re: The Labor Theory of Value

The problem of modern analysis of these either older or at least more quaint economic theories is that the massive, overpowering success of capitalism over the past 100 years (really longer, but really since the war) has muted a lot of these concepts.

Everything exists in relative abundance. And we're on the cusp (at least I believe we are) and even bigger step up in that regard. The rough spots around the edges will be gone in a generation or so - if we can keep the Marxists and Neomarxists from destroying everything in the name of the "worker".

Capitalism is the most successful concept in all of human existence. There isn't even a close second (maybe enlighted altruism?).

quote:

---

And neither equals any objective measure of value, which is why it was an obsolete (or better said, a relatively useless) concept even back then.

---

I think it makes more sense for bartering. Like one dozen eggs = one gallon of milk.

quote:

---

Are you attempting to find a cure for insomnia??

---

I actually thought you might have something to add to the discussion. I thought economics was your wheelhouse. Maybe you're just above novice questions like mine.

quote:

---

so we swim in water with relatively few structural accounts (doesn't have to be LTV), creating this space where our at-hand explanations for events tend to be agential (e.g. great man history, conspiracism, etc.),

---

Are you open to structural explanations for some phenomena? It's almost as if the powers that be intentionally remove the possibility of structural causes from the common lexicon for some reason...

quote:

---

Of course ironically you can come up with plenty of CT's for that trend.

---

I fell right into your carefully laid trap.

quote:

---

Bard

---

I always smile when I see you replied to one of my threads

quote:

---

It sounds like you're seeing LTV's "Value" as just a placeholder for "Price." LTV sees Value (total socially necessary abstract labor time embodied in the commodity) as a component of Price, but not Price itself.

---

Yep. I considered "value" to be synonymous with "price."

quote:

---

Marx saw that as the Capitalist system but he went a step further and imagined his utopia as having a worker's time qualified into a sort of labor certificate which could be exchanged for goods of equal Value

---

Isn't that what currency is?

quote:

---

I'm not sure it's even philosophically useful other than in hindsight to see how our understanding of economics has grown over time.

---

I agree with this.

quote:

---

Why is applying the market value of rent an injustice?

---

It's not. The injustice or unfairness is that the elderly tenant on a fixed income can no longer afford the rent.

I'm not using this hypothetical to make an argument for what should or shouldn't be allowed to happen. I'm just using it to illustrate Young's concept of structural injustices.

quote:

---

I’ve been reading Iris Marion Young’s Five Faces of Oppression (Exploitation, Marginalization, Powerlessness, Cultural Imperialism, Violence).

---

Stop wasting your life.

quote:

---

Well..you're assigning a Marxist lens to Smith's quote here, instead of viewing this quote in the context of the overarching message of the WON,

---

Absolutely. I just read like one paragraph to analyze, not the entire book. It appears that his LVT almost goes against his other more prominent theories.

quote:

---

Yet, Smith still struggled with the concept of human preferences, which he determined to be the exchange value and the use value. He writes about it diamond-water paradox:

"The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called ‘value in use:’ the other, ‘value in exchange.’ The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful that water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."

---

Thanks for adding this to the discussion. I don't recall ever learning or thiking about the diamond-water paradox.

quote:

---

That's not an injustice. It's not desirable, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it's unfair or unjust

---

Concepts of "fairness" and "justice" are too subjective to ever be universally agreed upon.

quote:

---

There are all sorts of things that people want that they can't afford.

---

Reducing an elderly person's housing to something "people want that they can't afford" is a bit disingenuous. I'm hoping there are very few people out there who would feel good about this happening.

Of course, recognizing that it sucks for the elderly person isn't the same as believing some intervention should be put in place to ensure that rents are never raised again.

quote:

---

It never made sense ever. Value is subjective. That's literally the only thing you need to understand that the LTV is total horse shite.

But, the LTV makes a whole lot of people believe they are being "oppressed" by the "bourgeoisie", so it will unfortunately stay popular among a large portion of society, because they prefer to judge things based on emotions, specifically envy, over understanding basic economics.

---

Again, I must point out again that the Father of Capitalism, Adam Smith, came up with this theory.