clear as day.

Now, I'm not going to play the game where you excise vast swathes of my posts, and yet have the gall to repeat yourself when I ignore parts of yours. I address your salient points, as I see them. I assume that you do the same, and so I say nothing about it.

As to your attempt to get Socratic with me, I might be willing to play that game if you'll just answer the very simple question that I posed to you several days ago. That is one that I do intend to beat into the ground. What's the matter, can't you answer it?


Also, the STV is more general than the LTV, and it is far simpler, and so anyone who abides by Occams Razor should remember that.

You already tried that one:


On a side note, for those who are fans of Occams Razor, it is clear that the STV is superior in that regard.

I already shot it down:


That's like saying that a pie crust is superior to a whole pie. Marx understood that use-values will be subjectively evaluated, but he believed that there's more to it than that. He believed that in order to understand pie, we need to look at the filling as well as the crust.

[Skooma Addict]

Skooma Addict, I said what I meant, and it's as clear as day.

Now, I'm not going to play the game where you excise vast swathes of my posts, and yet have the gall to repeat yourself when I ignore parts of yours. I address your salient points, as I see them. I assume that you do the same, and so I say nothing about it.

As to your attempt to get Socratic with me, I might be willing to play that game if you'll just answer the very simple question that I posed to you several days ago. That is one that I do intend to beat into the ground. What's the matter, can't you answer it?My beliefs on value? I did answer that. Value is strictly agent dependent, and purely subjective.


That's like saying that a pie crust is superior to a whole pie. Marx understood that use-values will be subjectively evaluated, but he believed that there's more to it than that. He believed that in order to understand pie, we need to look at the filling as well as the crust. You didn't "shoot down" anything. You are just assuming that the STV is missing something which only the LTV can exaplain. But this is not the case since supply/demand is all that is required to explain price formation.

Although given that you apparently believe that use value is subjective, you should realize that it makes no sense to say that an item either does or does not have use value outside of your preferences. So saying that something "has no use value" is just you saying that you personally do not perceive a use for it. So really, there is no point in saying something "has use value" or "has no use value."

Also, you never explained how your definition of use value...

What I mean when I say that an item has use value is that it has a use built into it by design; or, if the item occurs naturally, that it has some natural use.

....accounts for natural resources. All you did is claim that natural resources have some natural use (again, for some people they do, for others they don't) even though natural resources do not fit the definition you provided in the previous sentence.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Skooma Addict, I said what I meant, and it's as clear as day.

Now, I'm not going to play the game where you excise vast swathes of my posts, and yet have the gall to repeat yourself when I ignore parts of yours. I address your salient points, as I see them. I assume that you do the same, and so I say nothing about it.

As to your attempt to get Socratic with me, I might be willing to play that game if you'll just answer the very simple question that I posed to you several days ago. That is one that I do intend to beat into the ground. What's the matter, can't you answer it?



You already tried that one:



I already shot it down:

Its Olaf for christs sake, he doesn't do rebuttals, just ignores them and then resurfaces to make the same argument a week later.

[anticap]

My beliefs on value?

No.

[Skooma Addict]

Incidentally, what does "the STV" mean to you? In light of your established pattern of posting behavior, I think that it's fair to insist that you clearly explicate that which you are defending. I already answered this. Anyways...

Value is a feature of an agent and not of the thing being valued. Nothing has inherent value, as value is purely subjective and agent dependent.

You also didn't respond to any of my other points.

[Skooma Addict]

Its Olaf for christs sake, he doesn't to rebuttals, just ignores them and then resurfaces to make the same argument a week later.

70% of your guys "arguments" consist of making insults, talking about how much my arguments fail without actually addressing them, and skipping over my points or providing 1 word responses. Here is a good example. Gangsterio makes no effort whatsoever to add to the discussion. He drops in once to make an insult and then leaves. The fact that anticap would thank a random 1 liner attack post by someone who has not made a single previous contribution to the discussion says a lot.

[anticap]

I already answered this.

Your definition of "the STV" is:


Value is a feature of an agent and not of the thing being valued. Nothing has inherent value, as value is purely subjective and agent dependent.

Really?

[Dean]

No, we don't. Value is strictly agent dependent and subjective. there is nothing social about it. The fact that prices require more than one person to develop does not prove your point at all, and I am wondering how you could possibly think otherwise.
So, price is not social despite the fact that it can only arise via relationships between people. Makes perfect sense.


So you are defining use value as something which a person perceives a use for? In that case, and object can have use value for one person and no use value for another. This is what I have been saying the whole time.
What? You used the example of a child using a toy as a hammer as an expression of "how an item may not have use value." Well, use as a toy is a use-value. As Marx points out, an item is only a use-value for the individuals who seek to acquire the commodity and use it that way. So whatever you're saying is hardly new or contrary to Marxian economics.


The fact that you say "depends" gives the impression that you believe inherent value does exist. So, do you believe inherent value exists?
Yep, in completed transactions. Analyzing them shows a value relationship inherited from their masters - those who engaged in the transaction.

[Dean]

You didn't "shoot down" anything. You are just assuming that the STV is missing something which only the LTV can exaplain. But this is not the case since supply/demand is all that is required to explain price formation.

Labor is a part of the supply-demand model. I'm not sure what makes you think you can disassociate the two:

“all the different kinds of private labor … are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. The reason for this reduction is that in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labor time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a regulatory law of nature.” P.168

[Skooma Addict]

So, price is not social despite the fact that it can only arise via relationships between people. Makes perfect sense.Strawman. I said value is not social. Prices require more than 1 person, so they are "social" in that sense.


What? You used the example of a child using a toy as a hammer as an expression of "how an item may not have use value." Well, use as a toy is a use-value. As Marx points out, an item is only a use-value for the individuals who seek to acquire the commodity and use it that way. So whatever you're saying is hardly new or contrary to Marxian economics.I was using the nonsensical definition provided by anticap. So Marx agrees then that an item can have use value for some people and not for others. So it really is pointless to say X has use value but Y doesn't.


Yep, in completed transactions. Analyzing them shows a value relationship inherited from their masters - those who engaged in the transaction. Okay so you first say that you believe in inherent value, then you say you don't, and now you do? No wonder you aren't making sense. I have no idea what value relationship is being inherited from these "masters" which you speak of. So given that you believe in inherent value, do you think something can have value even if nobody in the world values it?

[Skooma Addict]

Labor is a part of the supply-demand model. I'm not sure what makes you think you can disassociate the two:

Modern Economics? Econ has moved past the 19th century you know..


“all the different kinds of private labor … are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. The reason for this reduction is that in the midst of the accidental and ever-fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labor time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a regulatory law of nature.” P.168

P. 168 of which very poorly written book? Not sure what this has to do with supply/demand either.

[anticap]

So Marx agrees then that an item can have use value for some people and not for others. So it really is pointless to say X has use value but Y doesn't.

If you'd bothered to check the most obvious place in your attempt to understand, then you'd have seen this (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/s.htm#use-value):


Use-values become a reality only by use or consumption

He goes on to say that "they also constitute the substance of all wealth." This implies that they have use value to begin with.

[Skooma Addict]

Well if that is what Marx believes then my previous criticisms apply.

[Dean]

Strawman. I said value is not social. Prices require more than 1 person, so they are "social" in that sense.
Value theories describe the following:


An economic value is the worth of a goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_%28economics%29) or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29) as determined by the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28economics%29


I was using the nonsensical definition provided by anticap. So Marx agrees then that an item can have use value for some people and not for others. So it really is pointless to say X has use value but Y doesn't.
How does that make it pointless?


Okay so you first say that you believe in inherent value, then you say you don't, and now you do? No wonder you aren't making sense. I have no idea what value relationship is being inherited from these "masters" which you speak of. So given that you believe in inherent value, do you think something can have value even if nobody in the world values it?
When I trade an apple for a dollar, they both have inherent value - value inherited by nature of the exchange.

Earlier, I claimed that labor had intrinsic value, but instead of explaining why I said it, I retracted the comment since I knew you were referring to a different concept of labor. I'm not being inconsistent.


Modern Economics? Econ has moved past the 19th century you know..
Irrelevant.


P. 168 of which very poorly written book? Not sure what this has to do with supply/demand either.
The regulation of a variable supply or input which begets valuation in terms of economics indicates a supply - demand model.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You guys do realise Skooma has already "debated" this subject on about 20 other threads?

[Dean]

Also, here is my claim on Menger:


The Austrians' own Carl Menger seems to reject the subjective value model:

We are thus considering a case—one that is typical of ordinary life—in which satisfactions of very different degrees of im*portance depend on the availability of a quantity of goods that we shall assume, for the sake of greater simplicity, to be composed of completely homogeneous units.* The question that now arises is: what, under the given conditions, is the value of a certain portion of the grain to our farmer? Will the bushels of grain that secure his own and his family’s lives have a higher value to him** than the bushels that enable him to seed his fields? And will the latter bushels have a greater value to him than the bushels of grain he employs for purposes of pleasure?

No one will deny that the satisfactions that seem assured by the various portions of the available supply of grain are very unequal in importance,** ranging from an importance of 10 to an importance of 1 in terms of our earlier designations. Yet no one will be able to maintain that some bushels of grain (those, for instance, with which the farmer will nourish himself and his family till the next harvest) will have a higher value to him than other bushels of the same quality** (those, for instance, from which he will make luxury beverages)."
-Principles of Economics (http://mises.org/etexts/menger/three.asp)

*Here, Menger endorses the homogeneous character of a given item - in this case grain. Critics of Marx's characterization of labor as homogeneous for the sake of the model should criticize Menger with equal vigor on this point.

**In these samples, Menger directly rejects the notion of subjective value, unless he were to make the (rather absurd) claim that humans value things on a homogeneous basis, that is to say that the value 'Bob' places on commodity X is fixed through different conditions - conditions which, per the above, vary in the particular relevance of the commodity X.

Its either a rejection of the subjective Marginalist theory (which holds that different conditions lower the utility, and hence value)* or its absurd - do we really tie value to individual agents, but ignore their conditions - as Menger states above?

*See Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#History

The concept of marginal utility grew out of attempts by economists to explain the determination of price.

[Kiev Communard]

Modern Economics? Econ has moved past the 19th century you know..

Judging from the manifest failure of Monetarist economics to predict the current crisis it hasn't ended very well, you know.

[Dean]

Furthermore, I'm not claiming that labor has intrinsic value - I was actually explaining a position of Marx's, who defines labor on those terms for purpose of the models he proposes. I have shown above where completed exchanges incontrovertibly have intrinsic value. So intrinsic value does exist.

[Dermezel]

The Labor description of Value is made obsolete due to utility.

[Dermezel]

Furthermore, I'm not claiming that labor has intrinsic value - I was actually explaining a position of Marx's, who defines labor on those terms for purpose of the models he proposes. I have shown above where completed exchanges incontrovertibly have intrinsic value. So intrinsic value does exist.

Marx notes that using labor as a standard of value is irrational. It is actually capitalism that perpetuates this as an irrationality of self-interest. i.e. he needs ideological justification aside from utility.

[Dean]

Marx notes that using labor as a standard of value is irrational. It is actually capitalism that perpetuates this as an irrationality of self-interest. i.e. he needs ideological justification aside from utility.
Do you have any links or can you further explain? If its irrational to define value in terms of labor, why is Marx basing Capital on that value system?

[Baseball]

When I trade an apple for a dollar, they both have inherent value - value inherited by nature of the exchange.




They have the value because:

A. You value the apple for a dollar, and not a dollar and a quarter.
B. The grower values the apple for a dollar and not 75 cents.

[Dean]

They have the value because:
For one thing, you missed the whole point of the post, which was to describe a situation in which value is inherent. As afar as I can tell, only realized value (as in a completed exchange) can be inherent, since it is only realized value which can no longer be detached from something - in this case, the exchange, or the commodity at the point of exchange.

A. You value the apple for a dollar, and not a dollar and a quarter.
Oh really? What if the apple was the only commodity purchasable? Would such a valuation system make any sense at all? There's a whole level of value you're ignoring.


B. The grower values the apple for a dollar and not 75 cents.
Again, there is no indication that this is really the case.

Take the following example:


2 older men whose concepts of price are outdated confront each other in exchange. They both feel that, for instance, the price of milk is outlandish at $2.50/gallon when they used to get it for $1.00.

In this case, the one man is selling a bale of hay. He knows that in the past (the price he felt just) a bale of hay was worth $5.00. But today he frequently sees them going for $15.00.

What do you think he'll charge for his hay?

Right there we are dealing with at least three different variables which affect value:

-The comparable cost of items (that is the versatility of a dollar).
-The effect of inflation

But perhaps most importantly:
-The fundamentally social character of value

The fact is that "an item is worth x dollars" only means "an item is exchangeable for the value of x dollars insofar as it, too, is exchangeable for other commodities and services - that is forms of labor."

Further, inflation is not something I personally experience in my value judgment. As far as I'm concerned, my $100.00 in the bank is worth the same today as it was yesterday - and I'll generally exchange it on those terms until I witness products changing their value - and I don't wake up each day and think "you know what? I'm willing to pay more for gas than I was yesterday."

Inflation and comparable exchange value are both social facts, and the exchange rate itself is completely social.

Let's go back to your example. On a narrowly subjective basis, that is, outside the possibility of future exchange (a social relationship) for the $1.00, the grower would have absolutely no reason to give up his apple for a slip of currency. So the process of exchange forms itself solely in the context of a societal arrangement - the market.

The very meaning of value has tied up in it, "I would accept your currency because I know that I can in turn exchange it to another person," a social pact. Without broad recognition for money, it would be absurd to treat it as worth anything. The valuation process is directly linked to the perceived social value of the commodity which confronts another in trade.

And, per my example, the subjective opinions on value are swept away as soon as there is any social precedent to the contrary: the man will sell his hay at an approximation approaching its social value - he will charge less or more given his own disposition and relations, but he won't charge only 5$ since he would perceive it as a rip-off, and rightly so.