The rich cannot be rich without the poor

Miscellaneous Newbies
141

Do you suppose I’ve never taken an economics course? I’m perfectly familiar with conventional economics. It’s political economy that I’ve had to teach myself.

Math is not a science, it does not proceed by the scientific method and is not empirical. It’s more like a form of logic. It’s actually more elementary than science, since it provides the tools for science to proceed.

As for economics being a science, I don’t want to derail the thread onto that topic, but it’s simply bollocks. Most reasonable people realize this. It’s why the Economics Nobel prize is a bit of a laughingstock and the source of occasional resentment from representatives of the hard sciences.

Properly speaking economics is most like a social ‘science’, which is to say it only studies human actions under a certain social system, not ‘natural’ phenomena of any kind. This is where the usefulness of historical materialism (broadly defined) comes into play. The study of capitalist economics does not apply to economic systems that came before it, or that (in some places, like Russia) have come after it. In this way, it is no more “universal” or “scientific” than the study of law.

The labor ToV, in Marx’s hands at the least, is not meant to explain the price of individual commodities. It is not a microeconomic theory, and its insights are not microeconomic. Furthermore, it concerns itself with production, not circulation. Simple circulation, in the form of resale, produces no new value.

142

Make up your mind - either it is or isn’t a science. Science merely refers to an organised body of knowledge. It isn’t a natural science, no - but then no one here disputes that.

Please inform economists who only study “capitalist” economics of this, whatever that may mean.

143

VROOM VROOM!

LTV really struggles to explain the secondary market. Which is why it is a woefully incomplete theory on exchange.

144

@Jon Irenicus:

I edited to put social “science” in quotes while you were replying. Happy?

145

Remove them and I will be.

146

Good to know that you consider all those Marxist sociology professors to be scientists. :smiley:

Economics, like any social “science”, for example Law or Sociology, studies the internal operation of human social systems. Using something that studies the internal operation of a social system to then justify said social system is perfectly circular.

147

Economics doesn’t “justify” anything, it merely describes. You’re confusing it with ethics. No science “justifies” anything to the extent that it’s purely a science.

148

Indeed. A description of the workings of a free market economy in no way justifies the workings of a free market economy. We are in full agreement.

149

Please explain.

150

How about this example: I’ve got a condo that cost $300,000 to build during the boom that I’d like to sell to you for $200,000 (hint: the market price is now $100,000)

151

Not production. The Labor ToV successfully explains why, if all human labor ceased, so would the creation of all new value. Resale creates no new value. It merely circulates already produced value.

The LToV does not explain all economic activity under the sun. It just explains where all new value originates from: human labor.

Fine–I will concede that I was wrong to admit stumbled-upon wild berries as an exception to the LToV. It turns out that labor does create ALL new value after all.

Shall we also include chewing? How about digestion? It seems a bit ridiculous to me, honestly, but I’m happy to oblige, since it’s only proving my point.

152

Nonsense. Resale can add value.

It doesn’t even explain some of it.

But this is patently false. All value isn’t contingent on labour. In fact, many items which require lots of labour, are worth less than items which require little labour.

On the contrary, you don’t have a point. I’m not trying to be rude, but you’re acting like a small child saying NYAH NYAH NYAH. The LTV is an absolute joke. We could forgive people for embracing it 200 years ago. But not today. Today it sounds like complete quackery, particularly on this website, where the STV is core.

Value is subjective. All value is subjective. Labour is arbitrary.

153

Is making repetitious grand pronouncements of universal negatives about how nothing has been proved what people do when they have no substantive reply to the points raised? Yes, I believe it is. :stuck_out_tongue:

What happens if all human labor ceases, liberty student?

154

You haven’t posted anything substantive. First, you haven’t proven the LTV. Second, you haven’t refuted the STV. All you have done, is make some sloppy causation as correlation arguments, as below.

How is this question remotely relevant?

Seriously dude, I’m here for the knowledge. If you have some insight to share, I want it. I want to drain it from your brain. I want to know it, master it, and then dominate you with it. But you’re giving me nonsense and calling it knowledge, and I’m sorry but that won’t fly.

155

Try answering my question.

I’ve said in just about every other post I’ve made that I accept the STV as substantially true. You haven’t even read the thread.

156

Try understanding the LTV.

157

I’ll ask one more time, what is the relevance of the question?

158

:smiley:

Teach me.

159

Predatory and persistent dumping.

Oh god…

The Labor Theory of value (Classical version): There are many different accounts of labor value, with the common element that the “value” of an exchangeable good or service is, or tends to be (how convenient), or can be considered as, or “is to be measured as” equal or proportionate to the amount of labor required to produce it (including the labor required to produce the raw materials and machinery in production).

All this does is take me one step backwards. Okay, the value of an item is determined by how much labor went into it; but how does one determine the value of that labor? Marx seems to have the answer:

“Social production involves a complicated and interconnected division of labor of a wide variety of people who depend on each other for their survival and prosperity.”

Nope, this tells me absolutely nothing. Here’s a pretty intuitive approach to value, maybe it will make sense to you:

Very simply, a plant in the forest may be seen as useless, indeed, if no one knows that the plant in question can cure cancer, or that it even tastes good, it won’t be valued by anyone, and thus will not be harvested. Once people realize that this plant tastes good, it will be demanded, and only then will the plant gain value and be plucked from the forest. When scientists discover that the plant can cure cancer, its value will grow even larger, and yet there may be no change in the methods of acquiring this plant; no additional labor is required, and yet its value will increase. No commodity/service has any intrinsic value whatsoever; only when individuals desire something (through their own subjective value scales), can one say that commodity “x” has value.

Of course, this doesn’t sit well with Marx; The evil capitalists are making windfall profits on this easily harvested plant! The inadequacies of the market allow for price gouging! All that useless exchange value! Unfortunately for Marx, the exploitation theory of interest has been logically and empirically obliterated. If “surplus value” came from exploiting “variable capital” then labor intense industries should and would have the highest rate of return, and this is simply not the case. Of course, this isn’t enough to destroy all that sociology you guys value so dearly, and have based so many core beliefs upon.

160

Then this must be the greatest exercise in doublethink on this forum yet (and you’d have stiff competition).

The STV and the LTV are not compatible. Yes, prices trend downwards towards cost (under market competition), however perception and value of cost is also subjective. Some people are happy to labour all day for $10. Some for $30. Some for $300. There are arrays of specific and individual conditions which influence those valuations.

The STV can be applied outside of market exchange of goods. It can be used as a framework for understanding rational human action.

So I don’t even understand this debate, or why you asked your question. If all people stop labouring, then we have either all died, or we have achieved some form of mechanistic nirvana, however, praxeologically, man acts, even when he is not acting, so short of extinction, we’re always “labouring” in the loosest sense of the word. This is why I asked you for context with your question.