Theories of Value

Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

This.

At 5/18/2011 7:50:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

Would you like some Aristotelian chemistry, or some Young-Earth Creationism to go with your phlogiston theory of pricing?

At 5/18/2011 10:24:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:50:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

Would you like some Aristotelian chemistry, or some Young-Earth Creationism to go with your phlogiston theory of pricing?

He did ask for info on the labor theory of value. That said, the labor theory is so obviously false I don't see how people are ideologically blind enough not to see it. The idea of value being anything but subjective makes little sense.

At 5/18/2011 10:45:03 PM, Grape wrote:

At 5/18/2011 10:24:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:50:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

Would you like some Aristotelian chemistry, or some Young-Earth Creationism to go with your phlogiston theory of pricing?

He did ask for info on the labor theory of value. That said, the labor theory is so obviously false I don't see how people are ideologically blind enough not to see it. The idea of value being anything but subjective makes little sense.

I think most people are just being lazy and they mean labor theory of price, not value. It's still wrong though.

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

the Austrians are posing bullcrap.

Things are valued by the supply and demand. It doesn't get any easier.

If no-one don't wants it, you gots no value.

At 5/18/2011 11:16:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If no-one don't wants it, you gots no value.

But why not when it took so much effort to make.

If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:16:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If no-one don't wants it, you gots no value.

But why not when it took so much effort to make.

If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

Only humans put a value into energy/matter conversions.

At 5/18/2011 11:14:08 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

the Austrians are posing bullcrap.

Things are valued by the supply and demand. It doesn't get any easier.

You are aware that Austrians agree with that, right?

At 5/18/2011 11:14:08 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

the Austrians are posing bullcrap.

Things are valued by the supply and demand. It doesn't get any easier.

Supply and demand determine price not value.

At 5/18/2011 11:27:55 PM, djsherin wrote:
Supply and demand determine price not value.

Price is societal value

At 5/18/2011 11:29:13 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:27:55 PM, djsherin wrote:
Supply and demand determine price not value.

Price is societal value

Loosely speaking, I would agree.

At 5/18/2011 11:29:13 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:27:55 PM, djsherin wrote:
Supply and demand determine price not value.

Price is societal value

And that's determined by supply and demand, which are determined by what exactly? What else but the aggregates of the subjective evaluations of many different individuals? A demand curve for, say, cars, is determined by the subjective value individuals place on a car vs. whatever else they could buy with that money. Some value the car much more than whatever other goods they could get--they'd be the top left part of the demand curve. And others don't really care much about cars, and would only give up a small amount of other goods to get one--they'd be the bottom right part of the curve. What exactly the demand curve for a thing looks like is determined by how many individuals value that thing at the different levels. A supply curve is determined a similar way--but by the subjective values of producers and laborers rather than consumers.

There's already a word for 'societal value' as you call it--price. It's silly to call price value, rather than the individual values that cause the price.

At 5/18/2011 11:25:58 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:14:08 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

the Austrians are posing bullcrap.

Things are valued by the supply and demand. It doesn't get any easier.

You are aware that Austrians agree with that, right?

In fact, it was Carl Menger and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk who pioneered marginal utility -__-

At 5/18/2011 11:43:24 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
There's already a word for 'societal value' as you call it--price. It's silly to call price value, rather than the individual values that cause the price.

Price is average value average (AKA societal)

At 5/18/2011 11:57:20 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
In fact, it was Carl Menger and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk who pioneered marginal utility -__-

Wieser coined the term.

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:16:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If no-one don't wants it, you gots no value.

But why not when it took so much effort to make.

If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

Hell no. As you said supply and demand. Sure the cost to supply the mountain was high, but there isn't any demand.

At 5/18/2011 10:24:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:50:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

Would you like some Aristotelian chemistry, or some Young-Earth Creationism to go with your phlogiston theory of pricing?

"It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been so often said, the proportion between the supply and demand: the proportion between the supply and demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied in a greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration." - David Ricardo

At 5/19/2011 10:45:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:
"It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been so often said, the proportion between the supply and demand: the proportion between the supply and demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied in a greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration." - David Ricardo

Defeat the mountain of shitt example captain quotation

At 5/19/2011 11:02:53 AM, askbob wrote:
Defeat the mountain of shitt example captain quotation

What?

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:16:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If no-one don't wants it, you gots no value.

But why not when it took so much effort to make.

If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

He can sell it as fertilizer.

At 5/19/2011 11:40:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/19/2011 11:02:53 AM, askbob wrote:
Defeat the mountain of shitt example captain quotation

What?

You're quote suggests that the mountain of pooh example should be worth a lot of money (since the "cost of production" was great).

At 5/19/2011 10:45:00 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 10:24:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:50:37 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 7:39:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Does anyone have any suggested reading on the different theories of value. Namely the labor and subjective theories of value?

Labor Theory:
http://www.mutualist.org...

Would you like some Aristotelian chemistry, or some Young-Earth Creationism to go with your phlogiston theory of pricing?

"It is the cost of production which must ultimately regulate the price of commodities, and not, as has been so often said, the proportion between the supply and demand: the proportion between the supply and demand may, indeed, for a time, affect the market value of a commodity, until it is supplied in a greater or less abundance, according as the demand may have increased or diminished; but this effect will be only of temporary duration." - David Ricardo

Price tends towards cost in the long run, but the long run is a simply a tool that rarely is achieved. Besides, costs aren't some exogenous thing. It is ultimately the prices for final goods that determine costs.

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:
If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

"A commodity is a good for which there is demand."[1]

Assuming there is no demand for a mountain of shitt then it is not a commodity and therefore its exchange value is not determined by the labor theory.

It's important to note, as well, that the labor theory deals with the long run and not with temporary fluctuations in prices.

As Marx put it:

"The value of commodities determined by labour time is only their average value....

The market value of commodities is always different from this average value and always stands either below or above it.

The market value equates itself to the real value by means of its continual fluctuations, not by an equation with real value as some third thing, but precisely through continued inequality to itself....

Price, therefore, differs from value, not only as the nominal differs from the real; not only by its denomination in gold and silver; but also in that the latter appears as the law of the movements to which the former is subject. But they are always distinct and never coincide, or only quite fortuitously and exceptionally. The price of commodities always stands above or below their value, and the value of commodities itself exists only in the UPS AND DOWNS of commodity prices. Demand and supply continually determine the prices of commodities; they never coincide or do so only accidentally; but the costs of production determine for their part the fluctuations of demand and supply."

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 5/19/2011 11:59:24 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:
If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

"A commodity is a good for which there is demand."[1]

Assuming there is no demand for a mountain of shitt then it is not a commodity and therefore its exchange value is not determined by the labor theory.

It's important to note, as well, that the labor theory deals with the long run and not with temporary fluctuations in prices.

The long run never occurs.

As Marx put it:

"The value of commodities determined by labour time is only their average value....

The market value of commodities is always different from this average value and always stands either below or above it.

The market value equates itself to the real value by means of its continual fluctuations, not by an equation with real value as some third thing, but precisely through continued inequality to itself....

Price, therefore, differs from value, not only as the nominal differs from the real; not only by its denomination in gold and silver; but also in that the latter appears as the law of the movements to which the former is subject. But they are always distinct and never coincide, or only quite fortuitously and exceptionally. The price of commodities always stands above or below their value, and the value of commodities itself exists only in the UPS AND DOWNS of commodity prices. Demand and supply continually determine the prices of commodities; they never coincide or do so only accidentally; but the costs of production determine for their part the fluctuations of demand and supply."

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...

So Marx thinks value is some objective thing? I don't quite understand what he's saying. In so far as value and price are not the same thing, I agree. But I don't know what his definition of "value" is.

At 5/19/2011 12:27:39 PM, djsherin wrote:

At 5/19/2011 11:59:24 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:
If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

"A commodity is a good for which there is demand."[1]

Assuming there is no demand for a mountain of shitt then it is not a commodity and therefore its exchange value is not determined by the labor theory.

It's important to note, as well, that the labor theory deals with the long run and not with temporary fluctuations in prices.

The long run never occurs.

The ERE never occurs either. That doesn't mean that it isn't a useful construct.

So Marx thinks value is some objective thing? I don't quite understand what he's saying. In so far as value and price are not the same thing, I agree. But I don't know what his definition of "value" is.

Marx distinguished between use-value and exchange-value. When he just says value, he is referring solely to exchange-value. The exchange-value of a commodity is determined by its cost of production.

At 5/19/2011 12:36:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/19/2011 12:27:39 PM, djsherin wrote:

At 5/19/2011 11:59:24 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 5/18/2011 11:18:42 PM, askbob wrote:
If a man spends his entire lifetime pooping in the same place to produce a mountain of shitt, shouldn't the mountain of shitt be worth the cost of the food and the mans time and effort?

"A commodity is a good for which there is demand."[1]

Assuming there is no demand for a mountain of shitt then it is not a commodity and therefore its exchange value is not determined by the labor theory.

It's important to note, as well, that the labor theory deals with the long run and not with temporary fluctuations in prices.

The long run never occurs.

The ERE never occurs either. That doesn't mean that it isn't a useful construct.

I was more or less talking about the ERE, and I didn't say it wasn't useful. But it doesn't explain prices in the real world, only hypothetically where they would be tending at any given period of time.

So Marx thinks value is some objective thing? I don't quite understand what he's saying. In so far as value and price are not the same thing, I agree. But I don't know what his definition of "value" is.

Marx distinguished between use-value and exchange-value. When he just says value, he is referring solely to exchange-value.

Right, so use-value is what he's referring to as "value" and exchange-value is what he's referring to as "price"?

The exchange-value of a commodity is determined by its cost of production.

Meh.