 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Leszek Kolakowski on the Marxian LTV |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Hunter |
 Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Presuming that sci.econ is frequented by a few who know something of
economics, I'm curious as to their judgment as to Bohm-Bawerk's and
Leszek Kolakowski's take on Marx's LTV:
This, following Kolakowski, is the center of Bohm-Bawerk's argument
against Marx:
"1) Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively, partly
(but not solely) because there is no way of reducing different kinds
of
labour to a common measure;
2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
3) therefore the statement that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because it is not clear on
what
ground we are asked to believe that value is determined by
labour-time)
and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to explain the
movement of prices, still less to foresee it." (See Vol. II)
Kolakowski, discussing Hilferding's defense of Marx, goes on to say the
he (Hilferding) accepts 1) and 2), above, but denies that they affect
Marx's theory, "since it does not purport to explain actual terms of
exchange but only to discover the general laws of change, and these
are subordinate to the law of value."
Kolakowski then says: "We need only repeat here the remarks we have
already made in discussing _Capital_ (in Vol. I). In the empirical
sciences we generally define a law as a statement that in such and
such
particular conditions, such and such phenomena always occur. Clearly
the statement that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of
socially necessary labour put into it is *not a law* but a definition
of value. It could be proved that it was not an arbitrary definition
if
we were able to show that this particular attribute of commodities
does
govern actual price-changes; this latter proposition could then be
called a law. But here is the real difficulty: price-changes depend on
several factors---the average rate of profit, the supply-demand ratio,
value, etc.---and we cannot ascertain their quantitative
distribution."
(Id., emphasis added by HW)
Your views, gentlemen?
HW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:983b52381b]Presuming that sci.econ is frequented by a few who know something of
economics, I'm curious as to their judgment as to Bohm-Bawerk's and
Leszek Kolakowski's take on Marx's LTV:
[/quote:983b52381b]
The labour theory of vaue is not Marx's.
[quote:983b52381b]This, following Kolakowski, is the center of Bohm-Bawerk's argument
against Marx:
"1) Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively, partly
(but not solely) because there is no way of reducing different kinds
of
labour to a common measure;
[/quote:983b52381b]
Of course it can be measured, by market response, Marx just didn't want
to accept that measure so instead tried to create his "labour-time"
unit of measure. However when you have a free market you can precisely
know the relative value of labour, because labourers will only bring
the product of their labour to market when doing so provides a return
that is greater than their subjective perception of the disutility of
producing the product in the first place.
So it is fair to say that Marx's "labour-time" unit of measure is not
usefull in a command economy, it is wrong to say that this somehow
falsifies the labour theory of value itself, which is not a Marxian
theory, but a feature of classical economics.
[quote:983b52381b]2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
[/quote:983b52381b]
equilibrium price = cost + rent.
Price at the point of sale is set by the amount of demand that
encounters the amount of supply. From this point, competition drives
price towards cost, rent drives price towards marginal utility. Rent
can only be charged where supply for new demand cannot be produced by
the application of labour and capital alone, such as where it depends
on monopolies like land, intellectual property, license, etc.
[quote:983b52381b]3) therefore the statement that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because it is not clear on
what
ground we are asked to believe that value is determined by
labour-time)
and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to explain the
movement of prices, still less to foresee it." (See Vol. II)
[/quote:983b52381b]
This is a false conclusion, as neither are arbitrary unless you have a
command economy, as the market does provide the feedback needed to both
explain the movement of prices, and forsee them, all in accrodance with
the labour theory. What is unclear is how Marx believed a command
economy would calculate "labour-time." But the labour theory of value,
on it's own, is not falsified by the fact that labour-time ratios can
not be calculated in a command economy. They can be calculated in a
market economy. In the project management industry, they have databases
of such ratios, including not only differences among types of labour,
but among labourers in different regions as well.
[quote:983b52381b]Kolakowski, discussing Hilferding's defense of Marx, goes on to say the
he (Hilferding) accepts 1) and 2), above, but denies that they affect
Marx's theory, "since it does not purport to explain actual terms of
exchange but only to discover the general laws of change, and these
are subordinate to the law of value."
[/quote:983b52381b]
I have no opinion on what Marx purports to explain, But if Hilferding
really does accept that both 1 or 2 in someway disprove the labour
theory then he is already wrong, because both criticisms have to do
with the availabilty of value information in a command economy and not
the labor thoery.
[quote:983b52381b]Kolakowski then says: "We need only repeat here the remarks we have
already made in discussing _Capital_ (in Vol. I). In the empirical
sciences we generally define a law as a statement that in such and
such
particular conditions, such and such phenomena always occur. Clearly
the statement that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of
socially necessary labour put into it is *not a law* but a definition
of value.
[/quote:983b52381b]
Ok if he wants "such and such particular conditions, such and such
phenomena always occur," here you go:
In conditions where new supply can be added by the application of
aditional labour, supply will always be added until the price retained
by the supplier falls to the cost of that labour.
That fullfils his "scientific" requirements.
This of course also includes the supply of inputs to such production,
including Capital, but not land, which can not be created by labour, as
it can not be created at all, and therfore has no "supplier."
It also does not include artificial forms of Rent, like intellectual
property and other legal barriers to competition, but this is beyond
the scope of a value thoery. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quirk wrote:
[quote:3fe6105862]Hunter wrote:
Presuming that sci.econ is frequented by a few who know something of
economics, I'm curious as to their judgment as to Bohm-Bawerk's and
Leszek Kolakowski's take on Marx's LTV:
The labour theory of vaue is not Marx's.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
Marx adapted the classical LTV to his purposes and the result was
"Marx's LTV".
[quote:3fe6105862]
This, following Kolakowski, is the center of Bohm-Bawerk's argument
against Marx:
"1) Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively, partly
(but not solely) because there is no way of reducing different kinds
of
labour to a common measure;
Of course it can be measured, by market response, Marx just didn't want
to accept that measure so instead tried to create his "labour-time"
unit of measure.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
But B-B and Kolakowski are engaged in a critique of "Marx's sense" of
the matter. Have you actually responded to the point in paragraph 1
about the difficulties of measuring the respective *value* of myriad
labor inputs quantitatively? Aren't you presuming that market response
somehow tracks labor specifically? And surely price is a market
response to more factors than just labor?
However when you have a free market you can precisely
[quote:3fe6105862]know the relative value of labour, because labourers will only bring
the product of their labour to market when doing so provides a return
that is greater than their subjective perception of the disutility of
producing the product in the first place.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
_Kapital_ is ostensibly a study of capitalist enterprise. The workers
in that system don't bring products to market. Capitalists do,
sometimes even in the face of a subjective perception of disutility
which involves calculations about myriad inputs, certainly not just
labor. But anyway, these inputs are calculated as costs, not value
which seems to me to be a much larger subject.
[quote:3fe6105862]
So it is fair to say that Marx's "labour-time" unit of measure is not
usefull in a command economy, it is wrong to say that this somehow
falsifies the labour theory of value itself, which is not a Marxian
theory, but a feature of classical economics.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
Isn't the real issue whether, as Marx adapts the LTV, it involves a
*law* of economics or a mere Marxian definition open to the claim that
it is arbitrary and useless---except of course in politics.
[quote:3fe6105862]
2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
equilibrium price = cost + rent.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
But do cost + rent sum up all the operative factors? Are we able to
ascertain the quantitative importance of Marxian labor value vis a vis
the others? And if not what is Marx's LTV but a definition, an
arbitrary definition as opposed to a law?
[quote:3fe6105862]
Price at the point of sale is set by the amount of demand that
encounters the amount of supply. From this point, competition drives
price towards cost, rent drives price towards marginal utility. Rent
can only be charged where supply for new demand cannot be produced by
the application of labour and capital alone, such as where it depends
on monopolies like land, intellectual property, license, etc.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
The operative factors seem not to be separated here much less
quantified. How would you apply Marxian value theory to it?
[quote:3fe6105862]
3) therefore the statement that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because it is not clear on
what
ground we are asked to believe that value is determined by
labour-time)
and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to explain the
movement of prices, still less to foresee it." (See Vol. II)
This is a false conclusion, as neither are arbitrary unless you have a
command economy, as the market does provide the feedback needed to both
explain the movement of prices, and forsee them, all in accrodance with
the labour theory.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
Presume (safely) that we don't have a command economy. Are you not
basing your rejection of Bohm-Bawark's conclusion on the premise that
prices do track value in the Marxian sense? And is that not clearly
arbitrary? Forgive this rank amateur but how it can be proved
quantitatively? _Kapital_ is virtually empty of empirical content.
What is unclear is how Marx believed a command
[quote:3fe6105862]economy would calculate "labour-time." But the labour theory of value,
on it's own, is not falsified by the fact that labour-time ratios can
not be calculated in a command economy.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
Value, not cost ratios.
They can be calculated in a
[quote:3fe6105862]market economy. In the project management industry, they have databases
of such ratios, including not only differences among types of labour,
but among labourers in different regions as well.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
Aren't they simply trying to keep track of costs? Marx didn't equate
wages with value, did he? Isn't it quite the contrary? I'm not even
sure he clearly equated price with value.
[quote:3fe6105862]
Kolakowski, discussing Hilferding's defense of Marx, goes on to say the
he (Hilferding) accepts 1) and 2), above, but denies that they affect
Marx's theory, "since it does not purport to explain actual terms of
exchange but only to discover the general laws of change, and these
are subordinate to the law of value."
I have no opinion on what Marx purports to explain, But if Hilferding
really does accept that both 1 or 2 in someway disprove the labour
theory then he is already wrong, because both criticisms have to do
with the availabilty of value information in a command economy and not
the labor thoery.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
He doesn't admit the conclusion. He admits their truth, according to
Kolakowski. And the subject was the capitalist economy. I don't think
that anywhere in Marx there is a systematic treatment of the command
economy. He left that to the cook shops of the future.
[quote:3fe6105862]
Kolakowski then says: "We need only repeat here the remarks we have
already made in discussing _Capital_ (in Vol. I). In the empirical
sciences we generally define a law as a statement that in such and
such
particular conditions, such and such phenomena always occur. Clearly
the statement that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of
socially necessary labour put into it is *not a law* but a definition
of value.
Ok if he wants "such and such particular conditions, such and such
phenomena always occur," here you go:
In conditions where new supply can be added by the application of
aditional labour, supply will always be added until the price retained
by the supplier falls to the cost of that labour.
That fullfils his "scientific" requirements.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
No, you changed the subject. It might if it were possibly true in the
real world but it isn't. There are always more manufacturing inputs
than just additionsl labor and price doesn't respond just to labor
inputs. Accordingly your conclusion is arbitrary.
[quote:3fe6105862]
This of course also includes the supply of inputs to such production,
including Capital, but not land, which can not be created by labour, as
it can not be created at all, and therfore has no "supplier."
It also does not include artificial forms of Rent, like intellectual
property and other legal barriers to competition, but this is beyond
the scope of a value thoery.
[/quote:3fe6105862]
The myriad inputs on both sides of the price equation would seem to
falsify the Marxian LTV but then I'm a rank amateur.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply,
Hunter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:c2048c000f]Quirk wrote:
Are we discusing Marx or the concept that the source of exchange value
is labour? I only have an opinion on the second, not the first.
Marx.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
I am not a Marxist, but rather a Libertarian Socialist, so my comments
on Marx can only be considered impressions.
The labour theory is something we do have in common, as does classical
economics.
[quote:c2048c000f]At any given time yes, but over time the is driven to the equilibrium
cost which is labour plus rent. and Rent has no "supplier"
Can you explain how, when in all given transactions price is a market
response to far more factors on both sides of the equation than just
labor, that when you strike some sort of mean or average all those
other factors are somehow eliminated in the math and we've got only
labor plus rent.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Production has only three factors, Land, Labour, and Capital. Land has
no supplier, so it has no true "cost" except whatever one has to pay
for ther privilege of accessing it, which is not really a contribution
to production but a granting of privilge, capital is simply the result
of labour being applied to land, leaving on labour as a true cost.
Labour is unique among the factors of production because only labour
experiences disutility, neither a shovel nor an acre of land need to be
compelled to contribute to production, thus neither can add any
exchange value, the source of exchange value is labour.
[quote:c2048c000f]Yes they do, their labour is the product they bring to market.
I'm talking about the market in commodities in the production of which
labor is a component cost but not the whole.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
In the capitalist mode of production labour is a commodity, or a set of
commodities. The market includes both the market for productive inputs
as well as outputs.
[quote:c2048c000f]"value" is the amount of labour required to make something, plus whater
rent you have to pay for the privilege of making it.
This is an assertion, not an argument.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
It is a fact, can you provide an example of a productive input that has
a cost that can not be broken down into labour and rent?
[quote:c2048c000f]So it is fair to say that Marx's "labour-time" unit of measure is not
usefull in a command economy, it is wrong to say that this somehow
falsifies the labour theory of value itself, which is not a Marxian
theory, but a feature of classical economics.
I don't perceive the command economy to be at issue here. Marx studied
the capitalist economy. I'm interested in the validity of the LTV as
adapted by Marx. It was in the context of his study of capitalism that
he adapted the classical LTV to his purposes.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
I'm not sure what unique features the Marxist LTV has. I know that Marx
introduced the concept of labout-time as a measure of value, but I
don't see how this affects the basic theory as held by Smith, Ricardo,
Hodgskin, Proudhon, etc.
[quote:c2048c000f]Isn't the real issue whether, as Marx adapts the LTV, it involves a
*law* of economics or a mere Marxian definition open to the claim that
it is arbitrary and useless---except of course in politics.
Labour is the source of value. I'm not sure what you mean here.
You make an assertion in your first sentence. It doesn't advance the
argument. Bohm-Bawark, for example, pretty much destroyed it in roughly
1898.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
I've explained my assertion, only labour experiences disutility, thus
only labour needs to be compelled to bring the It's product to market,
neither land nor capital experience disutility, so any cost paid is a
cost paid for the privilege of access, which is not really a cost of
production, but a temporary opportinity or a legal construct.
[quote:c2048c000f]cost = labour, as rent is a cost that is legaly imposed, not a real
cost.
Is the comopensation of white collar middle to upper management "not a
real cost?" How about the cost of the law firm which helps the
corporation stay aimed in the right direction?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Any human effort is labour.
[quote:c2048c000f]That labour is the source of exchange value is a law.
And whatever the price is at any given moment is the exchange value?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
By definition, yes, that's why it is called "exchange" value.
[quote:c2048c000f]I'm not sure what theory you want me to apply, however the labour
theory of value would mean that the value of any market good is based
on the amount of labour that is required to create it, plus whatever
rent must be made for the privilege of creating it.
See the middle management/legal expense question above.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Labour is labour.
[quote:c2048c000f]This is a false conclusion, as neither are arbitrary unless you have a
command economy, as the market does provide the feedback needed to both
explain the movement of prices, and forsee them, all in accrodance with
the labour theory.
Do you believe in the role of psychological factors in the market?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Yes, however only labour has psychological factors, neither land or
capital do.
[quote:c2048c000f]When you subtract Rent, yes.
But how can that be possible when the buyer has no knowledge of that
information and has myriad reasons for needing or not needing a given
commodity at a given time. You are dealing with a mere definition and
giving no reason why it is not arbitrary.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
The buyer buys according to marginal utility, that is true, however
unless their are barriers to competition, demmand will attract new
supply, which will push price towards cost.
As I said, at any given point price is set by the volume of demmand
that encounters the volume of supply, from that point forward,
competition drives price towards cost, rent drives price towards
marginal utility.
[quote:c2048c000f]I don't know about proving things quantitatevily.
But isn't this critical to applied economics which is after all an
effort to both predict and shape the future.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Perhaps, but it is not my interest, if you are looking for
quantification, take a look at Leontief's input-output-model. I have no
opinion in this area.
[quote:c2048c000f]But where esle would
but where else would value come from?
Have you read Bohm-Bawark's "Marx and the Close of his System," the
1898 critique of _Das Kapital"? He explains it quite elaborately. And
Kolakowski is largely in accord. It's available on line.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Perhaps I will one day, but as I said, my interest lays with neither,
so I know their work mostly from citations.
Feel free to employ whatever part you think is usefull in this
discusion though.
In my opinion the Marginalist/Austrian theory of value is simply an
elaborate justification for theft.
[quote:c2048c000f]The idea that it comes from
marginal utility in any case other than Rent is nonsencical, why would
I pay what something was worth to me, rather than what it costs to make
unless I had no choice?
But you don't--if you need it and have been defeated in the
negotiations with the seller.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Then the sellers profit would attract other sellers, driving price
towards cost.
[quote:c2048c000f]Why would I have no choice unless new supply
was somehow impossible?
New supply may well be more expensive. It's a gamble, a psychological
game. Bohm-Bawark is known as an exponent of the psychological school
of economics.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Only labour can gamble, or experience psychology.
[quote:c2048c000f]Demand will encourage investment in creating more supply, this added
supply will drive price towards it's cost plus rent. Cost is labour
cost, there is not other real cost.
You assert that cost is only labor cost. I don't know how you arrive at
that interesting conclusiion. I also don't know whether you
discriminate as to types of labor which may or may not consitute real
cost. The Board of Directors, for example, labor once a month. There
work is at times extremely important regarding the success of the
corporation.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Labour is labour, just like Capital is Capital, and Land is Land.
[quote:c2048c000f]Value, not cost ratios.
The theory is that the value of any product is the labour cost.
But you seem to mean that what ever the price is, that is the true
labour cost.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Not at any given time, the price is driven towards labour cost by
competition, and towards marginal utility by Rent. So inorder to
determine Labour cost, you would need to subtract Rent.
[quote:c2048c000f]I'm sure you know that labor cost, i.e., wages and
fringes, etc., is only one element in the complicated cost picture of a
manufacturing operation.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Yet the exchange value of each component can be broken down into labour
and rent.
[quote:c2048c000f]The
ratios in labour-time are simple labour to skilled labour, meaning for
instance how many hours of a dishwasher's time is worth one hour of a
sculptors time. Given market data, this is not hard to figure out.
But that is just a function of what the owner has to pay differently
skilled people to get them to come to work.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Right.
[quote:c2048c000f]I'm in New Orleans. The water is rising. Looters and other armed gents
are appearing in the streets.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Sounds like you are in fable told by the racist media, not New Orleans,
where violent crime, not including State violence, went down in the
wake of Katrina, but anyway...
[quote:c2048c000f]I want very badly to go to Baton Rouge. I
have no way to leave except to buy a car and drive. The only car left
for sale is a new Cadillac Soup de Ville (The police have stolen all
the others). It's sticker price is $45,000. The dealer smiles and says,
"$75,000, take it or leave it." I take it and just barely get out of
town in time. How much of that $75,000 was labor cost?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Whatever part is not Rent, is labour.
Specificaly, short-term scarcity rents on Capital are called
"quasi-rent" by Alfred Marshall.
As I said in the scientific definition you request, "when new supply
can be created by the application of labour..."
[quote:c2048c000f]Right, illustrating that labour-time is not impossible to calculate in
a market economy, but rather that such calculations are common place.
Calculation of labor cost is critical for management even when new
contract negotiations are in order. Labor time of itself is of little
use without numbers associated with it. And when numbers are associated
with it they are only a part of the overall cost picture. Not only that
but the manufacturer will almost never sell commodities for labor cost
except in a bankruptcy liquidation so you know that it is not directly
related to prevalent market value. Hence, labor cost can not be
determinative in and of itself of price in the market, at least not in
a manufacturing operation. Perhaps at a consulting firm, eh?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Not sure what you are arguing here. If they will not sell there product
for labour cost, some other supplier will, unless there is some barrier
to competition.
[quote:c2048c000f]As I said, I don't know what Marx's puports to explain, however
Kolakowki's arguments, as you quoted them, do not refute the labour
theory of value, bur rather refute the notion that labour-time could be
calculated in a command economy.
Please explain the importance of this and why it's true.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Because the arguments are all about information, AFAIR. If I have
missed an argument that actually addresses the labour theory, or
presents a source of exchange value except the disutility experienced
by labour, feel free to present it.
[quote:c2048c000f]My impression is that you are correct about the command economy being
substantially developed by later "Marxists," but this does not stop
most critics of Marx and the labour thoery from attempting to pass off
refutations of the command economy as refutations of Marx and/or the
labour theory.
I'm only interested here in the logical and empirical validity of
Marx's take on the LTV.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
As I mentioned, I do not know what unique features Marx's LTV had
compared to the LTV expressed by Smith, Ricardo, Hodskin, Proudhon,
etc.
Can you fill me in?
[quote:c2048c000f]My impression is also that Marx is not blameless in this, and may not
have elaborated the command economy. but gave enough indications of the
authoritarian leanings in his work that the later work can not be said
to be totally out of the blue.
That's for sure but Lenin added most of what resulted in Russia's
holocaust.
[/quote:c2048c000f]
I'm not so familiar with the forces at play in the Russian Revolutions
and Civil War to draw any meaningfull conclusions as to what the long
term impact of any one man was or wasn't.
Are you certain their would have been less terror and blood without
Lenin?
I will agree that it is clear that Lenin did not prevent the bloodshed
and injustice, it is not clear that he was it's cause, as we have no
idea what would have been otherwise.
[quote:c2048c000f]Can you give me an example of a supplier that is not supplying labour?
Under Marx? The "big bourgeoisie".
[/quote:c2048c000f]
The grande bourgeoise do not contribute to production, there
"contribution" to production is providing access to property, therefore
the return they recieve is Rent.
[quote:c2048c000f]Because there are many vested interest that want you to believe that
inanimate objects like land and capital need to be rewarded for
production the way labourers do to justify thet appropriation of the
product of labour by non-contributing owners of these inanimate
objects.
You would destroy the real estate market when most of each middle class
family's net worth is tied up in their home? How would you go about
destroying that market?
[/quote:c2048c000f]
Not sure what this has to with the topic of value. The elimination of
the private capture of rent would not harm the middleclass, who are
net-payers of Rent.
Regards. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As little as I know about economics I remain amazed at how little
economics there is on sci.econ.
HW |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Trucker |
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133845877.808301.99170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[quote:5da303da04]As little as I know about economics I remain amazed at how little
economics there is on sci.econ.
HW
[/quote:5da303da04]
"economics" is an attempt to ignore the beneficial nature
of government in the provisioning of rules of order
and social insurance systems. Political economy is
the proper name of the "science" and removing the
word political from it is nothing but the fabrication
of a lie. Macroeconomics includes a lot more than
manipulation of interest rates.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Trucker wrote:
[quote:e67539a3cb]"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133845877.808301.99170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As little as I know about economics I remain amazed at how little
economics there is on sci.econ.
HW
"economics" is an attempt to ignore the beneficial nature
of government in the provisioning of rules of order
and social insurance systems.
[/quote:e67539a3cb]
I do believe that occasionally economists take the actvities of
government into account.
Political economy is
[quote:e67539a3cb]the proper name of the "science" and removing the
word political from it is nothing but the fabrication
of a lie.
[/quote:e67539a3cb]
Removing the word political does nothing at all.
Macroeconomics includes a lot more than
[quote:e67539a3cb]manipulation of interest rates.
[/quote:e67539a3cb]
Yes, and the famed macroeconomist Alan Greenspan spoke just a week or
so ago about the activities of this particular government and their
pernicious effect on the economy.
[quote:e67539a3cb]
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
[/quote:e67539a3cb]
Indeed, and at present the people themselves are beginning to think
that it's time to balance the books and to attend to those trade
deficits--and, perhaps, to lower our ridiculously high profile in the
Middle-East. Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Trucker wrote:
[quote:721a01e35a]"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133845877.808301.99170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As little as I know about economics I remain amazed at how little
economics there is on sci.econ.
HW
"economics" is an attempt to ignore the beneficial nature
of government in the provisioning of rules of order
and social insurance systems.
[/quote:721a01e35a]
I do believe that occasionally economists take the actvities of
government into account.
Political economy is
[quote:721a01e35a]the proper name of the "science" and removing the
word political from it is nothing but the fabrication
of a lie.
[/quote:721a01e35a]
Removing the word political does nothing at all.
Macroeconomics includes a lot more than
[quote:721a01e35a]manipulation of interest rates.
[/quote:721a01e35a]
Yes, and the famed macroeconomist Alan Greenspan spoke just a week or
so ago about the activities of this particular government and their
pernicious effect on the economy.
[quote:721a01e35a]
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
[/quote:721a01e35a]
Indeed, and at present the people themselves are beginning to think
that it's time to balance the books and to attend to those trade
deficits--and, perhaps, to lower our ridiculously high profile in the
Middle-East. Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:bc80eb2445]Presuming that sci.econ is frequented by a few who know something of
economics, I'm curious as to their judgment as to Bohm-Bawerk's and
Leszek Kolakowski's take on Marx's LTV:
This, following Kolakowski, is the center of Bohm-Bawerk's argument
against Marx:
"1) Value in Marx's sense cannot be measured quantitatively, partly
(but not solely) because there is no way of reducing different kinds
of
labour to a common measure;
[/quote:bc80eb2445]
Bohm-Bawerk is setting up a straw man and knocking him down. Marx
wasn't trying to show that price reflects the necessary labor time in
any product.
Marx showed that in the aggregate, a consistent theory of value could
be created using labor-time as the metric.
[quote:bc80eb2445]2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
[/quote:bc80eb2445]
I don't think that Marx has a major problem with that.
[quote:bc80eb2445]3) therefore the statement that value governs the movement of prices
and social relations is both arbitrary (because it is not clear on
what
ground we are asked to believe that value is determined by
labour-time)
and scientifically useless, for it does not help us to explain the
movement of prices, still less to foresee it."
[/quote:bc80eb2445]
That is assuming that there is only one type of value. Marx
distinguishes at least three types of value (labor-time, exchange, and
use-value).
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Peterson |
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:8f28f55338]Ron Peterson wrote:
Bohm-Bawerk is setting up a straw man and knocking him down. Marx
wasn't trying to show that price reflects the necessary labor time in
any product.
If with Marx "value" is unrelated to price, how can his theory of value
be useful in any sort of predictive sense; indeed, in any sense at
all--except politically.
[/quote:8f28f55338]
Marx's LTV gives a way to measure economic efficiency. Without
measurement, there isn't much of a science.
I am not sure what you mean by the term "politically". Some people
interpret that the LTV implies that capitalists are somehow immoral for
capturing the surplus value of the labor of workers, but that isn't
what Marx was getting at.
[quote:8f28f55338]Marx showed that in the aggregate, a consistent theory of value could
be created using labor-time as the metric.
If all Marx wanted was a "consistent" theory of value, virtually
anything deductive would do. The problem is in shifting to the
inductive approach and trying to generate a theory taking real world
data into account. _Kapital_ is virtually empty of empirical data. Not
even loyal socialists can find it there. They're forced to change the
subject when they try.
[/quote:8f28f55338]
Marx relied on data collected by others, but he was primarily
interested in developing his economic model. Induction is great for
creating hypotheses, but science needs models. If you think that any
part of modern day capitalism doesn't match up with his model, you are
welcome to demonstrate it.
[quote:8f28f55338]2) prices depend on many factors, not only value, and we cannot
ascertain the quantitative importance of value in relation to the
others;
I don't think that Marx has a major problem with that.
But don't economists who are struggling to model human systems have to
have a major problem with it? After all they are not politicians or
revolutionaries; they are trying to do something *of use* in both
predicting and affecting the future course of events in human
economies. Of what use is a theory of value which can generate no
quantitative values rooted in real world data?
[/quote:8f28f55338]
If there is a desire to predict the price that a commodity will have,
then other techniques may have to be used. The LTV can give an
approximation to the prices that commodities should have in equilibrium
conditions but disruption of production can cause wide fluctuations in
prices that nobody can foresee.
[quote:8f28f55338]That is assuming that there is only one type of value. Marx
distinguishes at least three types of value (labor-time, exchange, and
use-value).
Use value can't be determined quantitatively. It's simply a presumed
factor among others which is logically believed to impact negotiations
for purchase and sale. Marx's take on the LTV does not generate
quantitative data either. Its value is purely political in the sense
that it's a bloody shirt waved about to justify revolution by a class
which in the West is actually wasting away and and would have to be
redefined to be meaningful.
[/quote:8f28f55338]
Some use values can be determined quanitatively. I can compare the use
value of gasoline vs the use value of gasohol by the milage I get in my
automobile.
Yes, Marx was political, but his economic theory was concerned about
economic efficiency.
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Again, Robert, you have become a proponent of the Marxian LTV! You seem
to have already forgotten that you recently admitted doubting its
validity. Perhaps you will explain what in a recent election cycle
might have been called "flip-flopping".
Here's an argument against the validiity of the LTV which I find quite
compelling. Perhaps now that you have re-committed to the concept that
the LTV can be used in practice, something I will press you on later,
you can explain precisely how it is that the factors listed below may
safely be ignored. One at a time, please. We will also ask you to tell
us where the LTV is being used in practice successfully by government
or corporate economists.
"His (Marx's) narrow labor definition of value - limited to industrial
labor use-values - is exclusive because other things of value in the
market don't meet it (I.e., don't meet the definition). Things of value
that don't involve industrial labor have no value because they don't
involve industrial labor. Since the labor theory of value is scientific
truth, it cannot be undermined even by a multitude of obvious
exceptions. Any value that doesn't conform to it must therefore be
"imaginary." He is the Wizard of Oz exclaiming: "Pay no attention to
those values behind the curtain.
Thus omitted from economic value - besides honor and conscience - are
such obviously essential economic factors as:
land,
reliability,
courage,
variety,
mental and physical talent,
savings,
financial independence,
financial security,
scarcity,
rarities like works of art and antiques,
the absorption of risk,
the universe of financial services,
the time cost of money (interest rates),
the time cost of productive assets,
the productive incentives of the ownership interest,
the commercial activities that bring goods to market,
competition, without which efficient management is impossible,
all of the management tools available only to profit-seeking
enterprises, without which efficient management of complex economic
entities is impossible, and
all the signals provided by commercial and capitalist markets, without
which efficient management is impossible."
Don't clip them now, Robert. That's not intellectually honest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1134361044.215129.114830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:59d8f46459]Again, Robert, you have become a proponent of the Marxian LTV!
[/quote:59d8f46459]
Obviously, Watson the knave does not care if his statements, like
the one above, are off-topic, not part of a valid argument, and
false.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Quirk |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hunter wrote:
[quote:e9db1b5be5]Thus omitted from economic value - besides honor and conscience - are
such obviously essential economic factors as:
[/quote:e9db1b5be5]
That you refuse to understand the basic economic model in which land,
labour, and capital are the only factors of production is the reason
why your contributions here do not produce any coherent discussion.
That you refuse to know that demand can only affect equilibrium price
in situations where new supply can not be added by the application of
additional labour is the reason you are unable to grasp the point of
the Labour theory and persist in subjectivist fairy tails.
That you continue to direct your comments towards the moral integrity
of a man long dead, and worry endlessly about the motives, not the
substance of the relevant theories, demonstrates you are not a genuine
researcher of political economy, but just another troll with a bone to
pick, although more pleasant than the average troll in your tone, to be
sure.
Good bye. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hunter |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert Vienneau wrote:
[quote:dd11515aa4]In article <1134361044.215129.114830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hunter" <coaster132000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, Robert, you have become a proponent of the Marxian LTV!
Obviously, Watson the knave does not care if his statements, like
the one above, are off-topic, not part of a valid argument, and
false.
[/quote:dd11515aa4]
But you expressed deep scepticism as to the validity of the LTV on
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky. I thought it strange at the time. And
now here you are supporting it again. You don't deny this do you? You
can easily refresh your memory by going back to apst. I'm not going to
bother unless you flat out deny it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Vienneau |
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1134395682.858789.297680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Quirk" <quirk@syntac.net> wrote:
[quote:f4c1ad70d9]That you continue to direct your comments towards the moral integrity
of a man long dead, and worry endlessly about the motives, not the
substance of the relevant theories, demonstrates you are not a genuine
researcher of political economy, but just another troll with a bone to
pick, although more pleasant than the average troll in your tone, to be
sure.
[/quote:f4c1ad70d9]
Exactly. Watson the knave has also, I believe, been correctly
described as a kook. He usually trolls alt.politics.socialism.trotsky;
he is proud to describe his efforts to make it unusable - and not
through intellectual debate.
By my count, Watson the knave has posted 16 times on this thread. Yet
can anybody tell what he takes the substance of Marx's theory of value
to be? Or how it differs from, say, Ricardo's or Smith's?
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:41 am
|
|