Haha. I just wanted u guys to follow the link to the poop art. Someone asked what if, i supplied an answer.
<<<
I doubt they think about it this way but, if I understand the LTV’ers correctly, prices of goods should always be just slightly higher than the cost of employing someone to make it. Therefore prices cannot fall unless wages fall as well. Easily falsifiable and is dead wrong. >>>
And as statistics can explain you, you can still drown in a river that is on average only 50 cm deep.
I won’t dare follow that link! lolol
Any how Rob, answer my questions. What determines use-value? And if I am producing a good, and I spend more labor hours into producing is it magically now worth more in the eyes of consumers?
<<<
I will start with the assumptions made in the article:
-
Humans are all the same and under the same stimulations will act in exactly the same manner.
-
Humans can be given exactly the same stimulations that mimic reality.
-
The sum of the parts, individual experiments, is equal to the whole.
Neither of 1 or 2 are true. It is silly to think that two individuals much less millions would behave the same in the same situation like particles do. Then you have to also assume that you can break reality down into experiments that can be given to prove humans are the same when humans have wildly varying experiences. Then you have to prove 3 and that is not even true for physics itself. Organization matters especially in a living system.
In my opinion without these assumptions the whole logic applied to economics breaks down.
Doesn’t make sense, we are not concerned here with individual behaviour, but with aggregates.
Rob, try addressing my post. Spend 10 minutes on it. Can you do that?
To the contrary Rob. We, at least here, are not concerned with aggregates, but with individuals. Economics is not the study of fictitious aggregates, but of human action.
<<< Sieben, I saw the same thing. That’s an interesting paradox you pointed out. One other thing though. My question is, what determines the actual value, not the price, but value of goods. If it’s labor then what, about labor, explains why I like the color blue more than pink? >>>
Why would the LTV be concerned with that? Why would your psycholigical preferences have anything to do with it?
I mean my original post. The long one with all the arguments.
<<<
To the contrary Rob. We, at least here, are not concerned with aggregates, but with individuals. Economics is not the study of fictitious aggregates, but of human action. >>>
Macro economics definately is, your statement is non-sensical.
The study of human actions is studied by psychology and perhaps sociology, but definately not with macro-economics.
<<< Rob, try addressing my post. Spend 10 minutes on it. Can you do that? >>>
Hee, isn’t that just a confirmation of the LTV, which you tried to deny, that just because you spent 10 minutes of your time in it, it must have value?
LOL
If you can type up a lengthy response in a nanosecond go for it.
I bet all the marxian academics are just thrilled that you’ve chosen yourself to represent their work.
<<< Any how Rob, answer my questions. What determines use-value? And if I am producing a good, and I spend more labor hours into producing is it magically now worth more in the eyes of consumers? >>>
Use value: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value
And if I am producing a good, and I spend more labor hours into producing is it magically now worth more in the eyes of consumers?
It not magic, and it depend wether or not also the use value increased. Just by being more lazy and taking more hours to produce something, obviously does not increase the value of a product. As you could figure out yourself.
Sieben wrote:
<<< Labor content…? I mean, we would expect that all goods that use unskilled labor would cost about the same in labor hours… If it takes a highschool dropout 1 hour to make a sandwich, but 2 hours to make a steak, ceteris parabis the steak will probably cost twice as much. We can make this prediction by assuming that labor is homogenous.
But its heterogenous. And is not even the primary input in many goods. See diamonds… >>>
See my comment about value of land.
So this is essentially admitting that labor is not the only thing that has value, or determines the price of commodities. In fact it is the market demand for land and other goods that reveals their price. Exactly what the STV camp is saying.
You can address the rest of my post too instead of just picking out one paragraph.
Sieben wrote:
<<< Ha ha. No. The entropy model of the universe begins by assuming quantum states are random. Even if people went around shaking magic 8 balls to make their decisions, their decisions are still purposeful. Only a truly illiterate economist would look at people walking through the streets as “random gas molecules”. >>>
This comparison is ridiculous of course, and is not implied in the article. It does not equate human behaviour with that of molecules. It only tries to say something significant about macro-economic behaviour.
If it does not treat human action as purposeful, it does equate economics with molecules.
Sieben wrote:
<<< You can do cardinal math with like, positions… you can’t do it when your parameters are subjective. There is no average level of how much everyone likes ice cream. >>>
Why do you think that is an issue here? We are not concernced with how much each person likes or dislikes a certain commodity, but only with observable objective behaviour, like ice cream production and consumption.
Ahh so essentially it’s just Subjective value theory, re-named and re-packaged to fit the Marxist ideology.
Um.. isn’t he asking you to spend 10 minutes on it?
My statement is nonesensical? Your telling me “economics”, even “Macro” economics has nothing to do with individuals? Whats the point then?
Think about what your saying before you type and press post…
Rob, compile all of your responses in a single post. Stop spamming the boards and our email-inboxes.
Which arises from individual preferences. You can’t aggregate preferences. The overall market price is the result of supply and demand, not the summing up of everyone’s ordinal utility.