Are you seriously insinuating human beings really are no more complicated than molecules bouncing around in a hot gas?
You misunderstand. My statement was that the standard of living can never rise, as workers can never gain more value on average in terms of products purchased with wages than they give out in terms of labor, as the prices always hover around the value of labor. By this logic we should all still be in the stone ages but obviously we are not. How do you explain this with LTV?
Also the Venus Project people are way smarter than Mr. Cockshott.
So if a Golden Age comic book and a brand new BMW sell for the same price does that mean the same amount of labor went into creating them? Somehow I doubt it…
Furthermore, why do collectables(like vintage comic books) tend to appreciate in price? If the LTV is true, shouldnt they always sell for the same price(except maybe to adjust for inflation)?
EDIT TO ADD: I’m probably gonna regret asking, but what the hell is the ‘Venus Project?’
The Venus Project (also known as Zeitgeist) people are basically communists who think the only thing the system needs to work is a giant superintelligence to run the economy. They also more infamously have no idea how money works and describe it with the infantile “token of permission” theory. That is, the capitalists and producers actually have an unlimited supply of everything, and the green pieces of paper just tell them who is allowed to eat and who is not. Overthrow the capitalist class and remove the money system and we’ll have superabundance! This is what they refer to by their “resource-based economy.”
And, most annoyingly, they think the only way someone could sincerely reject their ideas is due to “cultural conditioning.”
Thanks…I actually found their webpage by googling them…
All I have to say is…Wow, I’v always known that Communism would only work in a world without scarcity. But I never imagined that there would be people who outrightly deny the problem altogether. They arent even making the claim that it can/might be solved wish some super advanced technology at some unspecified point in the future(an impossibility without overturning the laws of physics), but that its actually solved RIGHT NOW…wow…
Azure wrote:
<<< Are you seriously insinuating human beings really are no more complicated than molecules bouncing around in a hot gas? >>>
No, and why do you think so?
As computers are based on electronics, this neither would lead to the conclusion that computers are no more complicated as electrons bouncing around.
But you got to know that what we commonly perceive as having “free will” in reality does not exist (at least not in the way we think it is), as has been explored by neuro-psychology over and over again.
It has been confirmed that our brains already make a decission before we are consciouss of our actions/decissions, and also it can be confirmed that our consciouss approach to why we did something, has nothing to do with the determination of our actions.
As for instance in an experiment in which people get to decide which kind of socks they prefer, but were given 4 identical pairs. In most cases people did have a preference (often the 3-rd or 4-th pair of socks) and also explained why thy found it was better. Yet, that couldn’t have been the case as all socks were identical.
filc wrote:
<<< Any how Rob, answer my questions. What determines use-value? >>>
Use value is defined by the applicability useablitiy of a certain good. You can Google that up.
<<< 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? >>>
You already know the answer to that one, and is not hard to reason why that is the case.
Azure wrote:
<<< You misunderstand. My statement was that the standard of living can never rise, as workers can never gain more value on average in terms of products purchased with wages than they give out in terms of labor, as the prices always hover around the value of labor. By this logic we should all still be in the stone ages but obviously we are not. How do you explain this with LTV? >>
Of course the standard of living can rise, as the capitalists invest part of their money in less labour intensive ways of production, which in fact means that the relative exploitation increases (the amount of surplus value grows harder then the wages).
Sieben wrote:
<<< You can’t aggregate preferences. >>>
Of course you can aggregate preferences. If there are 3 favlours of ice cream available on the market, it can of course be deterermined in aggregate which ice crea flavour is preferred.
<<< The overall market price is the result of supply and demand, not the summing up of everyone’s ordinal utility >>>
But that is the whole argument of the article, the market prices DO relate to the amount of labour put in it, as can be shown at the basis of statistical investiagtion of market prices.
That is why nothing is charged (as of yet) for the air you breathe (except for in some exceptional conditions), but you do have to pay for things like gas and oil, even when both are available natural products. But gas and oil, other then the air, do require labour to exploit and distribute, the air does not.
‘Of course you can aggregate preferences. If there are 3 favlours of ice cream available on the market, it can of course be deterermined in aggregate which ice crea flavour is preferred.’
That assumes that preferences remain constant.
‘But that is the whole argument of the article, the market prices DO relate to the amount of labour put in it, as can be shown at the basis of statistical investiagtion of market prices.’
The explain the price increase of 19th century gold coins or a first edition of Romeo & Juliet
‘That is why nothing is charged (as of yet) for the air you breathe (except for in some exceptional conditions), but you do have to pay for things like gas and oil, even when both are available natural products.’
Would oil be costly if it was in every individual’s backyard? Keep in mind that refinement and processing are not what makes oil valuable for it is actually traded in crude form. If it yes then you are completely denying the concept of supply and demand.
Smiling Dave:
<<< So the whole history of mankind is predetermined to the end of time. No point in arguingabout anything then, hey? >>>
Now this is of course trying to make a mockery of this, but at the same time anyone accepts the fact that the outcomes of our decissions can be determined by conditions outside of us.
As for instance, anyone can freely make a choice wether to go on vacation on not. But then it shows that there is a statistical significance that in years in which the economy is bad, less people decide to go on vacations as in years in whicht the economy was sufficiently good.
So, we are already used to the fact that our decissions are in fact and partly determined by other conditions.
So the real issue is, what in fact do we consider free will to be, how can it be properly defined, without denying any fact that science can bring up to explain the real motives of our actions.
Andrew Cain wrote:
<<< That assumes that preferences remain constant. >>>
No, I don’t asume that. But as preferences change, also the consumption patterns change. And by the way, it could also be that we ran out of a certain flavour (temporarily), and then another flavour becomes favourite. But did our preference change, or was there another factor that defined our consumption?
<<< The explain the price increase of 19th century gold coins or a first edition of Romeo & Juliet >>>
These are exceptional cases, as we normally deal with commidities that are produced in sufficient quantities, and which we need for daily life.
It doesn’t mean that the LTV is not valid for ordinary goods.
<<< Would oil be costly if it was in every individual’s backyard? Keep in mind that refinement and processing are not what makes oil valuable for it is actually traded in crude form. If it yes then you are completely denying the concept of supply and demand. >>>
So what do you think?
Also please consider that crude oil still requires labour, cause the oil is not running out of the well all by itself, and needs at least also transport and packaging. So there is labour. And as simple to get oil gets less abundant, we need to dig deeper holes or get oil in other regions, which then means more labour is necessary for producing the same amount of crude oil.
Now, if crude oil was abundantly avaliable everywhere without requiring any labour, just guess that would do with the price…
Because that’s what you implied.
You’re arguing semantics. Is it you who makes your decisions or is it your brain and its various inputs? They’re different levels of analysis of the same thing. It’s a bit like arguing over whether it’s the hull that makes a ship float or the planks.
Decisions being made up of the interactions between neurons (and the neurons themselves ultimately being the interaction of quanta) doesn’t mean the decisions don’t exist. Your thoughts and feelings (that is, the computations performed by your brain) definitely do exist and it does make sense to talk about their properties.
And this proves people don’t have thoughts and feelings… how? It displays a flaw in cognition, sure, but it doesn’t disprove cognition altogether.
It’s called opportunity cost. We Austrians understand it quite well. Better than you do, methinks.
The underlying causes of motivaitons are of no relevance to Praxeology. I’ll let Mises take this one:
lol@physical sciences having any bearing on economic theory. Even Marx knew better.
Does the second flavor retain its popularity as the first becomes more available? Either way from the perspective of economics it is quite pointless to try to figure out what people’s specific preferences are. All that needs to be known is whether or not preferences (in the strict, praxeological definition) exist, and obviously they do.
First of all what defines an ordinary good? And why is the theory of price formation which determines the prices of these exceptional goods not able to explain the prices of these “ordinary” ones?
Secondly I can’t help but notice you keep making exceptions to what the LTV applies to. Can you tell us exactly what the LTV does apply to?
He’s not saying it wouldn’t take any effort to extract. He’s proposing the scenario that oil would spurt out of the ground wherever you erected a well.
And if there is a sudden drop in the supply of oil, why does the price of it suddenly shoot up, even though the labor required to extract, package, and transport it remains the same? Or does it stop being an “ordinary” good as soon as the price does something the LTV can’t explain?
‘No, I don’t asume that. But as preferences change, also the consumption patterns change. And by the way, it could also be that we ran out of a certain flavour (temporarily), and then another flavour becomes favourite. But did our preference change, or was there another factor that defined our consumption?’
Well your saying that aggregates represent large scale preferences. However there is nothing to assume that these aggregates represent anything beyond that specific time. They have no future predictive power. I could like vanilla one second, and then try strawberry and fall in love with that the next.
‘These are exceptional cases, as we normally deal with commidities that are produced in sufficient quantities, and which we need for daily life.’
So the non-reproducible market is not a realm of economic science?
‘It doesn’t mean that the LTV is not valid for ordinary goods.’
Then you suggest that there are two different theories of prices but why must we assume this? Why is it labor theory for reproducible goods but some unknown theory for non-reproducible goods? And what for that matter is the price system for these ‘non-ordinary goods’?
‘Also please consider that crude oil still requires labour, cause the oil is not running out of the well all by itself, and needs at least also transport and packaging. So there is labour. And as simple to get oil gets less abundant, we need to dig deeper holes or get oil in other regions, which then means more labour is necessary for producing the same amount of crude oil.’
Crude oil does not take labor to create and yet crude oil still has value based on volume by barrel. Now if you are saying that it gets it value of extraction and transportation then you are, for my knowledge, projecting a cost of production theory of prices, not a labor theory.
Isn’t labor a cost of production? Just sayin’.
‘Isn’t labor a cost of production? Just sayin’.’
Well that’s what I am trying to figure out. Firstly, he is saying there is a separate way for two different aspects of the market, reproducible and non-reproducible goods. He is saying that labor makes price but that oil is costly because of the operations necessary to extract it. It’s like he is trying to jumble together Capital Volume I and Volume II & III.
A marxist is spouting nonsense? Stop the presses!