Jesse, the WIttgenstein link is broken.
Also, thanks a bunch for that article by Jeffrey Friedman. Top notch stuff!
That’s sort of the entire debate isn’t it?
…that answers really nothing of what I asked. If I am ignorant of it all, why can’t you explain, or provide literature, essays, etc. with confidence that it can help one understand your side more?..
_<
Keep following your logic to the end, so that I don’t have to do it for you. How do you know people won’t purchase it, without a prior attempt? How do you know if society wants something? How do you know the rate individuals in society are willing to pay to acquire said commodity, before producing it?
How do you explain the fact that some individuals are willing to pay more for a specific commodity while others would purchase the commodity if it cost less? How do you account for the individual discrepancy in economic price preference, while rejecting subjective theory value?
If you do not understand how the application of LTV results in prices how can you be so sure that it’s a correct thesis?
Even in a hypothetical communist world where money may be abolished. Your still faced with opportunity cost(price). You must explain how the LTV helps you determine when scarce factors of production are to be allocated to the production of specific goods, while abolishing or curtailing the production of others.
Fixed. Thanks a lot!
I have another question.
Can you provide an example, where value does not subjectively differ from person to person? Where value is universally agreed upon. Essentially I am asking you to attempt to refute subjective theory of value.
More good stuff for those interested.
You can debate me at your leisure. By all means, finish here first.
This answer is entirely incoherent and actually avoids my question altogether. According to Marx, value is created by SNLT through the process of production, determined by the particular mode of production (in this case, the capitalist mode of production). But land is not produced; it is simply given, and yet, it has objective exchange value. Why?
I debated Brandon about this very issue. He decided to ban and ignore me. He doesn’t actually deal with the transformation problem as such, but rather solely focuses on various Marxian interpretations of the transformation problem.
Again, my question is quite simple: Marx asserts that surplus value is earned by the exploitation of labor (M-C-M’). Additionally, constant capital, according to Marx, does not, in fact cannot, yield surplus value (it merely transfers value to commodities). Thus, the “average rate of exploitation” (profit) is determined by the organic composition of capital, and yet, different industries, with varying capital-labor ratios, have the same exact rate of profit (in fact, profit margins across the board will equalize in general equilibrium, but capital/labor ratio’s will not. Entrepreneurs don’t solely employ fixed proportion methods of production). How do you resolve this problem?
Does SNLT create value or not? If so, how does it explain why a piece of paper is freely exchanged for, say, plasma screen TV’s (the latter clearly requires a higher degree of labor relative to the former)? Marx could somewhat explain the objective exchange value of commodity money, but I fail to see how an objective theory of value can explain the purchasing power of fiat money.
Marx’s theory of crisis explains why the capitalist mode of production, which is, according to him, internally contradictory (forces of production v. relations of production), must come to an end. Capitalist’s accumulate and reduce the organic composition of capital through competition (they are forced to do so) in order to maintain surplus value, but, at the same time, this process necessarily diminishes the very source of surplus value that they require. This leads to a continuous and steady fall in the rate of profit and mass unemployment (labor reserve armies), until the capitalist system destroys itself. Business cycles, by definition, refer to a repeating process.
Yes, Marx and the Classical’s employed a theoretical construct known as the evenly rotating economy, and/or an economy of simple reproduction. But I fail to see how this helps your argument. Marx’s version of the LTV is just as untenable as the Ricardo’s version, and Smith’s cost-of-production theory of value. This doesn’t help your argument.
Ask Marx. This stands at the very center of Marxian political economy; it’s his major argument (that capital accumulation and competition are self-defeating). The point, though, is that Marx’s theory of surplus value requires certain assumptions, such as perfect competition/information, and yet, at the same time, such an assumption eliminates any possibility of surplus value through exploitation.
This is not a serious answer and you’re not a serious person. In fact, your responses demonstrate a significant degree of ignorance regarding Marxian political economy. You’re one of those pseudo-Marxists that blindly regurgitates all of his sociological and philosophical arguments while entirely ignoring his economic framework. Unfortunately, the two are intrinsically connected. One cannot stand without the other. I could sit here and entirely refute Historical materialism and class conflict, but there’s no need to waste my time with a troll like you, that doesn’t even understand his own position.
By the way, you didn’t even attempt to answer a few of my questions (how is the value of labor determined?).
win.
Esuric…
The transformation problem doesn’t exist!
SecurityCulture…
You should take up a single debater in a new thread. Either that or one person should be posting from now on. It’s just getting too messy and the intricate aspects of scholarly discussion are being ignored.
debate.org does provide a nice platform…
I’d bet money that SecurityCulture is done here. Oh well.
Price doesn’t reflect value in individual commodities? What’s an individual commodity compared to a collective or non-individual commodity?
A bar has more labor? Bars will buy their products at a cheaper value than an individual at a grocery store, because they are buying it directly from the producer, so essentially they will raise the price just like a grocery store, but they raise the price way beyond the production that was put into making each beer itself, also, the amount of labor in handing someone a beer (since that’s essentially what they do, hand you a beer which takes less than 15 seconds) is minimal. A clerk and stock person at a grocery store both do labor like a bartender (the handling and sale of the products), so why would the kind of labor at the bar have a different value? Even if we disregard the price difference compared to a grocery store, how do you explain the price differences for different days of the week? Some bars will have $1 or so specials on certain nights to attract more customers, why does the value change on a specific day if it’s the same beer?
Can someone not move in and out of these classes at any time, or are they sort of stuck with them indefinitely?
Company A is a large corporation that employs thousands, company B is a small business that employs 15, they are both in the same industry, so to speak. Would what company B be if it made well over a million a year, but invested this money back into the company, and the most it’s owner made was $50,000 a year? Would the value of it’s assets be in question regardless of how much the employees make, and would this affect their class and/or class interest?
What if the cost of production was insanely high due to improper methods, and the product can knowingly be made cheaper, and the individuals who would purchase this product refuse to do so, because they know it’s an absurd price, what then? Are we to believe there is no other way? What if company B comes into the market and makes the same exact type of product for half the price, which price are we to believe reflects the real value of the good?
If the value is indefinite, does the price of a car change over time? How come some cars gain value over time, compared to some other cars that lose value over time? Am I to believe a 96 Honda Civic is the same price it was brand new now? Am I to believe the value of a 30 year old Camaro doesn’t fluctuate depending on what condition it is in now?
If this is held to be true, what if someone stumbles upon a gold mine on their land, and the production of this is actually rather cheap to obtain, how would explain the price of gold with relatively low cost of production given how much gold is on the market?
How do you explain art that has a great value that might have taken little effort from the artist, and art that has a rising value over time?
Will the society you advocate produce less output than current output?
Bert: Please google “supply and demand.”
Uh, is that sarcasm?
“The consequences are not that.”
No, they are. Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists
“would, IF I were a primmie, however I am not so the video is irrelevant to me.”
The video specifically deals with abolishing currency. Quit dodging. This is pathetic.
“It isn’t.”
Baseless assertions an argument do not make. Try again.
“It’s a contradiction of terms to begin with.”
Negative. Anarcho-capitalism isn’t. Try again, this time show some effort.
“The above read more like someone who doesn’t have any problems throwing false dichotomies all over the place.”
What are the false dichotomies? Map them out, the true ones then.
“The idea of “self-ownership” is quite a mockery. You fail to recognise different types of property, social and individual properties. The difference between social and individual properties is similar to the difference between the properties of a Right Triangle (Right angle, 3 sides, etc.), and the CEO’s property of his Corporation.”
lmao, such bs. No.
"After all, a property right is simply the exclusive right to control a scarce resource.[4] Property rights specify which persons own — that is, have the right to control — various scarce resources in a given region or jurisdiction. Yet everyone and every political theory advance some theory of property. None of the various forms of socialism deny property rights; each version will specify an owner for every scarce resource.[5] If the state nationalizes an industry, it is asserting ownership of these means of production. If the state taxes you, it is implicitly asserting ownership of the funds taken. If my land is transferred to a private developer by eminent domain statutes, the developer is now the owner. If the law allows a recipient of racial discrimination to sue his employer for a sum of money, he is the owner of the money.[6]
Protection of and respect for property rights is thus not unique to libertarianism. What is distinctive about libertarianism is its particular property assignment rules: its view concerning who is the owner of each contestable resource, and how to determine this.
Property in Bodies
A system of property rights assigns a particular owner to every scarce resource. These resources obviously include natural resources such as land, fruits of trees, and so on. Objects found in nature are not the only scarce resources, however. Each human actor has, controls, and is identified and associated with a unique human body, which is also a scarce resource.[7] Both human bodies and nonhuman, scarce resources are desired for use as means by actors in the pursuit of various goals.
Accordingly, any political theory or system must assign ownership rights in human bodies as well as in external things. Let us consider first the libertarian property assignment rules with respect to human bodies, and the corresponding notion of aggression as it pertains to bodies. Libertarians often vigorously assert the “nonaggression principle.”.
…
Now in the case of the body, it is clear what aggression is: invading the borders of someone’s body, commonly called battery, or, more generally, using the body of another without his or her consent.[11] The very notion of interpersonal aggression presupposes property rights in bodies — more particularly, that each person is, at least prima facie, the owner of his own body.[12]
Nonlibertarian political philosophies have a different view. Each person has some limited rights in his own body, but not complete or exclusive rights. Society — or the state, purporting to be society’s agent — has certain rights in each citizen’s body, too. This partial slavery is implicit in state actions and laws such as taxation, conscription, and drug prohibitions.
The libertarian says that each person is the full owner of his body: he has the right to control his body, to decide whether or not he ingests narcotics, joins an army, and so on. Those various nonlibertarians who endorse any such state prohibitions, however, necessarily maintain that the state, or society, is at least a partial owner of the body of those subject to such laws — or even a complete owner in the case of conscriptees or nonaggressor “criminals” incarcerated for life. Libertarians believe in self-ownership. Nonlibertarians — statists — of all stripes advocate some form of slavery. - Kinsella, What Libertarianism Is
…
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simple someone who thinks disjointly. Good day.
“I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simple someone who thinks disjointly. Good day.”
Lmao, well played good sir. I wonder if he’ll get it? (Don’t think so!)
SecurityCulture
SecurityCulture
what if price of commodity is bigger than the price of production? What if it is smaller? In other sense, should it always be equal?
TBH I appreciate the opportunity that SecurityCulture gave us. To come over here and chat, I applaud that. Unfortunately I don’t agree with his method. Coming here trying to tackle everyone’s question is just impossible. Conversations will get steered in 360 degrees.
I think it would be a neat exercise in doing what SecurityCulture did, but outline a few rules when posting. Like, I’ll only respond to the first poster, and carry a discussion with them. Or I’ll answer the question of every 5th poster, or something like that. Therebye creating a focus.
It would be more productive if a single conversation was carried between two individuals, but each party used their forum resources(friends, ect…) for information as posting. Carrying a non-hasty but serious debate.