- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Labor Theory of Value
Posted on 12/4/25 at 7:51 pm to kingbob
Posted on 12/4/25 at 7:51 pm to kingbob
quote:
Such is a frequent problem in economics. What metric are you chasing: Inflation, unemployment, GDP, GDP/capita, purchasing power parity, trade imbalance, median income, etc. Are you looking for 5 year period, 10 year, 40 year rates of return? What is success? Can you even trust the numbers you get? How are they quantified? Who is quantifying them? Have their metrics changed from the past? Are they even apples to apples numbers?
You want to get ugly in real life statistics. economics, wildlife/fisheries data, and non-clinical medical studies are some of the worst.
Same drivers. Basically anything involving people that is also managed by people
Also cubbies. Look into structured decision making and adaptive management sources. First part os really important because the "fundamental" objective of anything is usually determined by a person's/groups/agencies values.
Also just to add to this. Most sociological/psychological studies are awful with statistical approaches...and using them correctly
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 7:59 pm
1
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:02 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
In Young’s framework (and in Marxist or neo-Marxist surplus theories more broadly), surplus is not a moral judgment. It’s an analytical description of how production works. Labor creates more value than the wages workers are paid. The difference becomes profit, rent, dividends, etc.
Labor doesn't create value. This is what we're trying to tell you this whole time. The premise is flawed from the start. Structures are horrible if their foundation is weak, which is what's happening here, imo.
Like the poster above said, you're trying to put lipstick on a pig.
There is no "surplus extraction". Businesses wouldn't exist w/o profits, so that paid labor wouldn't exist in the first place. No moral judgements, just the reality.
That said, awesome discussion. Glad you started the threat, Cubbie, and I hope you do extremely well on your dissertation.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:16 pm to stuntman
Thanks for engaging and pushing my thinking, smartman
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:16 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
lot of economics might just be based on the whims of humans at any given moment.
Largely the field of behavioral economics. Univ of chicago
It’s a huge weak spot of those that model based on completely rational actors
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:17 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:23 pm to 4cubbies
You know what I think?
I think you just Huck Finned people in this thread to do your schoolwork for you.
How very capitalistic of you. Bravo.
I think you just Huck Finned people in this thread to do your schoolwork for you.
How very capitalistic of you. Bravo.
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:37 pm to UptownJoeBrown
This thread is ultimately about exploitation…
Academia is kinda stupid. I basically have to regurgitate 50 other scholars’ work and add some commentary, so this thread doesn’t really help too much with that. I think only one person referenced another theorist’s work.
But it did challenge how I perceived Smith’s theory, and Young’s, as well, which is very helpful. I don’t know what I don’t know and I can’t consider what I haven’t considered, so I appreciate the genuine engagement. I honestly wasn’t expecting this much. It’s been humbling. We do have some smart posters around here.
There were some other thoughtful responses I haven’t addressed yet, but I will tomorrow when I’m in front of a computer again.
Academia is kinda stupid. I basically have to regurgitate 50 other scholars’ work and add some commentary, so this thread doesn’t really help too much with that. I think only one person referenced another theorist’s work.
But it did challenge how I perceived Smith’s theory, and Young’s, as well, which is very helpful. I don’t know what I don’t know and I can’t consider what I haven’t considered, so I appreciate the genuine engagement. I honestly wasn’t expecting this much. It’s been humbling. We do have some smart posters around here.
There were some other thoughtful responses I haven’t addressed yet, but I will tomorrow when I’m in front of a computer again.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 9:41 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Largely the field of behavioral economics. Univ of chicago
One of my favorite professors got his PhD in sociology from the Chicago school.
Behavioral economics seems like a cross between psychology and sociology and possibly anthropology.
This post was edited on 12/4/25 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:37 pm to dukkbill
quote:
Largely the field of behavioral economics.
From the link
quote:
Behavioral economics combines elements of economics and psychology
As a statistician this idea makes me hurl.
I can respect an econometrician but not a psychometrician. That's an unholy marriage
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:02 pm to 4cubbies
Quit reading at “she said”.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 11:30 pm to 4cubbies
I got no value from the labor it took me to read this crap and my theory is that you are a few noodles short of a spaghetti Lady SFP.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:19 am to TheePalmetto
quote:
Lady SFP.
The only parallels between me and SFP are that neither of us subscribes to the dominant board fantasies, and we both trigger unhinged reactions by virtue of existing.
We approach arguments very differently, and our values are completely incompatible. SFP has to be seen as the smartest person here. His love language is his alleged IQ score. I have literally never called myself smart here. I honestly don’t evaluate or try to assess whether I’m smarter than anyone here or anywhere else. I don’t have the desire to reflect on my own perceived intelligence or try to quantity it. I’m more of a “If I’m the smartest person in the room, I’m in the wrong room” type. He wants everyone to know that he’s the smartest person to ever walk into any room, including hypothetical ones. He’s constantly performing intelligence. I never do this. I genuinely don’t care if people here think I’m smart or dumb.
SFP gossips and keeps a running encyclopedia of rumors, petty off-board scandals and imagined poster hierarchies. None of that interests me. I don’t keep score like he (and many other posters) do. He seems to want to intimidate people through speculation or reviving old rumors in an attempt to assert some sort of superiority. Integrity is more important to me.
He posts to correct others and demonstrate his superior intellectual status. My favorite discussions are about ideas, during which I learn from others (because I know I don’t already know everything). I am profoundly skeptical of authority and established systems. SFP often defends the very systems I’m skeptical of, particularly economic ones.
I’m also deeply Catholic, which shapes my political views and how I interact with people virtually and offline. SFP isn’t religious afaik. And I have a heart and the ability to value people simply because they are people (created in the image and likeness of God). SFP… doesn’t seem to possess this capacity.
I’m confident that being compared to me leaves a bad taste in his mouth. And I can live with that.
All that said, my toxic trait is sticking up for underdogs so I do find myself defending him from time to time, although he probably would prefer if I didn’t.
/dissertation
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:43 am to gaetti15
quote:
I can respect an econometrician but not a psychometrician. That's an unholy marriage
The arts have successfully co-opted quasi-scientific methods in an attempt to legitimize their fantasies.
It's disastrous especially as these loons are able to lobby policy and provide evidence in court cases with the sheen of science.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:45 am to 4cubbies
quote:
SFP isn’t religious afaik.
He is irrationally terrified of Christians.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 7:46 am
Posted on 12/5/25 at 7:54 am to 4cubbies
Yeah I’m not reading all your internet cross dressing Slow.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:48 am to gaetti15
quote:
Also cubbies. Look into structured decision making and adaptive management sources. First part os really important because the "fundamental" objective of anything is usually determined by a person's/groups/agencies values.
Do you happen to have any specific recommendations? I appreciate the feedback. Statistics is not my area of expertise, so if you happen to have articles or authors handy that you think are useful for understanding structured decision making or adaptive management, I’d be very interested in reading them.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:57 am to 4cubbies
Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Ralph L. Keeney, 1992)
Is the original book. You will find a lot of it is based in natural resource management (not the book, but the applications of the methodology), but it is applicable to any management of resources that are managed by people.
Not shocking for the field you are in, well most dissertation students too.
Seriously, tell your field to value statistical methods and learn about how to appropriately use them in studies.
Is the original book. You will find a lot of it is based in natural resource management (not the book, but the applications of the methodology), but it is applicable to any management of resources that are managed by people.
quote:
Statistics is not my area of expertise,
Not shocking for the field you are in, well most dissertation students too.
Seriously, tell your field to value statistical methods and learn about how to appropriately use them in studies.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:00 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The arts have successfully co-opted quasi-scientific methods in an attempt to legitimize their fantasies.
They value sociology (oppression fantasies) over objective science. Progressives are terrified of natural science.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:02 pm to kingbob
quote:
LTV is not an economic system. It is merely a philosophy of how to quantify the value of labor. It is a flawed metric (as most metrics are) because it fails to account for everything that goes into labor. The number one rule of economics is that no one understands economics, certainly least of all, economists. The second rule is that the further away from the problem decisions are made, the worse those decisions tend to be overtime. Since compounding interest is the most powerful mathematical force over time, little inefficiencies created by central planning tend to add up to a LOT over time. Math is why communism straight up doesn't work. Owning everything in common requires for unilateral decision-making and unilateral buy in (both impossible) and requires for the decision maker to be both benevolent (while providing no incentives for them to be so) and competent (with overwhelming evidence showing that competence at scale is simply impossible).
If human beings were inherently good and incorruptible, central planners would be exactly as good as the economic data they're fed. However, because economic data is inherently difficult to ascertain, has too many interconnected metrics to easily zero in on just one or two to focus on to get the real picture, and is only as good as the imperfect people compiling it, central planners will always suck. The result is that central planners do what benefits them the most or at least what keeps them in their job the longest, that more often means corruption and partisanship more so than competency.
It turns out that some things just work better when you don't f&%k with them too much and just let people do their thing.
I am enjoying your perspective and appreciate your engagement.
You’re mixing several misunderstandings and ending up with conclusions that your own premises don’t support.
LTV isn’t a “metric.” It’s a framework for explaining how surplus value is extracted
You say economic data is unreliable, economists don’t understand economics, and metrics are hopeless. But then you claim absolute certainty about which system “works” and which system “fails.” Wouldn't the same unreliable data need to be used to prove your preferred model is superior?
Your critique of central planning is that people are flawed and information is imperfect. But markets run on the same flawed people and the same imperfect information.
And if people are as self-interested and corruptible as you describe, “just let everyone do their thing” would not magically produce better outcomes.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:05 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Ralph L. Keeney, 1992)
Is the original book. You will find a lot of it is based in natural resource management (not the book, but the applications of the methodology), but it is applicable to any management of resources that are managed by people.
Thanks. I appreciate the lead.
I hope I can understand it.
quote:
Seriously, tell your field to value statistical methods and learn about how to appropriately use them in studies.
Ummm... I'm in a doctoral program. It's run by academics who already know everything.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 12:07 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News