Quick rundown of Marxian political economics

[untermensche]

I made a claim.

I said that all value is exchange value. I also claimed that all value is the result of labor.

Only a fool would call that preaching.

Do you value something your friend or family member gave you as a personal gift because you can exchange it for something else?

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

 

[PyramidHead]

I made a claim.

I said that all value is exchange value. I also claimed that all value is the result of labor.

Only a fool would call that preaching.

Do you value something your friend or family member gave you as a personal gift because you can exchange it for something else?

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

So, before capitalism took over and markets became the primary form of exchange, for example in the slave economies of ancient Rome or the feudalism of Europe, was there no value to be found anywhere? If I am a serf, and I produce a bunch of grain and potatoes that get taken by the lord of the manor, who uses them to feed his family and his loyal subjects, did I produce nothing of value? Did a slave who spent all year building a temple for the Roman upper class to worship in, getting nothing in return for his work, contribute no value at all since the temple did not have a price or a trade attached to it?

 

[dismal]

I made a claim.

I said that all value is exchange value. I also claimed that all value is the result of labor.

Only a fool would call that preaching.

Do you value something your friend or family member gave you as a personal gift because you can exchange it for something else?

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

Wow, maybe you should try taking an economics course before telling people what it says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

The marginalists won this debate more than a century ago by virtue of the fact their theories were consistent with reality. The could explain things like the water-diamond paradox.

Your word salad is even internally inconsistent. What any one person is willing to pay in exchange for something is based entirely on that person's subjective assessment of its value.

 

[PyramidHead]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

Wow, maybe you should try taking an economics course before telling people what it says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

The marginalists won this debate more than a century ago by virtue of the fact their theories were consistent with reality. The could explain things like the water-diamond paradox.

Your word salad is even internally inconsistent. What any one person is willing to pay in exchange for something is based entirely on that person's subjective assessment of its value.

You're both wrong. Preferences, supply, demand, market fluctuations, etc. play a decisive role in price, but they do not encapsulate all of it. And mass market transactions generalized over the entire population are an entirely different phenomenon than private person-to-person barter exchanges.

The subjective theory of value came about preeeetty quickly after Marx, as it was a reaction to the way his theories empowered workers. Others followed suit soon after. Anything to dissuade the masses from seeing themselves as exploited or unfairly compensated.

 

[dismal]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

Wow, maybe you should try taking an economics course before telling people what it says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

The marginalists won this debate more than a century ago by virtue of the fact their theories were consistent with reality. The could explain things like the water-diamond paradox.

Your word salad is even internally inconsistent. What any one person is willing to pay in exchange for something is based entirely on that person's subjective assessment of its value.

You're both wrong. Preferences, supply, demand, market fluctuations, etc. play a decisive role in price, but they do not encapsulate all of it. And mass market transactions generalized over the entire population are an entirely different phenomenon than private person-to-person barter exchanges.

The subjective theory of value came about preeeetty quickly after Marx, as it was a reaction to the way his theories empowered workers. Others followed suit soon after. Anything to dissuade the masses from seeing themselves as exploited or unfairly compensated.

In what way is the subjective theory of value "wrong"?

 

[PyramidHead]

You're both wrong. Preferences, supply, demand, market fluctuations, etc. play a decisive role in price, but they do not encapsulate all of it. And mass market transactions generalized over the entire population are an entirely different phenomenon than private person-to-person barter exchanges.

The subjective theory of value came about preeeetty quickly after Marx, as it was a reaction to the way his theories empowered workers. Others followed suit soon after. Anything to dissuade the masses from seeing themselves as exploited or unfairly compensated.

In what way is the subjective theory of value "wrong"?

In the same way that a theory that described the rise and fall of tides does not explain why the sea level tends to be what it is. Also, subjective theories of value cannot accommodate the phenomenon of overpricing. By the way, the diamond-water paradox is not a problem for Marx, who never maintained that the value of a specific object was determined by the amount of concrete labor that went into it in particular. If someone found a diamond lying on the ground and was able to sell it for a high price, the price would reflect the fact that the abstract socially necessary labor time (what the average worker under average conditions would need to do) of obtaining a diamond in that society is high. But only partially so, since diamonds are actually not rare and are not hard to extract; much of their price is purely the result of monopoly. And a theory like Marx's is one that is capable of describing diamonds as overpriced. And by extension, it is capable of describing situations where workers are underpaid. Hence the quick formulation and promulgation of subjective theory in the late 19th century as a reaction to this dangerous weapon.

 

[untermensche]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

So, before capitalism took over and markets became the primary form of exchange, for example in the slave economies of ancient Rome or the feudalism of Europe, was there no value to be found anywhere? If I am a serf, and I produce a bunch of grain and potatoes that get taken by the lord of the manor, who uses them to feed his family and his loyal subjects, did I produce nothing of value? Did a slave who spent all year building a temple for the Roman upper class to worship in, getting nothing in return for his work, contribute no value at all since the temple did not have a price or a trade attached to it?

I'm talking about value today. And I'm talking about value in terms of modern economic activity.

Today a temple is real estate. And it can be bought and sold.

 

[PyramidHead]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

So, before capitalism took over and markets became the primary form of exchange, for example in the slave economies of ancient Rome or the feudalism of Europe, was there no value to be found anywhere? If I am a serf, and I produce a bunch of grain and potatoes that get taken by the lord of the manor, who uses them to feed his family and his loyal subjects, did I produce nothing of value? Did a slave who spent all year building a temple for the Roman upper class to worship in, getting nothing in return for his work, contribute no value at all since the temple did not have a price or a trade attached to it?

I'm talking about value today. And I'm talking about value in terms of modern economic activity.

Today a temple is real estate. And it can be bought and sold.

Sure, and that's exchange value. But it doesn't have any exchange value to people who go to the temple, for them it's use-value. And for people who see it as a waste of stone that could be pulverized and turned into something like a hospital, it's some other kind of value... I'm just saying there isn't a fine objective/subjective line to be drawn among these various types of value.

 

[untermensche]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

Wow, maybe you should try taking an economics course before telling people what it says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

The marginalists won this debate more than a century ago by virtue of the fact their theories were consistent with reality. The could explain things like the water-diamond paradox.

Your word salad is even internally inconsistent. What any one person is willing to pay in exchange for something is based entirely on that person's subjective assessment of its value.

Not an inconsistency.

You merely point out a meaningless point.

The value is what they pay.

Not what they think.

I am not saying the value is related to the labor.

So the water-diamond paradox is not applicable. A stupidity to even mention it.

 

[dismal]

You're both wrong. Preferences, supply, demand, market fluctuations, etc. play a decisive role in price, but they do not encapsulate all of it. And mass market transactions generalized over the entire population are an entirely different phenomenon than private person-to-person barter exchanges.

The subjective theory of value came about preeeetty quickly after Marx, as it was a reaction to the way his theories empowered workers. Others followed suit soon after. Anything to dissuade the masses from seeing themselves as exploited or unfairly compensated.

In what way is the subjective theory of value "wrong"?

In the same way that a theory that described the rise and fall of tides does not explain why the sea level tends to be what it is. Also, subjective theories of value cannot accommodate the phenomenon of overpricing. By the way, the diamond-water paradox is not a problem for Marx, who never maintained that the value of a specific object was determined by the amount of concrete labor that went into it in particular. If someone found a diamond lying on the ground and was able to sell it for a high price, the price would reflect the fact that the abstract socially necessary labor time (what the average worker under average conditions would need to do) of obtaining a diamond in that society is high. But only partially so, since diamonds are actually not rare and are not hard to extract; much of their price is purely the result of monopoly. And a theory like Marx's is one that is capable of describing diamonds as overpriced. And by extension, it is capable of describing situations where workers are underpaid. Hence the quick formulation and promulgation of subjective theory in the late 19th century as a reaction to this dangerous weapon.

I was hoping for an economic argument that contained actual economics.

Marx's "socially necessary labor" is a laughable concept in economic circles. It's essentially the recognition that "hey, my theory can't explain lots of things that can be observed in the real world so I need a plug variable".

Why is a painting Picasso takes 1 hour to paint worth a million times a painting your Uncle Bill takes 1000 hours to paint? Why does an NBA basketball player make ten thousand times what a professional kayaker makes?

Why when Bill takes 4 hours to produce something and Bob takes 2 hours to produce an identical thing do the things sell for the same price? Why can Tiger Woods get paid millions of dollars to play a round of golf and I have to pay someone else $100?

Well, I guess it's observable that it's not the hours of labor that matter, so let's take actual labor and mutliple it by a special bumfuckle factor to keep the argument in tact!. But, since "special bumfuckle factor" doesn't sound like economics, let's call it "socially necessary" instead.

 

[untermensche]

I'm talking about value today. And I'm talking about value in terms of modern economic activity.

Today a temple is real estate. And it can be bought and sold.

Sure, and that's exchange value. But it doesn't have any exchange value to people who go to the temple, for them it's use-value. And for people who see it as a waste of stone that could be pulverized and turned into something like a hospital, it's some other kind of value... I'm just saying there isn't a fine objective/subjective line to be drawn among these various types of value.

Use value is mental value. In this case a subset of mental value called spiritual value.

It is subjective.

I am talking about objective value within a system of economic activity.

In other words the value of labor has a relationship to the amount of money the labor produces.

A market wage is removing labor from any relationship to the amount of money the labor produces.

Anything that could be potentially bought and sold has value. But we don't know it's value until it is sold.

Hospitals are bought and sold all the time. We see their value.

 

[dismal]

That is mental value. Subjective value. And it can be all over the place.

I am talking about real world value. Objective value.

And that is always only what one person is willing to pay or exchange for something.

In economics you deal with objective value. What something was sold for. Not what somebody asked for it.

Real Estate appraising uses recent comparable sales not the asking prices to determine an estimated value.

Wow, maybe you should try taking an economics course before telling people what it says.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value

The marginalists won this debate more than a century ago by virtue of the fact their theories were consistent with reality. The could explain things like the water-diamond paradox.

Your word salad is even internally inconsistent. What any one person is willing to pay in exchange for something is based entirely on that person's subjective assessment of its value.

Not an inconsistency.

You merely point out a meaningless point.

The value is what they pay.

Not what they think.

I am not saying the value is related to the labor.

So the water-diamond paradox is not applicable. A stupidity to even mention it.

OK, carry on being ignorant. Certainly not the first time you've been accused of missing the last 180 years of progress in economic thought.

 

[untermensche]

Marx's "socially necessary labor" is a laughable concept in economic circles. It's essentially the recognition that "hey, my theory can't explain lots of things that can be observed in the real world so I need a plug variable".

There is no such thing as the "real world".

There is a world created within the confines of modern capitalism with the government held sway to big business.

There is a different world created by different conditions.

Replacing the dictatorial systems of capitalism and replacing them with democratic systems has stark effects.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

This is George Orwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

 

[PyramidHead]

In the same way that a theory that described the rise and fall of tides does not explain why the sea level tends to be what it is. Also, subjective theories of value cannot accommodate the phenomenon of overpricing. By the way, the diamond-water paradox is not a problem for Marx, who never maintained that the value of a specific object was determined by the amount of concrete labor that went into it in particular. If someone found a diamond lying on the ground and was able to sell it for a high price, the price would reflect the fact that the abstract socially necessary labor time (what the average worker under average conditions would need to do) of obtaining a diamond in that society is high. But only partially so, since diamonds are actually not rare and are not hard to extract; much of their price is purely the result of monopoly. And a theory like Marx's is one that is capable of describing diamonds as overpriced. And by extension, it is capable of describing situations where workers are underpaid. Hence the quick formulation and promulgation of subjective theory in the late 19th century as a reaction to this dangerous weapon.

I was hoping for an economic argument that contained actual economics.

Marx's "socially necessary labor" is a laughable concept in economic circles. It's essentially the recognition that "hey, my theory can't explain lots of things that can be observed in the real world so I need a plug variable".

Why is a painting Picasso takes 1 hour to paint worth a million times a painting your Uncle Bill takes 1000 hours to paint?

Because the painting is a fetishized commodity that rich people use to display their wealth, and is not priced according to how much labor it took to create. In other words, it's a rip-off.

Why does an NBA basketball player make ten thousand times what a professional kayaker makes?

Because the value of sports in society has been displaced from the effort it takes to play them, and is primarily derived from the usefulness they serve as vehicles for advertising. In other words, basketball players are grossly overpaid.

Why when Bill takes 4 hours to produce something and Bob takes 2 hours to produce an identical thing do the things sell for the same price?

In principle, there's an amount of labor time that, on average, any given thing will take to produce under average conditions using whatever resources are available. You might recall this from my previous post. Things that take longer tend to cost more, and when innovations are created that make them take less labor time, the price tends to drop. When conditions make it so that it takes more labor time to produce the same thing, such as when there is a shortage of something required to use the innovation, price tends to climb again. It's not the whole picture, because the theory is not an explanation of price but of value, which itself is only a basis or starting point for price.

Why can Tiger Woods get paid millions of dollars to play a round of golf and I have to pay someone else $100?

Because he's fucking exorbitantly, absurdly overpaid, and the theory of value that lets you say that and show why it's true is mine, not yours. Yours is the one that silences any notion that Tiger Woods shouldn't have as much money as a small town just because he's a womanizing golfer.

Well, I guess it's observable that it's not the hours of labor that matter, so let's take actual labor and mutliple it by a special bumfuckle factor to keep the argument in tact!. But, since "special bumfuckle factor" doesn't sound like economics, let's call it "socially necessary" instead.

I bet you've read the covers of so many books on Marxian economics.

 

[dismal]

Because the painting is a fetishized commodity that rich people use to display their wealth, and is not priced according to how much labor it took to create. In other words, it's a rip-off.

Why does an NBA basketball player make ten thousand times what a professional kayaker makes?

Because the value of sports in society has been displaced from the effort it takes to play them, and is primarily derived from the usefulness they serve as vehicles for advertising. In other words, basketball players are grossly overpaid.

Why when Bill takes 4 hours to produce something and Bob takes 2 hours to produce an identical thing do the things sell for the same price?

In principle, there's an amount of labor time that, on average, any given thing will take to produce under average conditions using whatever resources are available. You might recall this from my previous post. Things that take longer tend to cost more, and when innovations are created that make them take less labor time, the price tends to drop. When conditions make it so that it takes more labor time to produce the same thing, such as when there is a shortage of something required to use the innovation, price tends to climb again. It's not the whole picture, because the theory is not an explanation of price but of value, which itself is only a basis or starting point for price.

Why can Tiger Woods get paid millions of dollars to play a round of golf and I have to pay someone else $100?

Because he's fucking exorbitantly, absurdly overpaid, and the theory of value that lets you say that and show why it's true is mine, not yours. Yours is the one that silences any notion that Tiger Woods shouldn't have as much money as a small town just because he's a womanizing golfer.

Well, I guess it's observable that it's not the hours of labor that matter, so let's take actual labor and mutliple it by a special bumfuckle factor to keep the argument in tact!. But, since "special bumfuckle factor" doesn't sound like economics, let's call it "socially necessary" instead.

I bet you've read the covers of so many books on Marxian economics.

Ah, so things stubbornly refuse to cost what they're supposed to in your theories.

The real world just doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

But we can still be sure the theories are good.

 

[PyramidHead]

Because the painting is a fetishized commodity that rich people use to display their wealth, and is not priced according to how much labor it took to create. In other words, it's a rip-off.


Because the value of sports in society has been displaced from the effort it takes to play them, and is primarily derived from the usefulness they serve as vehicles for advertising. In other words, basketball players are grossly overpaid.


In principle, there's an amount of labor time that, on average, any given thing will take to produce under average conditions using whatever resources are available. You might recall this from my previous post. Things that take longer tend to cost more, and when innovations are created that make them take less labor time, the price tends to drop. When conditions make it so that it takes more labor time to produce the same thing, such as when there is a shortage of something required to use the innovation, price tends to climb again. It's not the whole picture, because the theory is not an explanation of price but of value, which itself is only a basis or starting point for price.

Why can Tiger Woods get paid millions of dollars to play a round of golf and I have to pay someone else $100?

Because he's fucking exorbitantly, absurdly overpaid, and the theory of value that lets you say that and show why it's true is mine, not yours. Yours is the one that silences any notion that Tiger Woods shouldn't have as much money as a small town just because he's a womanizing golfer.

Well, I guess it's observable that it's not the hours of labor that matter, so let's take actual labor and mutliple it by a special bumfuckle factor to keep the argument in tact!. But, since "special bumfuckle factor" doesn't sound like economics, let's call it "socially necessary" instead.

I bet you've read the covers of so many books on Marxian economics.

Ah, so things stubbornly refuse to cost what they're supposed to in your theories.

The real world just doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

But we can still be sure the theories are good.

Since the theory in question isn't supposed to explain how much everything costs I guess we can. It strikes me as funny that you think offering examples of celebrity golfers and art museum pieces being exorbitantly overpriced relative to their labor input refutes the guy who wrote volumes about prices and wages not reflecting labor input under capitalism. That was kind of his theme song.

 

[dismal]

Because the painting is a fetishized commodity that rich people use to display their wealth, and is not priced according to how much labor it took to create. In other words, it's a rip-off.


Because the value of sports in society has been displaced from the effort it takes to play them, and is primarily derived from the usefulness they serve as vehicles for advertising. In other words, basketball players are grossly overpaid.


In principle, there's an amount of labor time that, on average, any given thing will take to produce under average conditions using whatever resources are available. You might recall this from my previous post. Things that take longer tend to cost more, and when innovations are created that make them take less labor time, the price tends to drop. When conditions make it so that it takes more labor time to produce the same thing, such as when there is a shortage of something required to use the innovation, price tends to climb again. It's not the whole picture, because the theory is not an explanation of price but of value, which itself is only a basis or starting point for price.


Because he's fucking exorbitantly, absurdly overpaid, and the theory of value that lets you say that and show why it's true is mine, not yours. Yours is the one that silences any notion that Tiger Woods shouldn't have as much money as a small town just because he's a womanizing golfer.

Well, I guess it's observable that it's not the hours of labor that matter, so let's take actual labor and mutliple it by a special bumfuckle factor to keep the argument in tact!. But, since "special bumfuckle factor" doesn't sound like economics, let's call it "socially necessary" instead.

I bet you've read the covers of so many books on Marxian economics.

Ah, so things stubbornly refuse to cost what they're supposed to in your theories.

The real world just doesn't seem to want to cooperate.

But we can still be sure the theories are good.

Since the theory in question isn't supposed to explain how much everything costs I guess we can. It strikes me as funny that you think offering examples of celebrity golfers and art museum pieces being exorbitantly overpriced relative to their labor input refutes the guy who wrote volumes about prices and wages not reflecting labor input under capitalism. That was kind of his theme song.

How much does the theory in question say a Beyonce song is worth?

A Britney Spears CD?

How about a pound of Asparagus?

A bottle of water?

 

[untermensche]

Not an inconsistency.

You merely point out a meaningless point.

The value is what they pay.

Not what they think.

I am not saying the value is related to the labor.

So the water-diamond paradox is not applicable. A stupidity to even mention it.

OK, carry on being ignorant. Certainly not the first time you've been accused of missing the last 180 years of progress in economic thought.

What is ignorant is talking about the water-diamond paradox in response to exchange value arguments.

It is a response to labor value arguments.

 

[untermensche]

How much does the theory in question say a Beyonce song is worth?

A Britney Spears CD?

How about a pound of Asparagus?

A bottle of water?

There can be personal value. Like a person who values their Donald trump autograph.

And there can be extreme value based on survival needs like a person in a desert without water.

But the value that matters in a thread about economic theory, and the only value that is every really known, is what a person is willing to pay for that bottle of water when there are many other sources of water. In the real world.

 

[dismal]

How much does the theory in question say a Beyonce song is worth?

A Britney Spears CD?

How about a pound of Asparagus?

A bottle of water?

There can be personal value. Like a person who values their Donald trump autograph.

And there can be extreme value based on survival needs like a person in a desert without water.

But the value that matters in a thread about economic theory, and the only value that is every really known, is what a person is willing to pay for that bottle of water when there are many other sources of water. In the real world.

So, it sounds like you're saying value is personal, subjective and contextual.

This is generally the conclusion people who observe reality come away with.

This may be a first for you, however.

Economists refer to this as "the subjective theory of value". It's based on the idea that value of any given thing is not intrinsic but personal, subjective and contextual.

Price, on the other hand, it established by the marginal buyer and seller. Lots of buyers value the item more than its price. They enjoy a consumer surplus by buying at the price. The marginal buyer values the item equal to its price and is approximately indifferent. If you value the item less than its price you don't buy it.