In article <1110819034.355054.255510@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Zerge" <zerge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Some of my comments restored:
[ >>>>>> Smith, Ricardo, and Marx worked with models in which there ]
[ >>>>>> are social cl*****, including capitalists who live off of ]
[ >>>>>> the return to capital. ]
[ >>>>>> The hours required to work to be able to purchase ]
[ >>>>>> commodities is not the labor value of those commodities, ]
[ >>>>>> as "labor value" is understood in the labor theory of ]
[ >>>>>> value. ]
[ >>>>>> The classical theory of value is not equivalent to the ]
[ >>>>>> labor theory of value. ]
> > I don't know what Zerge means by "the more Marxist LTV". I would
> > think Ricardo would be a more appropriate focus of the discussion
> > here anyways.
> Of course, Ricardo started it, but Marx is the one that gave it fame.
The above seems to be a non-sequitur. I still don't know what Zerge
means by "the more Marxist LTV".
It is good that Zerge backtracks from his untenable and absurd
views. He has implicitly suggested that there are at most only two
theories of value:
"Is there a generally accepted theory of value? Or are we still
stuck with labor vs. subjective?"
and he has stated that there is a distinction between the classicall
theory of value and the labor theory of value:
"I have always understood the difference between the classical
theory of value and LTV."
If Zerge were not backtracking, one would have to conclude that he
thinks one of the following were true:
o Ricardo put forth at least two theories of value, a classical
and a labor theory of value.
o Ricardo, insofar as he only put forth a labor theory of
value, was not a classical economists.
> > But the topic was to relate the contrast between the labor theory of
> > value and the subjective theory of value to the contrast between
> > the labor theory of value and the classical theory of value.
> >
> > It would seem that Zerge thinks, incorrectly, there are no other
> > choices than a subjective theory of value and a labor theory of
> > value. And he thinks the classical theory of value is something
> > other than the labor theory of value.
> No, I do not think so. There are dozens of theories of value, and you
> could more or less classify them on a spectrum along the
> subjective-objective value.
> Nevertheless, the STV and LTV are the ones most commonly compared. And
> maybe you are right, it is wrong to compare them as if there where only
> two of them; I agree with you on that.
It is good that Zerge finally recognizes that the answer to the
second question below is "no".
"Is there a generally accepted theory of value? Or are we still
stuck with labor vs. subjective?"
In addition to the theories of value I have previously mentioned
on this thread, I would also like to mention the theory of
administered, full cost, or mark-up prices. I don't know that
those theories can stand alone as a theory of value, but they
are widely empirically applicable in advanced capitalist
economies.
And there is Chapter 17 in Keynes' _General Theory_. Perhaps
that theory is more accurately described as a conventionalist
or institutionalist theory of value than as a subjectivist
theory.
> > The logical conclusion to draw from Zerge's premises is that he
> > thinks that the Classical theory of value is a subjective theory
> > of value.
> No I do not. Quite the contrary. The classical tehory of value, as
> exposed by Adam Smith, is the epitome of an OBJECTIVE theory of value.
It is good that Zerge recognizes that he was mistaken.
> If you check my equations, you would see that they represent pretty
> much what Adam Smith said.
I doubt it very much. Where does Adam Smith explicitly discuss
op****tunity cost?
> > Thus, he would argue that Ricardo, for example, either didn't have
> > a theory of value or had a subjective theory of value, whether
> > completely worked out or not.
> And you reach this conclusion how, exactly? Sheesh.
By reading Zerge's posts. Consider:
"Is there a generally accepted theory of value? Or are we still
stuck with labor vs. subjective?"
These questions put forward two alternatives. Either
(1) There is one agreed upon theory of value
Or
(2) There are two theories:
(i) The labor theory of value
(ii) The subjective theory of value.
And here Zerge says the classical theory is not the Labor Theory
of Value:
"I have always understood the difference between the classical
theory of value and LTV."
Thus, according to Zerge, if a canonical representative
of the classical theory has a theory of value at all, it is not
the Labor Theory of Value. Thus, according to the implicit
premises of the questions with which Zerge began this thread and
his further discussion within it, he must hold that canonical
representatives of Classical economics, if they hold a theory of
value at all, hold the subjective theory of value.
It is good that Zerge is starting to recognize at some level of
his unconsciousness that his statements and questions have been
thoroughly untenable.
> > But I haven't seen him put anything forward on that topic, not
> > even a reference to the literature. I happen to know that, in the
> > literature, the relation****p between subjective, or so-called
> > neoclassical, theories of value and classical theories of value
> > is contentious.
> > > The labor theory of value I proved in the example above is
> > > neoclassical
> > > 100%, but using modern techniques.
> > If one wants a modern theory of value, one could look at:
> >
> > Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Savadori 1995. Theory of Production:
> > A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
> >
> > Often those who explain this theory of value, think of it as
> > consistent with an approach put forth by William Petty:
> >
> > "To express my self in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to
> > use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes,
> > as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that
> > depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites and Passions
> > of particular Men, to the Consideration of Others."
> >
> > I realize that the textbook I mention above is advanced. The student
> > needs a simplified version to introduce him or herself to this
> > modern theory of value. I think the following, though equally
> > rigorous, does not treat some of the advanced topics of the
> > above textbook:
> >
> > Luigi L. Pasinetti 1977. Lectures on the Theory of Production,
> > Columbia University Press.
Another good textbook related to these theories is:
Stephen A. Marglin 1984. Growth, Distribution, and Prices. Harvard
University Press.
> > I realize that Pasinetti is still fairly advanced. An even simpler
> > textbook presentation can be found in:
> >
> > Vivian Walsh and Harvey Gram 1980. Classical and Neoclassical
> > Theories of General Equilibrium: Historical Origins and
> > Mathematical Structure, Oxford University Press.
Another introductory textbook is:
Richard M. Goodwin, 1970. Elementary Economics from the Higher
Standpoint. Cambridge University Press.
> > > > The answer to the second question is "no".
> > > Did you try to work through the equations at all?
> > That seems to me to be a non-sequitur.
> >
> > But I did note that Zerge's starting premise, that all income is
> > wage income, rules out more developed classical theories of value.
> >
> > Once again, Zerge has (again) refused to comment on this proposition.
> To the statement " First you need a generally acceted definition of
> value", this is what I said:
>
> "We are talking about the value of goods."
And I gave a better response. My response was better in that it
did not rule out, by definition of the subject of theories of
value, all but one theory of value.
> "Let us assume that the only
> way to obtain goods is to work, get paid, and buy the goods with the
> money you earned.
> Then the subjective value of a product is how many hours you are
> willing to work to get that product."
> Fine. If you remove the assumption that so offends you, then we have
> that people also have wealth not obtained through labor, for example,
> inherited wealth. Then the subjective value of a producto is how many
> hours you are willing to work for it OR how many other products (or
> "utilit" if it pleases you) you are willing to forfeit to buy that
> product, with your inherited money.
Zerge is such a "vulgar economist", to use a technical term, that
he seems incapable of defining social cl***** in any meaningful
way or discussing the problem of value theory without presupposing
certain mistaken theories.
The less they know, the less they know it.
> > > Is there any part I
> > > could clarify for you?
> > > The im****tant points are these. First, the time of an economic
> > > agent is
> > > limited; it can produce either commodity A or commodity B, not both
> > > at
> > > the same time. Producing one causes the op****tunity cost of not
> > > producing the other one.
> >
> > I don't see what that has to do with the (false) Labor Theory of
> > Value.
> It proves that you can reach a price OBJECTIVELY, which our friend
> smithaa thinks completely impossible. Smithaa is quite obviously a
> proponent of a 100% subjective theory of value.
Nope. Smithaa is so muddled and unlettered that I would be
unwilling to say he is a proponent of anything.
> What I propose is that
> it is a combination: price bands are set objectively, and the price may
> fluctuate subjectively, specially due to the lack of perfect
> information.
Whatever.
> Tell us, what is your position of theories of value?
I have put forth many substantial statements on this thread, including
a reference to my FAQ on the LTV and a reference to one of my
demonstrations that neoclassical theory is false. My FAQ includes
a definition of what I understand the LTV to be and an explanation
of why it is false. The demonstration I put forth defines what I
think to be central to false neoclassical theories.
What has Zerge had to say about my substantial points? Nada. So
I find his query above ridiculous.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom,
or
i m p virtue, are found in pro****tion to the power or
wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be
discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but
highly
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search
of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
|
