Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply

[Federalist]

Read Smith, Ricardo or Marx and then come back.

The price of a good is NOT a function of the labor used to produce that good.

The degree to which a person values a good is NOT a function of the labor used to produce that good.

 

[Xerographica]

The government, because it initiates aggression*, doesn't let me choose where my money goes. It takes my money by force.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass, damage, or taking of something owned by another.

But what is the rationale behind the government's aggression?

 

[Xerographica]

Read Smith, Ricardo or Marx and then come back.

"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." - Henry David Thoreau

Is this the LTV?

 

[Federalist]

But what is the rationale behind the government's aggression?

Perhaps that initiation of aggression* is a means to ends they value?

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass, damage, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[Xerographica]

Perhaps that initiation of aggression* is a means to ends they value?

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass, damage, or taking of something owned by another.

What ends do they value?

 

[Federalist]

What ends do they value?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[Xerographica]

You'd have to ask them.

So you're against government aggression...but you don't know why the government engages in aggression? If you really wanted to end government aggression...then wouldn't it be necessary to understand why the government engages in aggression in the first place?

 

[Federalist]

So you're against government aggression...but you don't know why the government engages in aggression? If you really wanted to end government aggression...then wouldn't it be necessary to understand why the government engages in aggression in the first place?

I'm not sure I need to know that really. How will that help me?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Of coarse they recognize that people act using means to achine an ends, so asking "why would labor time make someone choose to spend their money one where over another" is a nonsensicle question.



You obviously didn't read it property.

Where does it say that Value in the LTV is unmeasurable? It says it's measured by socially necessary labor time.

You know what you DEFINATELY cannot measure? Subjective sentimental value.

Something else you DEFINITELY cannot measure? Socially necessary labor time.

 

[FederalRepublic]

The market ... If I really really really like a hat and you just like a hat enough to buy it, WE ARE BOTH GONNA PAY THE SAME PRICE.

Not if it's the last hat left...

 

[Xerographica]

I'm not sure I need to know that really. How will that help me?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

If you don't know the rationale behind government aggression then you'll never strike the root. All your argument will boil down to is that liberals are morally inferior.

 

[Federalist]

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau

If you don't know the rationale behind government aggression then you'll never strike the root.

I suppose it depends upon what one considers to striking the root to be, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'll never strike the root.

All your argument will boil down to is that liberals are morally inferior.

No, that's not my argument. I don't claim that liberals are morally inferior. I claim that it is wrong to initiate aggression*. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of supporting policies that do that.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[Xerographica]

I suppose it depends upon what one considers to striking the root to be, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I'll never strike the root.

I don't think you can ever defeat your opponent if you don't understand their argument.

No, that's not my argument. I don't claim that liberals are morally inferior. I claim that it is wrong to initiate aggression*. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of supporting policies that do that.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

So both liberals and conservatives support government aggression...but that doesn't make them morally inferior? If they aren't morally inferior...then why are you hitting them with a moral argument?

 

[Federalist]

I don't think you can ever defeat your opponent if you don't understand their argument.

I'd be happy to understand their argument. What is it?

So both liberals and conservatives support government aggression...but that doesn't make them morally inferior? If they aren't morally inferior...then why are you hitting them with a moral argument?

You are the one who keeps using the term "morally inferior". I've never used that term.

My position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression* against one's fellow man. If you want to try to convince me that the initiation of violence is ethically justified, please feel free to put forth your argument.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

 

[RGacky3]

The price of a good is NOT a function of the labor used to produce that good.

The degree to which a person values a good is NOT a function of the labor used to produce that good.

The price of a good is NOT a funtion of the degree to which a person values a good.

THe price of a good is partially a function of the socially necessary labor time that it requires.

Read Ricardo, Smith and Marx on this.

 

[RGacky3]

"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." - Henry David Thoreau

Is this the LTV?

I don't know, I don't know what he was talking about what the conetxt was and so on.

 

[RGacky3]

Something else you DEFINITELY cannot measure? Socially necessary labor time.

Of coarse you can ...

Not if it's the last hat left...

In which case you have an extreme supply/Demand inequality ... have you been paying attention at all?

 

[Xerographica]

I don't know, I don't know what he was talking about what the conetxt was and so on.

If you know what the LTV is...then how could you not know whether something is the LTV or not? If you know what an orange is...then you know whether something is or isn't an orange. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that you don't know what the LTV is.

 

[Xerographica]

I'd be happy to understand their argument. What is it?

That we're better off when people contribute to the common good.

You are the one who keeps using the term "morally inferior". I've never used that term.

My position is that it is wrong to initiate aggression* against one's fellow man. If you want to try to convince me that the initiation of violence is ethically justified, please feel free to put forth your argument.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

Why would I bother trying to argue that violence is ethically justified? I might as well argue that Richard D. James is the best electro musician. Ethics, like values, are entirely subjective.

 

[RGacky3]

If you know what the LTV is...then how could you not know whether something is the LTV or not? If you know what an orange is...then you know whether something is or isn't an orange. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that you don't know what the LTV is.

First of all a sentace isn't the LTV ... The LTV is a theory of economic value.

If you show me a sentance out of context and ask me if the guy is talking about the LTV, I'm not gonna know, because I'm missing the context.

I know what you're trying to do here, and I'm not here to play games, I'm here to have serious discussions about economics, not trying to guess what some dude is talking about so that you can try and move it to discuss pragmatarianism, I'm not playing that game.

 

[Xerographica]

First of all a sentace isn't the LTV ... The LTV is a theory of economic value.

What about this?

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. - Adam Smith

Is that the LTV?

 

[RGacky3]

What about this?



Is that the LTV?

Yeah, Adam Smith was talking about the LTOV there, from the weath of nations.

 

[austrianecon]

First of all a sentace isn't the LTV ... The LTV is a theory of economic value.

LTV is and has been a joke in determining "value" for a while now. Because under LTV theory, profits will be higher in labor-intensive industries than in capital-intensive industries and we know this not true. Also Marx coined the idea in Das Kaptial (volume I) ended up by volume III of Das Kaptial to try and explain why his first theory is flawed and how to fix it. Eugen Böhm von Bawerk wrote "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" to show the flaws before most recognized it.

 

[austrianecon]

Yeah, Adam Smith was talking about the LTOV there, from the weath of nations.

Adam Smith clearly wrote that in a primitive society LTV is true.. and once society advanced the market price is no longer proportional to labor cost.

 

[RGacky3]

LTV is and has been a joke in determining "value" for a while now. Because under LTV theory, profits will be higher in labor-intensive industries than in capital-intensive industries and we know this not true. Also Marx coined the idea in Das Kaptial (volume I) ended up by volume III of Das Kaptial to try and explain why his first theory is flawed and how to fix it. Eugen Böhm von Bawerk wrote "Karl Marx and the Close of His System" to show the flaws before most recognized it.

No profits are not higher in labor intensive industries ... because the rate of exploitation is lower, (labor also includes labor involved in the capital). If you're just including labor direclty invovled in the commodity, then yeah, but you have to include labor invovled in the capital.

But guess what, as commodities require less labor to produce prices go down, this is empirically evident.

Rate of profit however is a different thing because it has to do with rate of exploitation.

Of caorse this is only the case with productive industries that produce commodities, not merchant capital or finance capital.

Adam Smith clearly wrote that in a primitive society LTV is true.. and once society advanced the market price is no longer proportional to labor cost.

So did Marx, but market price is derived from socially necessary labor time (not just labor cost, those are 2 very very different things).