Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The LTV and marginalism compatible?

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:07:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been reading "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Kevin Carson (definitely recommended). One of the main objectives of the book is to defend a recasting of the labor theory of value in light of the marginalist revolution and taking into account Bohm-Bawerk's polemical criticism of it.

In the book Carson makes the claim that marginalism doesn't actually refute the LTV as most economists think, but actually complements it by providing the mechanism by which one observes labor costs in value (prices).

Chapter 2 of the book is pretty long and not entirely theoretical (he mostly just attacks Bohm-Bawerk's various refutations). But he does eventually recast the LTV in marginalist context. For the sake of not forcing readers to read the entire chapter to formulate the theory, I'll just post a quote below by Carson in an interview explaining it.

"I think the Austrians also, for the most part, exaggerate the extent to which marginalism/subjectivism is a radical departure from classical labor and cost theories. It's closer to the truth to say that marginalism provides a mechanism for explaining the tendency that Ricardo et al described. The marginalist/subjectivist claim that "utility determines value" is true in a technical sense, if you add the qualification "at any point in time given the snapshot of supply and demand in the spot market." But it's not true in the ordinary way we use those words. If you allow changes in supply over time to enter the picture, then supply alters until the utility of the marginal unit reflects the cost of producing it--i.e., exactly what Ricardo said.

It makes far more sense to treat marginalism as a complement or fulfillment to classical political economy, rather than as supplanting it."


http://isocracy.org...

Thoughts? Criticisms? On a side note I posted this in the philosophy section rather than economics because the debate over the LTV contains profound philosophical implications i.e., ideas of exploitation, objections to usury, rent, etc.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 5:12:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This post wasn't intended to actually prove the LTV as Carson made it clear that he saw the theory as a priori and simply observable in reality (in reproducable goods). His premise that marginalism and the LTV is compatible only serves to defend the LTV against the claim that the marginal revolution disproved it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 8:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Bump.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 10:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Honestly I just don't think Political Ideologies as they are right now, have any rational content that makes for anysort of progressive discussion. I admit I am a Fool to most of these conception. One reason is they don't Exist. Therefore they are by necessity false.

Secondly I honestly don't know what it means to start deliberating at such a vague and impossible level. I don't even think people under 30 should even be involved, we need to know much more about life, society,people, philosophy in general, and how to earn a hard buck. Even our science of economics to the best of its nature is Crap. Let alone, Kids who know nothing about society, nothing about what is good or bad for it. You havent lived in it yet to have meaningfull or even positive intellectual contrabution to make. FIrst you have to know some basic Critical thinking skills, second A few levels of ethics or moral reasoning, lastly some Blue collar work ethic experience.

Right now you vague and confused set of opinions based on readings of other people who have vague unclear groundless set of opinions were are of nothing impartular. A little more Micro experience to learn how the world actually work, before deciding about how you think others should live their live.

Maybe I have been Fooled And you just happen to be social genious. I Don't claim to know enought about it, to make Good decisions. I have read a Good portion of the literal. But even thought the whole world may believe something I will stick what I think is indubitle. That is I don't care to here any Ideological opintion that is not grounded in any truth. No matter how fancy it sound. "One bold assertion is as good as the Next." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hege
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 11:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 10:06:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Honestly I just don't think Political Ideologies as they are right now, have any rational content that makes for anysort of progressive discussion. I admit I am a Fool to most of these conception. One reason is they don't Exist. Therefore they are by necessity false.

You don't think political ideologies exist? What does that even mean?

Secondly I honestly don't know what it means to start deliberating at such a vague and impossible level. I don't even think people under 30 should even be involved, we need to know much more about life, society,people, philosophy in general, and how to earn a hard buck. Even our science of economics to the best of its nature is Crap. Let alone, Kids who know nothing about society, nothing about what is good or bad for it. You havent lived in it yet to have meaningfull or even positive intellectual contrabution to make. FIrst you have to know some basic Critical thinking skills, second A few levels of ethics or moral reasoning, lastly some Blue collar work ethic experience.

I think I found Sadolite's multi. Listen, completely discounting what someone is saying because of their age is intellectually dishonest at best. If you don't think what I'm saying holds weight then attack what I'm saying. Just saying "hurr durr you're under 30 let the adults speak" is definitely stupider then me simply having an interest in these sorts of things as a teenager.

Right now you vague and confused set of opinions based on readings of other people who have vague unclear groundless set of opinions were are of nothing impartular. A little more Micro experience to learn how the world actually work, before deciding about how you think others should live their live.

So someone who works the fryer at McDonalds is somehow more qualified to discuss marginalism and the LTV then someone who actually gives a sh*t?

Maybe I have been Fooled And you just happen to be social genious.

It's the former.

I Don't claim to know enought about it, to make Good decisions. I have read a Good portion of the literal. But even thought the whole world may believe something I will stick what I think is indubitle. That is I don't care to here any Ideological opintion that is not grounded in any truth. No matter how fancy it sound. "One bold assertion is as good as the Next." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hege

K.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 11:34:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 11:06:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 10:06:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Honestly I just don't think Political Ideologies as they are right now, have any rational content that makes for anysort of progressive discussion. I admit I am a Fool to most of these conception. One reason is they don't Exist. Therefore they are by necessity false.

You don't think political ideologies exist? What does that even mean?

The Fool: I make it clear that I am againts Ideology in the same sense as religiion. IN that there is not grounding or a thing which is THE IDEOLOGY itself. It is just people who share a set of related beliefs. With no more justication then any mythology.

Secondly I honestly don't know what it means to start deliberating at such a vague and impossible level. I don't even think people under 30 should even be involved, we need to know much more about life, society,people, philosophy in general, and how to earn a hard buck. Even our science of economics to the best of its nature is Crap. Let alone, Kids who know nothing about society, nothing about what is good or bad for it. You havent lived in it yet to have meaningfull or even positive intellectual contrabution to make. FIrst you have to know some basic Critical thinking skills, second A few levels of ethics or moral reasoning, lastly some Blue collar work ethic experience.

I think I found Sadolite's multi.

Listen, completely discounting what someone is saying because of their age is intellectually dishonest at best.

The Fool: Firslty I didn't discount you by age. So please refer to what I am saying. And lasty I gave a good account of other aspects .Please stay faithfull to what I read.

If you don't think what I'm saying holds weight then attack what I'm saying.

The Fool: I cleary said the whole situation doesn't hold weight. I said there isn't any grounding for anything. They are Fundementalist claims.

Just saying "hurr durr you're under 30 let the adults speak" is definitely stupider then me simply having an interest in these sorts of things as a teenager.

The Fool: Well don't say it next time. I never did. I The Fool said Live a bit more. In fact I am saying don't listen to what some other person says. I said specifially to get some critical thinking skill for yourself. Don't listen to a bunch of what other people have said. I advocate thinking for yourself.


Right now you vague and confused set of opinions based on readings of other people who have vague unclear groundless set of opinions were are of nothing impartular. A little more Micro experience to learn how the world actually work, before deciding about how you think others should live their live.

So someone who works the fryer at McDonalds is somehow more qualified to discuss marginalism and the LTV then someone who actually gives a sh*t?

The Fool: Now I intentsionally Gave a SET of typical important experiences. And you are trying to give the impression that I said one. And you choose the least important one with the most unlikly reference. Unless you reallly things mcdonalds is the type of important relation the set of things that would help you. As appose Education of ethics, critial thinking.

Maybe I have been Fooled And you just happen to be social genious.

It's the former.

The Fool: That is why I left the option open, I am saying that its hypothetical and I may be wrong. To some people thats a virtue

I Don't claim to know enought about it, to make Good decisions. I have read a Good portion of the literal. But even thought the whole world may believe something I will stick what I think is indubitle. That is I don't care to here any Ideological opintion that is not grounded in any truth. No matter how fancy it sound. "One bold assertion is as good as the Next." Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hege

K.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:29:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 11:06:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/1/2012 10:06:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Honestly I just don't think Political Ideologies as they are right now, have any rational content that makes for anysort of progressive discussion. I admit I am a Fool to most of these conception. One reason is they don't Exist. Therefore they are by necessity false.

You don't think political ideologies exist? What does that even mean?

It means "I don't know what you're on about".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 1:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 5:07:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I've been reading "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Kevin Carson (definitely recommended). One of the main objectives of the book is to defend a recasting of the labor theory of value in light of the marginalist revolution and taking into account Bohm-Bawerk's polemical criticism of it.

In the book Carson makes the claim that marginalism doesn't actually refute the LTV as most economists think, but actually complements it by providing the mechanism by which one observes labor costs in value (prices).

Chapter 2 of the book is pretty long and not entirely theoretical (he mostly just attacks Bohm-Bawerk's various refutations). But he does eventually recast the LTV in marginalist context. For the sake of not forcing readers to read the entire chapter to formulate the theory, I'll just post a quote below by Carson in an interview explaining it.

"I think the Austrians also, for the most part, exaggerate the extent to which marginalism/subjectivism is a radical departure from classical labor and cost theories. It's closer to the truth to say that marginalism provides a mechanism for explaining the tendency that Ricardo et al described. The marginalist/subjectivist claim that "utility determines value" is true in a technical sense, if you add the qualification "at any point in time given the snapshot of supply and demand in the spot market." But it's not true in the ordinary way we use those words. If you allow changes in supply over time to enter the picture, then supply alters until the utility of the marginal unit reflects the cost of producing it--i.e., exactly what Ricardo said.

It makes far more sense to treat marginalism as a complement or fulfillment to classical political economy, rather than as supplanting it."


http://isocracy.org...

Thoughts? Criticisms? On a side note I posted this in the philosophy section rather than economics because the debate over the LTV contains profound philosophical implications i.e., ideas of exploitation, objections to usury, rent, etc.

1) I'd post this in the economics section rather than politics, as this relies in a lot more understanding of economics than philosophy. I understand the implications of it, but the consequences are less important for the classification rather than the starting knowledge of the topic :P.
2) I think that it makes some level of sense, but, as per the subject, some empirical justification is needed, in all honesty, before it can be taken for granted. But the more I read it, the more valued this idea is. I'd have to tihnk about it for a bit to trust my intuition, but it seems quite reasonable.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...