tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post2742240332135119430..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Kliman’s Explanation of Marx’s Labour Theory of ValueLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30230324132845731242016-09-22T12:57:03.291-07:002016-09-22T12:57:03.291-07:00Slaves are a commodity, they would function the sa...Slaves are a commodity, they would function the same as a machine in this case. You have to pay for the full upkeep cost of the slave(or it'll die - just like if you don't take care of a machine). If you don't understand you need to re-read everything. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01733326304927122323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-61077471471546207202015-04-01T11:48:02.072-07:002015-04-01T11:48:02.072-07:00So we finally get the answer: "slaves do not ...So we finally get the answer: "slaves do not produce surplus value and SNLT does not appear as a concept in slave economies".<br /><br />But in this case LTV is still incoherent: I see no reason why this should make a different to SNLT. There is no reason why capitalists can't extract profits from slave production. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72840550787403234592015-04-01T11:34:13.440-07:002015-04-01T11:34:13.440-07:00This reply is such a poverty of the imagination. S...This reply is such a poverty of the imagination. Seriously, these questions are so dumb and so lacking in thinking things through fully, you just leap on what you imagine is something that proves your point, without bothering to really think deeply about it. This is your general and fundamental problem.<br /><br />I am aware that slave labour often enters the sphere of capitalist markets but we have to think historically and logically here to understand the truth of the matter. We need to ask the question, could a predominantly slave economy produce surplus value? That is surplus value, not, I repeat, not surplus use value. Think of a society of predominantly slaves and one of wage workers and imagine the differences between them.<br /><br />Of course there are technical arguments behind your question; the slave worker does not come to the market as a participant but as a commodity. What the worker brings to market is the product of his labour, and exchanges this on equal terms with other commodities brought there by the capitalists. They can evaluate a certain commodity they wish to buy in terms of the labour-time required for its production, and exchange it for some commodity they have produced which requires the same amount of labour-time. Say a worker produces by such means some commodity that requires 10 hours work. The capitalist might acquire this product for say 5 hours work, because they are able to buy the labour-power of a worker for this amount, and then obtain 10 hours work from the worker – 5 hours replace the cost of his wages, and 5 create a surplus value for the capitalist. If all labour is slave labour there can be no Surplus Value because the exchange Value of all output is equal to the value of the inputs.<br /><br />You really need to study history and then think carefully about the differences between a slave economy and a capitalist economy. In a slave economy there is no generalised commodity exchange.<br /><br />So slaves do not produce surplus value and SNLT does not appear as a concept in slave economies, it can only manifest itself in a capitalist economy. I will let you discover why this is yourself.<br /><br />Enjoy your journey out of stupefying ignorance.<br />Former Neo Liberalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57876481688448707422015-04-01T10:19:31.106-07:002015-04-01T10:19:31.106-07:00"Slaves would not produce SNLT as they are in...<i>"Slaves would not produce SNLT as they are in direct exchange with their master, their labour or products of their labour are not exchanged on the market with money as the universal equivalent, generally speaking."</i><br /><br />That is nonsense. Slaves in the US before 1861 and in Haiti and in many examples through history were producing commodities sold on world markets.<br /><br /><i>"But if you are correct and slaves are effectively no different to wage workers"</i><br /><br />Nice straw man. I never said they were "no different to wage workers". I only asked you if they produce SNLT.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-17929972665951125112015-04-01T10:06:17.546-07:002015-04-01T10:06:17.546-07:00Slaves would not produce SNLT as they are in direc...Slaves would not produce SNLT as they are in direct exchange with their master, their labour or products of their labour are not exchanged on the market with money as the universal equivalent, generally speaking.<br /> <br />The thing is that this argument can only be made by explaining the historical process and setting up the conditions that underpin capitalism, private property, generalised exchange, division of labour, money in its most mature form etc etc. Also by looking at the history of the expansion of capitalism and the affect on slavery we can see the differences. This is no modest task but one that would pay off for you I think. I would advise you to ditch economics and start looking at history.<br /><br />But if you are correct and slaves are effectively no different to wage workers then it makes you wonder what the US civil war was all about?<br /><br />And animals do produce labour and do produce value.Former Neo Liberalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12788750242960073962015-04-01T09:36:13.468-07:002015-04-01T09:36:13.468-07:00You haven't explained if slaves would provide ...You haven't explained if slaves would provide SNLT. You haven't explained why animals cannot produce labour.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74371396105757805402015-04-01T09:31:55.418-07:002015-04-01T09:31:55.418-07:00"Suppose we had some labouring people who did..."Suppose we had some labouring people who did not go on strike, did not have mobile phones, did not go to market to take part in exchange and worked for free in a factory (they grow their own food and no need fo exchange). Would they then produce no labour value?"<br /><br />Good question, though if they didn't go to market they wouldn't be wage workers because their labour is bought and sold on the market and workers have to buy stuff in shops. So I would suspect that labouring people who didn't exchange on the market would have to be slaves and I already dealt with those in the previous comment. <br />These debates go back to Ricardo and Adam Smith who when polemicising about productive and unproductive labour in order to show that the aristocracy and their hangers on were unproductive, Ricardo wanted to highlight why not only agricultural workers were productive etc. The arguments are quite technical so I would read the links I provided in my previous comment, as they explain the context far better than I could in a comments box.<br /><br />On progressive and reactionary, for conservatives I think theories are neither progressive nor reactionary but for post Keynesians I think they are very much usually aware of what is progressive and what isn't or minded of it. I can't see the progressive nature of Lords arguments or obsessions, but I can see the progressive ideas in what Sraffa said and what other Post Keynesians say.<br /><br />I still can’t get beyond the idea that LK is more of a neo classicalist than a post Keynesian.<br />Former Neo Liberalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-19861585340762545662015-04-01T07:22:23.079-07:002015-04-01T07:22:23.079-07:00The key element is subjective value, not use value...<i>The key element is subjective value, not use value. Even when you claim the shoes are a status symbol, it is subjective and intersubjective value that lies behind this. </i><br /><br />When you say "use-value" is not "the key element" you betray a faulty grasp of the terms. Use-value is not a <i>property</i> of an object, as utility is ("that thing HAS utility"). Rather, it is a <i>category</i> of object ("that thing IS/ISN'T a use-value"). One wouldn't speak of use-value as more important or less important to a commodity's price because it is fully qualitative and therefore not numerically expressible (save in boolean terms). An object that is not a use-value has no realizable price on the open market. An object that is a use-value *can* have a price, but this in no way specifies *what* price.<br /><br />To that end, yes, subjective value acts as the determinant of demand, and demand affects price. <i>As I've already said.</i> <br /><br />My more controversial contention is that the notion of subjective utility adds virtually nothing to the concept of demand that is not already presupposed by it (e.g., if people demand something, they must want it more than the money it costs; if not, then they must not), and therefore is superfluous. Attempts to formalize it generally demand properties like transitivity, completeness, etc., which are not properties I can relate to in my own preferences (e.g., I prefer apples to oranges, oranges to grapes, and grapes to apples). <br /><br />With all that said, I am not married to the idea that subjective utility is useless, and am open to being shown some novelty it introduces that I've missed. As I said, I recognize it’s a controversial position. I just find it discouragingly easy to spot tautologies and similar problems in utility claims, and demand already seems to do all the heavy lifting by itself.<br /><br /><i>So despite saying that you refuted Philip in fact you can't refute him.</i><br /><br />...interesting. So, he <i>can't</i> be refuted? Has Philip obtained apodictic certainty of market phenomena?<br /><br />Reread his claim; he argued that the swoosh added <i>value</i>, which in his mind contradicts Marx's value theory. However, Phil was introducing a completely separate value theory. The existence of one theory does not and cannot suffice to refute another; a refuting critique must point to an immanent shortcoming or contradiction. <br /><br />Phil claimed that Marx's theory cannot account for the described phenomenon. I illustrated quite clearly that it can. Therefore, I refuted his claim.<br /><br /><i>Also, you're starting to sound like a dual-system interpretation Marxist.</i><br /><br />Yet again, your misuse of terms belies the authoritative tone of your denunciations. I've seen you display epistemic modesty before, and urge you to practice it again, because you're at risk of morphing into a caricature of yourself. Or perhaps an unsympathetic Mel Brooks character.<br /><br />Recognizing demand affects price is not "dual-system." To be absolutely clear: EVERY Marxist scholar I’ve read, regardless of which camp they fall into on contentious interpretive issues, agrees that value and price can and generally do vary in individual commodities. Dualists, simultaneists, News, temporalists, Sraffians -- they <i>all</i> understand this very basic, explicit point.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-7350254306688565212015-04-01T01:11:49.303-07:002015-04-01T01:11:49.303-07:00The key element is subjective value, not use value...The key element is subjective value, not use value. Even when you claim the shoes are a status symbol, it is subjective and intersubjective value that lies behind this. <br /><br />So despite saying that you refuted Philip in fact you can't refute him.<br /><br />Also, you're starting to sound like a dual-system interpretation Marxist.<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81923689472532521992015-03-31T21:44:35.584-07:002015-03-31T21:44:35.584-07:00Volume 1 is not a good pick for the point you'...Volume 1 is not a good pick for the point you're trying to make. As I have stated many times, and as is basic knowledge of Capital, volume 1 explicitly holds to the unrealistic assumption that price and value are equal, for the sake of illustrating particular characteristics of the system. So of course the cotton in volume 1 had value equal to price; it was <i>assumed</i> to be such. <br /><br />Regarding your list:<br /><br />1) I've asked once before: Can you define "natural prices" for the sake of this discussion so I can make sure my responses are actually addressing the thing you say? Thanks in advance.<br /><br />2) Not irrelevant at all, since it's an important part of why the two prices are not subject to arbitrage. One distinguishes itself, even if only socially, as a superior good. People who can afford it will not accept the cheaper shoe as a substitute, etc. Essentially, there are two different levels of demand in consideration, one for each product, which in and of itself renders the notion that they're identical use-values problematic. There IS some qualitative difference, whether generated by marketing or by conspicuous consumption or whatever.<br /><br />3) Correct, different prices imply different exchange values, since price is shoe.exchange_value(money) as distinguished from shoe.exchange_value(mcribs) or (pokemon_trading_cards) or whatever. <br /><br />And yes, the price difference in 3 owes to a factor other than 1. As it happens, I have provided an example of just such a factor, as have you and Mr. Pilkington: greater demand. Nike, accordingly, nets supernormal profits by selling high above value, etc.<br /><br />That's the importance of the price/value distinction. It's the essence of the theory: value and price are two different moments in a process.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52245958838887303092015-03-31T20:29:22.378-07:002015-03-31T20:29:22.378-07:00"Exchange value is only determined purely by ...<i>"Exchange value is only determined purely by labor <b>content as a system "</b></i><br /><br />That is not Marx. He never says labour value = price only in some aggregate state. <br /><br />He clearly gives examples of INDIVIDUAL commodities in vol. 1 of Capital where labour value is supposed to equal price, e.g., in the case of reduced cotton crop that spoils.<br /><br />You claim:<br />(1) "two shoes are identical in all manner except one has a Swoosh" might the same labour value, which implies they should have the same natural price. <br /><br />(2) you then say they are different use values (which is highly questionable), but that is irrelevant here.<br /><br />(3) you the say they have different prices, which is an admission that have different exchange values. <br />---------------<br />So clearly the difference in price has been caused by a factor other than (1). Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-740284385198973242015-03-31T19:53:35.754-07:002015-03-31T19:53:35.754-07:00Former neoliberal, good theories are neither "...Former neoliberal, good theories are neither "progressive" nor "reactionary". They just hopefully tell the voters the consequences of policies that can be implemented. It's then up to voters to decide for an "humane" course of events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55007981028714474072015-03-31T19:19:44.476-07:002015-03-31T19:19:44.476-07:00No, my point is that you confuse value and one of ...No, my point is that you confuse value and one of its measures (labor). ""The other component of a commodity’s value is the *new value* added by what Marx calls living labor" is not the same thing as "[The other component is] the SNLT added by living labour." Andrew Klimanhttp://akliman.squarespace.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-65304977763209005302015-03-31T15:27:05.349-07:002015-03-31T15:27:05.349-07:00Nope: Once again, you have not earned your condesc...Nope: Once again, you have not earned your condescension with comprehension. If you're going to do this "hit piece" selective-quoting nonsense, at least make sure the quotes say what you want them to.<br /><br />It's clear you need a primer on the terms you're using:<br /><br />"Value" is the socially necessary labor time needed to produce a good.<br /><br />"Exchange value" is the form of appearance of value. As in, it is an indirect expression of value that, at the surface level, we might <i>mistake</i> for value. It is a ratio at which the good trades for other goods; and placed in terms of money is called "price." It is the purely quantitative aspect of a commodity, as well as its abstract expression.<br /><br />A "use-value" is a good that satisfies some human desire or need. It is the purely qualitative aspect of the commodity, as well as its concrete expression.<br /><br />The passage you quote merely reaffirms the qualitative/quantitative division I expressed, and then indicates the quality (products of labor) that make commodities mutually commensurable.<br /><br />Exchange value is only determined purely by labor content <i>as a system</i> (remember, "total price = total value"?) while an individual commodity's exchange value is affected by a variety of factors — social arrangements such as price regulation, supply and demand, etc. Any time you think "exchange value," instead substitute "price." Though the latter is only one of a variety of expressions of the former, at least it puts you back into familiar territory and out of this fancy new vocabulary you haven't yet mastered. It'd prevent you from panicking and saying silly things like "you just failed Marxism 101" as you hideously butcher it.<br /><br />Now: In your own words, please tell me what you <i>think</i> I argued, such that "use-value is qualitative, exchange value is quantitative" is in any way a rebuttal. I'm extremely curious.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-20088791518081574032015-03-31T14:38:00.745-07:002015-03-31T14:38:00.745-07:00You simply do not explain why animals should not b...You simply do not explain why animals should not be included in any coherent theory of labour value. <br /><br />Suppose we had some labouring people who did not go on strike, did not have mobile phones, did not go to market to take part in exchange and worked for free in a factory (they grow their own food and no need fo exchange). Would they then produce no labour value? Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53134724827852816512015-03-31T14:32:12.347-07:002015-03-31T14:32:12.347-07:00"If two shoes are identical in all manner exc...<i>"If two shoes are identical in all manner except one has a Swoosh and the other does not, then they have the same value (assuming the Swoosh shoe doesn't require more time or money to make), though they command two different prices and are, in fact, two distinct use-values."</i> <br /><br />Marx already says that exchange value cannot be explained by use value, but is ultimately determined by SNLT:<br /><br /><i>"As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an-atom of use-value. <br /><br />If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only one property remains, that of being products of labour."</i><br /><br />So for Marx exchange value is not determined by use-value, only by abstract labor units. <br /><br />So your explanation is contradicted by Marx. According to him, since the two shoes have the SAME SNLT (which you admit), they ought to command the same natural price!<br /><br />Good lord, you just failed Marxism 101, Hedlund.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9729468627308733852015-03-31T13:15:09.511-07:002015-03-31T13:15:09.511-07:00It is by looking at animals and slaves etc that we...It is by looking at animals and slaves etc that we see why Marx’s theory of value is worth considering. If the animal or slave produced surplus value in the same way that wage workers do then we could have avoided 300 years of bloody history! It goes without saying that a society where animal labour is prevalent will look very different to one where wage labour is prevalent.<br /><br />Animals do produce value of course in a multitude of ways, from primitive to advanced societies, but they are use values for their owners and not exchange values. A horse does not go on strike when they are not fed enough hay for example. The necessary labour for an animal doesn't really change over time and place; the animal is not seen with a mobile phone to its ear. The animal does not come to market to take part in exchange, and moreover the wage worker that does come to market cannot mark up his own price when doing so, unlike the capitalist! Marx made the point that marking up prices wasn't much different to his theory in the final analysis, as long as it is admitted that while capitalists can mark up, workers cannot!<br /><br />But you really have to grapple with the totality of Marx’s argument here, rather than indulge in superficial and petty gripes (which are all forced into). I would recommend this early work:<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/index.htm<br /><br />And for a more general introduction to Marx’s analysis I would read this:<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/index.htm<br /><br />Then move onto the complicated stuff!<br /><br />On price equating to value (I wonder why this is such a philosophers stone for progressive post Keynesians?!) Farjoun and Machover have demonstrated that *over time* prices equate to labour values more closely than can be measured by any other value theory. So the fact is that LK cannot go into sports direct tomorrow, look at a pair of trainers and say this proves his theory correct, as if that could ever be the case! If your obsession was to explain prices on a given day (why any progressive would ever be obsessed by this is a mystery wrapped in an enigma) you wouldn't see the wood for the trees. Imagine that you just looked at changes day by day, you would think nothing much had changed, one day very much like the day before, until you stood back and looked at the bigger picture you would suddenly realise things had changed very much!<br /><br />Also capitalists don’t approach pricing quite in the way the post Keynesians imagine. For capitalists equating cost with the widgets produced can be a fundamental concern. So the return on number of widgets produced is crucial and if the desired price cannot be found the capitalist will look to ways of changing the production process, for example by intensifying labour.<br /><br />Incidentally, I think Sraffa (and call me a Sraffian incidentally) was more enamoured and influenced by Marx than you imagine. He would certainly want to distance himself from the new post Keynesians judging by the articles on this site, which look suspiciously like the reactionary concerns of neo classical economists to me.<br /><br />What is progressive in your ideas?<br />Former Neo Liberalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-33088434511762132282015-03-31T12:22:19.740-07:002015-03-31T12:22:19.740-07:00It's nothing of the sort. We are not dealing w...<i>It's nothing of the sort. We are not dealing with microscopic entities, or dark matter or electron spin here. </i><br /><br />Ah, yes. My apologies, I was using an esoteric Marxist tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy<br /><br />Of course, the fact that the economic half of the analogy actually would be *easier* to measure certainly doesn't hurt my case. :)<br /><br /><i>Yet the LTV is utterly absent in empirical study of, and findings on, how prices are determined.</i><br /><br />You have not absorbed even the most basic aspect of the theory I've shared with you. I believe this is because you simply don't want it to be a good theory, and you know it can't be good if it's not coherent, and therefore you will do the simplest thing in your power to render it incoherent: misapprehend it.<br /><br />Nothing strengthens a critique like invincible ignorance. Carry on, O indolent paladin.<br /><br /><i>I didn't say they are. A poor straw man, Hedlund.</i><br /><br />Except that I wasn't claiming you said otherwise, though, nor did I attribute the belief to you. I was only reaffirming that much of PK theory is compatible. Please read more carefully.<br /><br /><i>*cites Pilkington*</i><br /><br />Oof. The blind leading the blind.<br /><br />I answered his question back then -- a point he carefully omitted -- as I shall now do for you.<br /><br />If two shoes are identical in all manner except one has a Swoosh and the other does not, then they have the same value (assuming the Swoosh shoe doesn't require more time or money to make), though they command two different prices and are, in fact, two distinct use-values. The Swooshless shoe acts as a shoe and a shoe alone, while the Swooshed one acts as a shoe AND something more: a status symbol, something one associates with a person one wishes to emulate, etc. Further, intellectual property law gives Nike a monopoly on the production of the latter use-value, better enabling it to hold the price above value, in line with the demand. If any producer could make the Swoosh shoes, this would reduce the disparity. It would also dilute the social cachet such that it might no longer be a status symbol, etc.<br /><br />Note how I don't reference either false consciousness nor "some other moral/metaphysical concept" beyond his own. Of course, Mr. Pilkington is a steadfast idealist, so perhaps the version of me in his mind phrased it differently. (Yes, I know, it's a cheap shot as he is a Berkeleian and rejects solipsism, blah blah blah.)<br /><br />Anyway, the only people who think Marx paid no attention to factors like supply and demand (the latter of which *presupposes* a concept of subjective utility) are people who haven't bothered to read him (or who stopped after five or ten pages).<br /><br />Funny thing, though: Notice that a defense of subjective utility as a coherent value theory nevertheless clearly always mediates it through demand? It's almost like subjective utility becomes a superfluous concept if you already have a concept of demand. Sellers don't read the mind of some collective zeitgeist entity, they respond to concrete quantity signals in the form of effective demand, as Kaldor pointed out so eloquently. So why bother saying "it's because they wanted the good more than their money," a phrase true by construction? Why not go the extra yard and add, "also they did it because they act." <br /><br />So, then: What makes "demand affects price" different coming from your mouth than Marx's?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11811165565391256102015-03-31T11:21:53.673-07:002015-03-31T11:21:53.673-07:00" It's like finding, as I said, a particl...<i>" It's like finding, as I said, a particle with direction and spin equal to the pendulum of which it is a part."</i><br /><br />It's nothing of the sort. We are not dealing with microscopic entities, or dark matter or electron spin here. <br /><br />We are dealing with real observable human behaviour that has been studied time and again and in the ways that do show us how prices are determined. Yet the LTV is utterly absent in empirical study of, and findings on, how prices are determined.<br /><br /><i>"Markup prices don't depend on a subjectivist value theory, though. "</i><br /><br />I didn't say they are. A poor straw man, Hedlund.<br /><br />In fact, however, subjective utility via demand is not absent even here: advertising can strongly influence people' demand and hence their willingness to pay certain mark-up prices, as Philip Pilkington points out:<br /><br /><i>" I recall pointing to advertising a number of times and saying that this added value to commodities without any additional human labour.<br /><br />I had a long argument with two Marxist economists about this and came up with a great example:<br /><br />Two pairs of runners are made in the same Chinese factory. The inputs are identical -- including labour time. However, one pair gets a little tick stitched onto it and are seen in magazines being worn by Michael Jordan. The other have a little star stitched onto them and are sold in WalMart.<br /><br />The pair with the tick are sold for four times as much as the pair with the star.<br /><br />The Marxist economists couldn't really fault my logic. Without recourse to the idea of false consciousness, or some other moral/metaphysical concept, the labour theory of value can say nothing about any of this."</i><br />http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2012/07/vocabulary-for-marxism.html?showComment=1341935604166#c1327734235898167917Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11638569860156296602015-03-31T11:02:35.051-07:002015-03-31T11:02:35.051-07:00We can see this in how you can't even name one...<i>We can see this in how you can't even name one price determined directly by the SNLT.</i><br /><br />You appear to have missed the extremely important point that finding a price that is exactly equal to value does not mean that said price was exactly determined by value. I've been very clear that it only becomes equivalent "by accident."<br /><br />If I place 100 feathers on a table, and then the wind blows them all around like crazy, and ONE of them by pure chance manages to land exactly as it had been before, you wouldn't claim that it's there because I determined it. Similarly, you could make the assumption that no feather will EVER land exactly where it was. This assumption is strictly unrealistic, since it's not IMPOSSIBLE that one could, but it's so unlikely that you won't do any damage to your subsequent calculations.<br /><br />Do you understand how silly it is now to insist I find you a price equal to value? It won't be equal due to any sort of direct and exclusive causality. It's like finding, as I said, a particle with direction and spin equal to the pendulum of which it is a part.<br /><br /><i>Anyone can see from personal introspection that they have feelings of satisfaction, happiness or pleasure (subjective utility)</i><br /><br />Markup prices don't depend on a subjectivist value theory, though. They are applicable to either.<br /><br />Anyway, what is the subjective utility of a markup of, say, 5%? Round to the nearest whole util. Wait, you can't tell me? RANK MYSTICISM. Next you'll tell me that I'm only arguing this because I gain utility from doing so, like the Austrians' defense of their Action Axiom. "You can't refute it, because that means you acted!"<br /><br />(This is literally how you're acting right now. Yes, it's actually that off-putting.)<br /><br />I've already explained that the subjective utility of exchange is a presupposition of this theory, so maybe you should spend more time comprehending and less time running off your mouth.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-1778287894956804142015-03-31T10:40:09.352-07:002015-03-31T10:40:09.352-07:00"Agreed. Just not value."
Of course it ...<i>"Agreed. Just not value."</i><br /><br />Of course it has a theory of value. It understands the very important role of subjective and intersubjective value in determining prices without making the errors of marginal utility theory. <br /><br />Anyone can see from personal introspection that they have feelings of satisfaction, happiness or pleasure (subjective utility) that influence their willingness to pay prices for goods. Go to any auction and see how prices are formed as people demand goods from their personal subjective feelings and bid for them. We can also study extrinsic value and intrinsic value. We don't need the LTV. It is empirically irrelevant.<br /><br />We can see this in how you can't even name one price determined directly by the SNLT.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-52650581307023565772015-03-31T10:34:48.429-07:002015-03-31T10:34:48.429-07:00"How we calculate this MELT is left unexplain..."How we calculate this MELT is left unexplained." This is another instance of uncharitable reading and impatience. This last bit is really uncharitable. Because the calculation isn't explained *there and then*, in a brief intro for tyros, it is supposedly "left unexplained." <br /><br />In addition to the sources that Hedlund mentioned, the calculation is explained in detail and exemplified in the very book that our Lord is reading, on pp. 185-189.Andrew Klimanhttp://akliman.squarespace.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-82131100409329300362015-03-31T10:22:22.711-07:002015-03-31T10:22:22.711-07:00lol... I won't waste my time, because on empir...<i>lol... I won't waste my time, because on empirical grounds it is quite clear to me that LTV is wrong. The burden of proof is on you as a Marxist to prove your theory. </i><br /><br />No, you haven't even gotten to the empirical grounds yet. You're unconvinced on theoretical grounds, which in this case rests on an appeal to personal incredulity. I've suggested some empirical work for you to peruse, though I doubt you have.<br /><br /><i>That truly speaks volumes. Empirical evidence?! who needs that!</i><br /><br />Don't stop now; keep going. What would it be evidence of?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24621947799133923622015-03-31T10:19:01.107-07:002015-03-31T10:19:01.107-07:00They don't consider "surplus value" ...<i>They don't consider "surplus value" as defined by Marx as surplus labour value, because that concept is as irrelevant to the real world as the natural rate of interest concept.</i><br /><br />I don't know if the word "emergent" means anything to you, but as a post keynesian, it <i>should</i>, since it's the reason why methodological individualism fails. Systems of things often have properties irreducible to the laws that govern the things themselves. Just because an individual actor or business doesn't consider it doesn't mean it doesn't become important in aggregate.<br /><br />Seriously, this is important for your favored theory, too.<br /><br /><i>Actually, PK price theory is totally capable of describing real prices on its own. </i><br /><br />Agreed. Just not value. And I agree that you shouldn't run with an interpretation of value theory that adds nothing to economic science and has no explanatory power. But that doesn't describe the one I'm explaining to you.<br /><br />You're so damn haughty, sometimes.<br /><br /><i>Anything observable in capitalism that is allegedly deducible from the LTV is explainable by other theories.</i><br /><br />Again, this is true of all science.<br /><br /><i>LTV is just like the concept of god in classical theism. Unfalsifiable, unnecessary, redundant.</i><br /><br />The best part is when you act really proud of your ignorance, making grand, sweeping claims with booming authority about something you haven't even demonstrated you understand.<br /><br />For all your allusions to theism, you might as well be an early 20th-century Evangelical preacher. "Well, I can't understand Darwin's gobbledygook, but lemme tell you something about that Darwin..."Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29363444599480834582015-03-31T10:18:42.623-07:002015-03-31T10:18:42.623-07:00"You should feel free to go track one down, i...<i>"You should feel free to go track one down, if it interests you this much."</i><br /><br />lol... I won't waste my time, because on empirical grounds it is quite clear to me that LTV is wrong. The burden of proof is on you as a Marxist to prove your theory. <br /><br /><i>"Do you have an example of 1 price in any time in human history that equaled its SNLT?<br /><br />>>>No, because it wouldn't prove anything. Marxists wouldn't put it up on some banner and shout "look everybody! A value equal to its market price!" "</i><br /><br />That truly speaks volumes. Empirical evidence?! who needs that!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com