tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post4566285707613605560..comments2024-03-25T07:51:47.758-04:00Comments on Thoughts On Economics: How To Attack Marx's Theory Of ValueRobert Vienneauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14748118392842775431noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-87117184513784197142012-08-30T12:19:06.309-04:002012-08-30T12:19:06.309-04:00"The fundamental problem with Marx's labo..."The fundamental problem with Marx's labor theory of value is very simple: some things which take an hour to manufacture are obviously worth a *lot*, while others are worth practically nothing (say, nuclear waste)."<br /><br />Obviously market prices, in general and at the microeconomic level, are not proportional to labor costs. Marx knew that. All the classical authors knew that, including Smith and Ricardo. At no point did any of these theorists claim that market prices are proportional to labor-values. Do you think these highly sophisticated founders of Political Economy would be so daft to hold such a theory?<br /><br />You are tilting at windmills.<br /><br />-Ian.Ian Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07119300130417955190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26706564.post-3616238626919097462012-08-25T21:22:28.604-04:002012-08-25T21:22:28.604-04:00"Are claims about exploitation of the worker ..."Are claims about exploitation of the worker being the source of profits dependent on how close the composition of national output is to that of the standard commodity? Would the truth or falsity of these claims be altered by technological innovations or change in consumption patterns that result in some aggregate becoming more or less capital-intensive?"<br /><br />No. Because Marx argues that the physical capital was created by a previous generation of workers. The person who "owns" the machine in the factory did not, in general, construct it, nor did he construct the factory building.<br /><br />So to represent his views properly you would have to have an intertemporal element; current labor could "steal" value from earlier labor and/or from future labor, in addition to capital "stealing" from labor.<br /><br />The fundamental problem with Marx's labor theory of value is very simple: some things which take an hour to manufacture are obviously worth a *lot*, while others are worth practically nothing (say, nuclear waste). Some labor is worth more than others; some is counterproductive (such as blowing stuff up).<br /><br />The fundamental problem with conventional economists' price theory of value is exactly the same: some things which cost $1000 are obviously much more valuable than others.<br /><br />Basically, there is no substitute for an *actual* social utility function. Price is not a substitute, and number of hours of work is not a substitute; we actually have to sit down and decide, as a society, what is worthwhile.neroden@gmailhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07475686367097445497noreply@blogger.com