The Labor Theory of Value
G*rd*n
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| ...
| The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
| of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
| value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
| judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
| or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
| objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
| that standard, so the point is moot.
| ...
I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
molecules are unpredictable.
There something more interesting here. If value, including
exchange value, is "subjective", and we observe coherent values
in a market (as opposed to totally random behavior), then
something subjective must be controlling the exchange values,
and this subjectivity of the market participants must be a
sort of group or communal subjectivity. Yet few individuals
I know of mention the experience of group subjectivity, and
those that do are talking about religious or mystical experiences,
not buying and selling; so we have a hypothetical construct
with no direct evidence of its existence -- _group_mind_. This
isn't economics; I think John Lennon's phrase "guru voodoo"
more aptly describes it.
I find it hard to believe that men with such big reputations
could propose such silly objections as those you attribute to
them. Surely you've left something out? There may well be
telling objections to a labor theory of value, but the
supposedly impregnable subjectivity of value sure isn't one
of them.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/17/02 <-adv't
ro...@telus.net
>kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
>| ...
>| The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
>| of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
>| value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
>| judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
>| or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
>| objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
>| that standard, so the point is moot.
>| ...
>
>I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
>applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
>large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
>one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
>a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
>any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
>of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
>observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
>According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
>would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
>and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
>molecules are unpredictable.
That is not analogous to their position. Their position is that the
volume, temperature and pressure of a gas are what they are, and
cannot be predicted on the basis of where the gas came from, how much
gas there is, what kind, etc.
>There something more interesting here. If value, including
>exchange value, is "subjective", and we observe coherent values
>in a market (as opposed to totally random behavior), then
>something subjective must be controlling the exchange values,
>and this subjectivity of the market participants must be a
>sort of group or communal subjectivity.
It is more appropriate to distinguish the different things that may be
meant by "value," according to their underlying nature:
"Price" is an objective fact of reality, the amount a good trades for.
"Value" is the collective judgment of the market in the absence of an
actual transaction to establish price.
"Utility" is the subjective opinion of someone who contemplates buying
or selling a good.
>There may well be
>telling objections to a labor theory of value, but the
>supposedly impregnable subjectivity of value sure isn't one
>of them.
The Labor Theory of Value was conclusively refuted by Stanley Jevons
over 100 years ago. Jevons simply pointed out that LTV proponents
correctly observe the correlation between labor input and price, but
then get the causal relationship backwards. Labor input and price do
not correlate because labor causes goods to be valuable. They
correlate because producers tend to devote more labor to producing a
good until the marginal cost of the labor is equal to the marginal
increment in market value of the product.
-- Roy L
Kevin Robinson
> | ...
>
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
> | ...
> | The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
> | of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
> | value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
> | judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
> | or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
> | objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
> | that standard, so the point is moot.
> | ...
>
> I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
> applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
> large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
> one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
> a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
> any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
> of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
> observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
No, it doesn't. It is an unfortunately mechanistic, Newtonian way
of looking at the world, fine for describing the activities of
matter at sub-light speeds, but not too apt for gaining insight
into living, breathing, thinking human individuals, even when
we are studying them in the aggregate. Think psychology, rather
than physics.
> According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
> would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
> and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
> molecules are unpredictable.
Rather say that one could predict the action of the whole, while
failing to be able to predict that of a particular part. A public
opinion poll will give you insight into the population at large, but
if you try to predict the response of an individual bassed on that
datum, you may fail utterly. Example: an econometrician finds the
average pice of a 1 lb. bermuda onion in my area to be $1.00, He
then asks me what I would pay for one. I respond: "I wouldn't
give you a penny, because I hate the taste of onions."
Now, if I am hired to buy vegetables for a restaurant or supermarket,
then the aggregate opinion of the market about the value of onions
becomes information I can use, even if no bermuda slices are going on
my burger. Price carries information I need, that I couldn't get
any other way, or without efforts that the planned economies have
shown us are probably futile. The opinion of any participant is
subjective, but the aggregated opinion of the market, reflected in
the price, is discoverable. The underlying individual opinions may
even be based on irrationality ("But Kevin, how do you know you
won't like these `sweet' onions unless you try them?") but those
are human beings for you.
Kevin
<snip imputation of "voodoo" to the Austrians.> No need to reply to
straw man arguments.
Robert Vienneau
wrote:
> | ...
>
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
> | ...
> | The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
> | of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
> | value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
> | judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
> | or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
> | objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
> | that standard, so the point is moot.
> | ...
> I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
> applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
> large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
> one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
> a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
> any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
> of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
> observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
> According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
> would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
> and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
> molecules are unpredictable.
Kevin seems to be saying that the Labor Theory of Value is a
normative theory about how prices should be set by somebody,
perhaps a central planner. Gordon is correct, I think, in pointing
out that LTV is a descriptive theory about prices that emerge on
a market. So Kevin's statement makes no sense - or, perhaps one
should say, misrepresents the theory.
The bit about Austrian economists is problematic too.
"The Austrian and the Anglo-American schools and the school
of Lausanne...differ only in their mode of expressing the
same fundamental idea and...they are divided more by their
terminology and by peculiarities of presentation than by the
substance of their teachings."
-- L. Mises (1933, quoted by Israel Kirnzer in the New Palgrave)
The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
in some sense. The Austrians cited by Kevin are dated; the
classical theory of value has been reborn in the works of
Sraffa, in Leontief, and in what some economists are making of
von Neumann. Leontief showed a classical theory of value can
be useful in applied and empirical work.
I think of the most discussed problem with the LTV to be a
straightforward bit of mathematics:
http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html
#Transformation1
And I think of the patterns that classical value theory was intended
to explain as put forth succintly by Marx in a letter to Kugelmann:
http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html#Capit
alism5
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
John Weatherby
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-
> The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
> economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
> rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
> in some sense.
So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or do you
believe they got it wrong? This is almost a prepostorous statement. The only
thing reason why you might say this is the discussions of Smith and Ricardo
or the subject of natural prices and market prices. Even at that I am not
surely that would mean they saw value as objective. Prices as were seen as
objective but neither argued that the price necessarily represented the true
value of the good. In fact both argued a good's price could be very
different from the value.
>http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html#Capit
> alism5
Why is that the last line of your links do not show up as hypertext?
John
G*rd*n
| So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or do you
| believe they got it wrong? This is almost a prepostorous statement. The only
| thing reason why you might say this is the discussions of Smith and Ricardo
| or the subject of natural prices and market prices. Even at that I am not
| surely that would mean they saw value as objective. Prices as were seen as
| objective but neither argued that the price necessarily represented the true
| value of the good. In fact both argued a good's price could be very
| different from the value.
Emergent phenomena, like the pressure of a gas, are generally
held to be "objective", even though one might argue that they
are constructed mentally, because if it is measured in the same
way, it appears to be the same to all observers. In the same
way, the exchange value of a commodity can be considered to
be objective.
G*rd*n
definition of value, but the definition of labor.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:34:57 -0400, Robert Vienneau
<rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
> Kevin seems to be saying that the Labor Theory of Value is a
> normative theory about how prices should be set by somebody,
> perhaps a central planner. Gordon is correct, I think, in
> pointing out that LTV is a descriptive theory about prices that
> emerge on a market.
Marx's theory of value is normative. No relation to the
descriptive theory of Ricardo.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8C/uqkJ13iPkihXwfH/lSQG5Nt7+EA4IMAb/+urz
2dTQ30eE2m4Y7mIsj2/yoJTXXj/3X/sp7gqwtU+XL
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
>applies to commodities traded in a market, ...
No matter how often you point out something it is like a
baby pointing at the sky. Value is a subjective phenomenon.
>There something more interesting here. If value, including
>exchange value, is "subjective", and we observe coherent values
>in a market (as opposed to totally random behavior), then
>something subjective must be controlling the exchange values,
>and this subjectivity of the market participants must be a
>sort of group or communal subjectivity. Yet few individuals
>I know of mention the experience of group subjectivity, and
>those that do are talking about religious or mystical experiences,
>not buying and selling; ...
No discussion of buying and selling is about subjective
value; it is about objective price.
> .... so we have a hypothetical construct
>with no direct evidence of its existence -- _group_mind_. This
>isn't economics; I think John Lennon's phrase "guru voodoo"
>more aptly describes it.
If you would think about what you write, you might begin to
get the idea of value as subjective. You are hung up on
Marx's dialectical materialism (which was his erroneous
attempt to explain mystical phenomena). You think that if
you conceive value as objective phenomenon it must be
objective. _All_ of our concepts (including value) are
products of our imagination.
Whenever you talk about value, you are talking about
mystical experience. But you are so beguiled by Marx's
dialectical materialism that you can't tell the difference
between what is material and what is mystical. That was
Marx's big problem and why his thinking is bad (other than
because it is authoritarian).
You will never be able to point out a valid economic concept
until you learn to differentiate between objective
(material) and subjective (mystical) when dealing with
objective economic phenomena.
You are intellectually malnourished. Quit sucking the dry
tit of Marxist ideology.
Bernard Curry
************************************************************************
The eternal vigil that is the price of liberty is a vigil against
authority that begins within ourselves as individuals and within
the groups to which we belong.--Bernard Curry
************************************************************************
Email : bc...@rovin.net
******************************************************
Mark Monson
Another way to say it is that the exchange value of a good is set not by the labor expended in its production, but by the labor saved by its purchase.
--
Mark Monson
"To drop a man in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and tell him
he is at liberty to walk ashore, would not be more bitter irony
than to place a man where all the land is appropriated as the
property of other people and to tell him that he is a free man,
at liberty to work for himself and to enjoy his own earnings."
--Henry George, Social Problems.
http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp10.html#p-20
G*rd*n
I find your reasoning pretty opaque. How do you define
_objective_? I think of it as that which is perceivable and
true for all (or most) observers -- for example, the
positions of the satellites of Jupiter at a given time. We
can't know with absolute certainty whether they even exist,
much less occupy a particular position at a particular time,
but as the world seems to work in such a way that we can not
only observe them reliably but even measure the observations
down to an impressive precision, I think we can accept their
existence and behavior as "objective". Is this what you're
talking about, or do you have some other meaning for
_objective_ in mind?
G*rd*n
| > Kevin seems to be saying that the Labor Theory of Value is a
| > normative theory about how prices should be set by somebody,
| > perhaps a central planner. Gordon is correct, I think, in
| > pointing out that LTV is a descriptive theory about prices that
| > emerge on a market.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| Marx's theory of value is normative. No relation to the
| descriptive theory of Ricardo.
How can it be normative if he proposes to do away with
markets?
James A. Donald
Robert Vienneau
> > > Kevin seems to be saying that the Labor Theory of Value is a
> > > normative theory about how prices should be set by somebody,
> > > perhaps a central planner. Gordon is correct, I think, in
> > > pointing out that LTV is a descriptive theory about prices
> > > that
> >| > emerge on a market.
James A. Donald
> > Marx's theory of value is normative. No relation to the
> > descriptive theory of Ricardo.
G*rd*n
> How can it be normative if he proposes to do away with markets?
It is normative because he proposes to do away with markets. It
is not a description of what does happen, but a program for what
should happen. It only "describes" actual acts in the sense of
giving a moral meaning to those acts -- that those acts are bad
because they deviate from Marxi's theory, without giving any valid
predictions as to how they will deviate from Marx's theory.
In so far as he made any actual predictions -- that as capital
accumulated the worker's living standard would fall further and
further, and so on and so forth, these were mere apocalyptic
rhetoric that did not follow logically from his theory, rhetorical
proclamations that he and his followers both abandoned and
repeated without regard for logical consistency.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bni3lZ0Z+JmOLe1Aq24gRK40BwBok8WXbnb+qFRU
2Fv+he7St26d7LU7jA7LYSu4oz0Bv+Krwgyrq9hjl
Alexander Nekvasil
> Whenever you talk about value, you are talking about
> mystical experience.
Prove that.
Alexander Nekvasil
> --
> Robert Vienneau
> > > > Kevin seems to be saying that the Labor Theory of Value is a
> > > > normative theory about how prices should be set by somebody,
> > > > perhaps a central planner. Gordon is correct, I think, in
> > > > pointing out that LTV is a descriptive theory about prices
> > > > that
> > >| > emerge on a market.
>
> James A. Donald
> > > Marx's theory of value is normative. No relation to the
> > > descriptive theory of Ricardo.
>
> G*rd*n
> > How can it be normative if he proposes to do away with markets?
James A. Donald:
> It is normative because he proposes to do away with markets. It
> is not a description of what does happen, but a program for what
> should happen.
JM Keynes:
The celebrated _optimism_ of traditional economic
theory, which has led to economists being looked
upon as _Candides_, who having left the world for
the cultivation of their garden, teach that all is
for the best in the best of possible worlds provided
we will let well alone, [...]
It may well be that the classical theory represents
the way in which we should like our Economy to
behave. But to assume that it actually does so is
to assume our difficulties away.
_General_Theory_, ch.3.
James A. Donald:
> It only "describes" actual acts in the sense of
> giving a moral meaning to those acts -- that those acts are bad
> because they deviate from Marxi's theory, without giving any valid
> predictions as to how they will deviate from Marx's theory.
>
> In so far as he made any actual predictions -- that as capital
> accumulated the worker's living standard would fall further and
> further, and so on and so forth, these were mere apocalyptic
> rhetoric that did not follow logically from his theory, rhetorical
> proclamations that he and his followers both abandoned and
> repeated without regard for logical consistency.
JM Keynes:
But although the doctrine itself has remained
unquestioned by orthodox economists up to a late
date, its signal failure for purposes of scientific
prediction has greatly impaired, in the course of
time, the prestige of its practitioners. For
professional economists, after Malthus, were
apparently unmoved by the lack of correspondence
between the results of their theory and the facts of
observation;--a discrepancy which the ordinary man
has not failed to observe [...]
Ibidem.
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
Snipped
>I find your reasoning pretty opaque. How do you define
>_objective_?
"Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
conceive it.
or (less precise):
ob-jec-tive (b-jektiv)adj. 1. Of or having to do
with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or
reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an
objective appraisal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
Bernard Curry
>Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
material reality.
And don't play stupid communist word-games by making "value"
a synonym of some objective thing.
Bernard Curry
Michael L. Coburn
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jul 2002 08:53:47 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>
>> >kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
>> >| ...
>> >| The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the
>> >| discoveries of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and
>> >| Mises, that all value is subjective, whether you are talking about an
>> >| individual's
>> >| judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market.
True enough so far. But subjectivity is probably irelevant to the
real question/determination.
>> >| Can an
>> >| individual or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared
>> >| to some
>> >| objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
>> >| that standard, so the point is moot.
The point is not moot at all. The standard need only be mutually
acceptable as a standard by the VAST majority of the people
participating. We do not care what the Cookie Monster might
see as "value". We will not be trading Manhatten Island for
a box of cookies.
>> >
>> >I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
>> >applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
>> >large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
>> >one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
>> >a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
>> >any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
>> >of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
>> >observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
>> >According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
>> >would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
>> >and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
>> >molecules are unpredictable.
>>
>> That is not analogous to their position. Their position is that the
>> volume, temperature and pressure of a gas are what they are, and
>> cannot be predicted on the basis of where the gas came from, how much
>> gas there is, what kind, etc.
Unfortunately, however, the characteristics of gas, (gas being
the basic underpinnings of Hayek, and Rothbard) has little to
do with markets or economics.
>> >There something more interesting here. If value, including
>> >exchange value, is "subjective", and we observe coherent values
>> >in a market (as opposed to totally random behavior), then
>> >something subjective must be controlling the exchange values,
>> >and this subjectivity of the market participants must be a
>> >sort of group or communal subjectivity.
True story.
>> It is more appropriate to distinguish the different things that may be
>> meant by "value," according to their underlying nature:
>>
>> "Price" is an objective fact of reality, the amount a good trades for.
Yep.
>> "Value" is the collective judgment of the market in the absence of an
>> actual transaction to establish price.
Value is the collective judgment of the society whether trades
occur or not. But value as related to economics and markets
is always measured in labor.
>> "Utility" is the subjective opinion of someone who contemplates buying
>> or selling a good.
Pah! Utility is the "good" that I derive from something. Social
utility is the "good" that the vast majority derive from the economy.
There is no way to measure "good" because it is ENTIRELY subjective
and cannot ever be quantified. It is a religious notion. There is
only a way to measure the freedom from labor, freedom from drudgery,
freedom from the real COST of attaining utility/"good".
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/Drudgery_Rate.php
Social utility has been decreasing since the first tax cut for the
rich awarded by Kennedy. It has, of course, gooten much, much
worse under the marvelous thievery of the Republicans and Ronald
Ray Gun, and now W. Yep, all we need do is have another tax cut
for the rich an prosperity will suddenly appear from around that
ever moving corner.
>> >There may well be
>> >telling objections to a labor theory of value, but the
>> >supposedly impregnable subjectivity of value sure isn't one
>> >of them.
A very correct observation.
>> The Labor Theory of Value was conclusively refuted by Stanley Jevons
>> over 100 years ago. Jevons simply pointed out that LTV proponents
>> correctly observe the correlation between labor input and price, but
>> then get the causal relationship backwards. Labor input and price do
>> not correlate because labor causes goods to be valuable. They
>> correlate because producers tend to devote more labor to producing a
>> good until the marginal cost of the labor is equal to the marginal
>> increment in market value of the product.
>>
>> -- Roy L
And here we see the standard ploy to refute all value theories based
on labor because some moron (I suppose Marx) claimed that buggy whips
were worth how ever much labor it took to make a buggy whip.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/rudimentary_labor.php
>
> Another way to say it is that the exchange value of a good is set not by
> the labor expended in its production, but by the labor saved by its
> purchase.
Essentially correct.
>
> --
> Mark Monson
>
> "To drop a man in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and tell him
> he is at liberty to walk ashore, would not be more bitter irony
> than to place a man where all the land is appropriated as the
> property of other people and to tell him that he is a free man,
> at liberty to work for himself and to enjoy his own earnings."
>
> --Henry George, Social Problems.
>
> http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp10.html#p-20
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Robert Vienneau
Weatherby" <jweat...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-
> > The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
> > economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
> > rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
> > in some sense.
> So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or do you
> believe they got it wrong? This is almost a prepostorous statement.
From experience, I doubt Mr. Weatherby understands what I said. At
least, I find it difficult to interpret his question in a way that
is responsive to my ideas.
The Sraffian literature upon which I draw for many of my arguments
is freely available. And the stance that literature tends to take
on the LTV, I think, is clear.
But let's look at some views of Smith that could be right or wrong.
"...In a country, such as Great Britain, where money is lent to
government at three per cent. and to private people upon good
security at four, and four and a half, the present legal rate,
five per cent., is perhaps as proper as any.
The legal rate, it is to be observed, though it ought to be somewhat
above, ought not to be too much above the lowest market rate. If the
legal rate of interest in Great Britain, for example, was fixed so
high as eight or ten per cent., the greater part of the money which
was to be lent, would be lent to prodigals and projectors, who
alone would be willing to give this high interest. Sober people,
who will give for the use of money no more than a part of what they
are likely to make by the use of it, would not venture of into
the competition. A great part of the capital of the country would
thus be kept out of the hands which were most likely to make a
profitable and advantageous use of it, and thrown into those which
were most likely to waste and destroy it. Where the legal rate of
interest, on the contrary, is fixed but a very little above the
lowest market rate, sober people are universally preferred, as
borrowers to prodigals and projectors. The person who lends money
gets nearly as much interest from the former as he dares to take
from the latter, and his money is much safer in the hands of the
one set of people, than in those of the other. A great part of the
capital of the country is thus thrown into the hands in which it
is most likely to be employed with advantage."
-- Adam Smith advocating a legally mandated ceiling on interest
rates and inventing the theory for which Stiglitz shared
the "Nobel" prize.
"As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular
persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work
industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and
subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work,
or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials...The
value which the workmen add to the materials, therefore, resolves
itself in this case into two parts, of which one pays their wages,
the other the profits of their employer upon the whole stock of
materials and wages which he advanced."
-- Adam Smith explaining that the source of profits is in
the exploitation of workers.
Others have long since noticed Smith's view:
"This view, held by Thompson and many other socialists, that
rent and interest are deductions made by the owners of land and
capital from the full produce of labour, is by no means peculiar
to socialists, for many representatives of the classical school,
for instance Adam Smith, start from the same idea."
-- Anton Menger, "The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour",
1886.
> The
> only
> thing reason why you might say this is the discussions of Smith and
> Ricardo
> or the subject of natural prices and market prices. Even at that I am not
> surely that would mean they saw value as objective. Prices as were seen
> as
> objective but neither argued that the price necessarily represented the
> true
> value of the good. In fact both argued a good's price could be very
> different from the value.
Whatever.
Are natural prices objective, in some sense? Are they labor values?
Somebody serious might have different answers, or at least caveats,
for Smith and Ricardo.
And what is Ricardo saying in this passage:
"Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a
year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year
I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of
1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that
I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per
cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed
1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one
year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour,
but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an
expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it
with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two
commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on
them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds - the other for 2,200
pounds."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Chapter I, Section IV
> >http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html#Capit
> > alism5
> Why is that the last line of your links do not show up as hypertext?
I'm not sure what the question means. Presumably, the answer has
something to do with line-wrapping. I didn't think being able to
hack URLs was any big deal.
Dan Clore
> >On 14 Jul 2002 15:29:00 +0200,
> >Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
> >Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> writes:
> >> Whenever you talk about value, you are talking about
> >> mystical experience.
> >
> >Prove that.
>
> The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
> other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
> something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
> material reality.
You just defined "objective" in such a way that is
impossible to prove that *anything* is objective:
> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
> conceive it.
I hope that everyone understands that this rules out the use
of all empirical evidence.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
Including all my fiction through 2001, and more.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
I've watched the dogs of war enjoying their feast
I've seen the western world go down in the east
The food of love became the greed of our time
But now we're living on the profits of crime
--Black Sabbath, "Hole in the Sky"
G*rd*n
| >I find your reasoning pretty opaque. How do you define
| >_objective_?
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
| mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
| conceive it.
|
| or (less precise):
|
| ob-jec-tive (b-jektiv)adj. 1. Of or having to do
| with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or
| reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
| prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
| Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an
| objective appraisal.
The definition you quote appears to contradict what you describe
as your usage, since it includes terms such as "appraisal",
"present", "observe", "critic", and "object", all of which
involve or describe some kind of mentation. I think you also
said that prices are objective, but prices are generated,
perceived, understood, and considered through mental acts.
(I would call them "objective" mental acts because they are
the same for all observers.)
Bernard Curry
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Then pay attention only to _my_ definition (it is correct).
I answered your question succinctly. I exclude mentation and
any other subjective phenomena.
And quit quibbling. If it helps, use the first two senses of
the dictionary explanation.
I included the dictionary definition to aid you in sorting
your thoughts; to serve as a crutch in your thinking. If you
can't deal with it then don't bother with it. Just pay
attention to what _I_ write. It would help if you also pay
attention to what _you_ write.
And quit sucking that dry tit of Marxist ideology.
Bernard Curry
>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
Snipped
>> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
>> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
>> conceive it.
>I hope that everyone understands that this rules out the use
>of all empirical evidence.
Along with GCF, you've been sucking the dry tit of Marxist
ideology for far too long.
All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
If you can't do any of those things, then it can't be
objective. Try so doing with "value."
Alexander Nekvasil
> >On 14 Jul 2002 15:29:00 +0200,
> >Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> >Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> writes:
> >
> >> Whenever you talk about value, you are talking about
> >> mystical experience.
> >
> >Prove that.
>
> The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
> other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
> something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
> material reality.
Value is a _social_ reality.
Dan Clore
> >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:11:28 -0700,
> >Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Snipped
>
> >> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
> >> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
> >> conceive it.
>
> >I hope that everyone understands that this rules out the use
> >of all empirical evidence.
>
> Along with GCF, you've been sucking the dry tit of Marxist
> ideology for far too long.
You've been making false inferences about other posters for
too long. You're also just plain ignorant. Most Marxists,
and especially Marxist-Leninists, share your beliefs about
objectivity. Lenin in particular churned out full-length
volumes denouncing everyone who questioned your beliefs.
Nice club you belong to, eh?
> All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
> weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
> whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
By none of which can you prove that anything is objective by
your definition. This seems to be difficult for you to
understand, so we'll try to make it simple. You want to
prove that (say) some object has a certain weight,
*regardless of whether we perceive it or not*. You cannot
refer to experiments like weighing the object, since this
only proves that it has a certain weight *if you perform a
certain experiment*. Performing an experiment inherently
involves the act of perception.
This is why modern scientists attempt to avoid statements
about "objective" reality as much as possible, in favor of
operational statements. (An operational statement takes the
form "If you perform such-and-such an operation, so-and-so
results".)
G*rd*n
| >| >I find your reasoning pretty opaque. How do you define
| >| >_objective_?
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| >| "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
| >| mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
| >| conceive it.
| >|
| >| or (less precise):
| >|
| >| ob-jec-tive (b-jektiv)adj. 1. Of or having to do
| >| with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or
| >| reality. 3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal
| >| prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
| >| Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an
| >| objective appraisal.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >The definition you quote appears to contradict what you describe
| >as your usage, since it includes terms such as "appraisal",
| >"present", "observe", "critic", and "object", all of which
| >involve or describe some kind of mentation. I think you also
| >said that prices are objective, but prices are generated,
| >perceived, understood, and considered through mental acts.
| >(I would call them "objective" mental acts because they are
| >the same for all observers.)
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| Then pay attention only to _my_ definition (it is correct).
| I answered your question succinctly. I exclude mentation and
| any other subjective phenomena.
|
| And quit quibbling. If it helps, use the first two senses of
| the dictionary explanation.
| ...
2, "Having actual existence or reality" begs the question, and
it also implies that the mind does not exist; but most of us
experience the mind, so we can throw _that_ out. 1 also
begs the question, because now we have to define _material_.
Are emergent phenomena material?
In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists
without our mind or brain. I think about the best we can do
is say that something appears to be unaffected by what people
think of it, like the orbits of the moons of Jupiter. We draw
this conclusion about the said orbits because when different
people apply the same measuring procedures to them, they come
up with the same results. In other words, what we know of
objectivity is not only a mental but a social experience --
different people have compared their measurements of the same
phenomena and found that they are reasonably similar.
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists
>without our mind or brain.
_You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
Bernard Curry
>Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> writes:
>> The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
>> other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
>> something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
>> material reality.
>
>Value is a _social_ reality.
You are saying that "social" is mystical as is value, and
that both exist in reality.
What you are saying is that there is mystical reality apart
from material reality and that the former includes "value"
and "social." You are correct.
I would compliment you on your thinking, but I don't think
you understand what you wrote.
Bernard Curry
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Bernard Curry wrote:
Snipped
>> All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
>> weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
>> whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
>This is why modern scientists attempt to avoid statements
>about "objective" reality as much as possible, in favor of
>operational statements. (An operational statement takes the
>form "If you perform such-and-such an operation, so-and-so
>results".)
Does your operational statement have a measurable density
either as a liquid or solid? If not, then let me be the
first to inform you that it has no objective reality whether
perceived or nonperceived.
Kevin Robinson
> But let's look at some views of Smith that could be right or wrong.
>
> "...In a country, such as Great Britain, where money is lent to
> government at three per cent. and to private people upon good
> security at four, and four and a half, the present legal rate,
> five per cent., is perhaps as proper as any.
Of course, Smith's support of interest caps is an overhang of the
anti-usury laws, which were based on religion.
> Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
What, you don't have any games emblazoned with swastikas,
you have to settle for the sigil for of the other great,
murderous regime of the 20th C? What wonders the taxpayers
of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
Kevin
Kevin
Constantinople
news:3D321D4F...@columbia-center.org:
> Bernard Curry wrote:
>> >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:11:28 -0700,
>> >Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>> Snipped
>>
>> >> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
>> >> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
>> >> conceive it.
>>
>> >I hope that everyone understands that this rules out the use
>> >of all empirical evidence.
No, it does not. To mention that something exists regardless of whether we
see it, is not to say that sight is useless or to recommend against using
sight.
>> Along with GCF, you've been sucking the dry tit of Marxist
>> ideology for far too long.
>
> You've been making false inferences about other posters for
> too long. You're also just plain ignorant. Most Marxists,
> and especially Marxist-Leninists, share your beliefs about
> objectivity.
I'm not sure I understand Bernard, but I'm pretty sure you don't. Bernard
said value is a subjective phenomenon. Marxists don't. And this was his
central point.
> Lenin in particular churned out full-length
> volumes denouncing everyone who questioned your beliefs.
> Nice club you belong to, eh?
>
>> All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
>> weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
>> whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
>
> By none of which can you prove that anything is objective by
> your definition.
Proof is not necessary. Science is not assembled out of deductive proofs.
Science is some of the best knowledge we have. It follows that it is not
required, in order for us to have good knowledge of something, that we be
able to prove what we know deductively.
Your demand for a proof is a common pitfall. Frequently we see demands for
proofs, as if the absence of a proof demolished the opponent's position.
You would be right if we were doing math, but we're not doing math.
> This seems to be difficult for you to
> understand, so we'll try to make it simple. You want to
> prove that (say) some object has a certain weight,
> *regardless of whether we perceive it or not*.
Does he? All he says is the words "determine its weight". That means: put
it on a scale and read off the result. Weighing something is, as you point
out, not a proof. But the words "determine its weight" make no such claim.
It may be that Bernard has the view that weighing something is a deductive
proof, but his words you have quoted do not express that view.
> You cannot
> refer to experiments like weighing the object, since this
> only proves that it has a certain weight *if you perform a
> certain experiment*. Performing an experiment inherently
> involves the act of perception.
>
> This is why modern scientists attempt to avoid statements
> about "objective" reality as much as possible, in favor of
> operational statements.
Now you're an expert on science? Scientists talk plenty about things
themselves. For good reason - such talk tends to be efficient.
G*rd*n
| >In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists
| >without our mind or brain.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
| you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
| that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
| world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
How can you experience something without your mind?
G*rd*n
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| I'm not sure I understand Bernard, but I'm pretty sure you don't. Bernard
| said value is a subjective phenomenon. Marxists don't. And this was his
| central point.
The problem with his central point is that we don't know
what he means by "objective" -- he seems to be using the
word in an unusual and to some extent self-contradictory
way. For instance, I believe he said that prices were
objective, but just lately he's saying that something must
have physical, material qualities like weight to be
objective. This would rule out prices. Also, I believe he
said that the objective thing has to be completely
independent of perception or knowledge, but if it is, then
nobody perceives it or knows about it, so whatever it is, we
can't talk about it. The measurements he spoke of require
perception and mentation.
When we get these problems clarified then we can proceed to
back to value and see whether it's subjective or objective.
At the moment objectivity seems to have been reserved for
things no one perceives or knows about, so the distinction
(for Bernard) may be a foregone conclusion.
Dan Clore
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists
> | >without our mind or brain.
>
> Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
> | _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
> | you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
> | that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
> | world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
>
> How can you experience something without your mind?
I don't know, but a lot of posters to Usenet seem to have a
great deal of personal experience of such things.
Lee Rudolph
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists
>| >without our mind or brain.
>
>Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
>| _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
>| you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
>| that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
>| world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
>
>How can you experience something without your mind?
This is positively the *last* thread I would have imagined could give me
a Jimi Hendrix earworm.
Lee Rudolph
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
>| I'm not sure I understand Bernard, but I'm pretty sure you don't. Bernard
>| said value is a subjective phenomenon. Marxists don't. And this was his
>| central point.
>The problem with his central point is that we don't know
>what he means by "objective" -- he seems to be using the
>word in an unusual and to some extent self-contradictory
>way. For instance, I believe he said that prices were
>objective, but just lately he's saying that something must
>have physical, material qualities like weight to be
>objective. This would rule out prices. . . .
That doesn't rule out prices at all. Price is the amount of
one objective thing that is exchanged for another. In all
cases price is a thing that has weight. Even if price as
dollars has weight.
Value can not be weighed because it does not exist
objectively. It is a mental (subjective) phenomenon.
>. . . Also, I believe he
>said that the objective thing has to be completely
>independent of perception or knowledge, but if it is, then
>nobody perceives it or knows about it, so whatever it is, we
>can't talk about it. The measurements he spoke of require
>perception and mentation.
That is not what I said and YOU KNOW IT. What I said was
that objective things exist whether we know it our not.
Their existance is in no way an effect of being perceived.
>When we get these problems clarified then we can proceed to
>back to value and see whether it's subjective or objective.
>At the moment objectivity seems to have been reserved for
>things no one perceives or knows about, so the distinction
>(for Bernard) may be a foregone conclusion.
You DELIBERATELY obfuscate what I say. You do it for effect.
You do it because you are communist authoritarian and force
and deceit underlie all of your interaction with other men.
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
>| _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
>| you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
>| that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
>| world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
>How can you experience something without your mind?
For EXAMPLE: Find a rock (one that you don't even know
exists), pick it up, focus on it. Stop all mentation. Just
focus on the rock. As you do you will _probably_ sense that
the rock does not exist within your mind, i.e., that it is
objective. (As a Marxist, however, your mentation will
reject that idea and insist that the rock exists within your
mind.) As you continue to focus on the rock, with mentation
stopped, you will sense its objectivenes. You are then
experiencing the rock as it exists without your mind.
G*rd*n
| >| _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
| >| you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
| >| that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
| >| world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >How can you experience something without your mind?
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| For EXAMPLE: Find a rock (one that you don't even know
| exists), pick it up, focus on it. Stop all mentation. Just
| focus on the rock. ...
That's a contradiction in terms. The act of focusing -- I
take it you mean "pay attention to" -- is a mental act. In
any case, the ability to focus on an apparent object does not
necessarily mean the focused-upon thing exists materially (in
the sense of physically). These are not Marxist considerations,
by the way; people were talking about them in Greece, India
and other places several thousand years ago.
I don't know if we need to work through these very basic,
profound and unsolved problems in ontology and epistemology,
however. The kind of objectivity, if any, which exchange
value is supposed to possess is of the scientific, rather than
the metaphysical sort. That is, something is considered
objectively true if a lot of different people obtain the same
results when they do the same experiment (or, to be absolutely
accurate, obtain very similar results when they do very similar
experiments) -- like Galileo's experiments with gravity for
instance. The force of gravity itself has no weight, duration,
extent, color, sound, viscosity, tensile stength, pressure,
etc., in the tangible sense, but we can infer its existence
and measure its effects through observation and reason. And
since most observers get very similar results when doing
experiments with gravity, we can consider it to be an objective
fact, scientifically speaking. (This was not always the case;
Newton was severely criticized at the time of the publication
of his work on gravity because he seemed to be postulating
action at a distance.)
I suggesting adopting this scientific notion of objectivity,
at least for the purposes of this thread, rather than going
off into the depths of metaphysics.
G*rd*n
| ...
| one objective thing that is exchanged for another. In all
| cases price is a thing that has weight. Even if price as
| dollars has weight.
|
| Value can not be weighed because it does not exist
| objectively. It is a mental (subjective) phenomenon.
A price does not have any particular weight. It's a piece
of information.
G*rd*n:
| >. . . Also, I believe he
| >said that the objective thing has to be completely
| >independent of perception or knowledge, but if it is, then
| >nobody perceives it or knows about it, so whatever it is, we
| >can't talk about it. The measurements he spoke of require
| >perception and mentation.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| That is not what I said and YOU KNOW IT. What I said was
| that objective things exist whether we know it our not.
| Their existance is in no way an effect of being perceived.
I was going by material like the following:
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| ...
| All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
| weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
| whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
|
| If you can't do any of those things, then it can't be
| objective. Try so doing with "value."
You seemed to be requiring tangible physical existence for
objectivity. Many things presumably exist whether we think
about them or not, which do not have weight, dimensions,
molecular structure and so forth, like the force of gravity,
electromagnetic force, the curvature of space (if any),
Planck's Constant, and so on.
So are you now agreeing that tangibility is not required for
objective existence?
G*rd*n
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| > | ...
| > | The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
| > | of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
| > | value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
| > | judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
| > | or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
| > | objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
| > | that standard, so the point is moot.
| > | ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > I have pointed out before that since the labor theory of value
| > applies to commodities traded in a market, presumably by a
| > large population over a substantial period of time. Obviously,
| > one can notice patterns of behavior in a large population over
| > a long period of time which are not particularly evident in
| > any given individual over a short period of time. The analogy
| > of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
| > observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| No, it doesn't. It is an unfortunately mechanistic, Newtonian way
| of looking at the world, fine for describing the activities of
| matter at sub-light speeds, but not too apt for gaining insight
| into living, breathing, thinking human individuals, even when
| we are studying them in the aggregate. Think psychology, rather
| than physics.
Well, it suggests itself to me. In fact, it seems to me you
wind up agreeing with me below. Much of psychology seems
like a collection of Just-So stories and voodoo to me, but I
may be temporarily cranky from having had to read through a
rather lengthy treatment of Sigmund Freud's theories in
order to get at something else.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > According to Mises and Hayek, apparently, quantum effects
| > would prevent us from ever measuring the volume, temperature,
| > and pressure of a gas, since the movements of its component
| > molecules are unpredictable.
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| Rather say that one could predict the action of the whole, while
| failing to be able to predict that of a particular part. A public
| opinion poll will give you insight into the population at large, but
| if you try to predict the response of an individual bassed on that
| datum, you may fail utterly. Example: an econometrician finds the
| average pice of a 1 lb. bermuda onion in my area to be $1.00, He
| then asks me what I would pay for one. I respond: "I wouldn't
| give you a penny, because I hate the taste of onions."
|
| Now, if I am hired to buy vegetables for a restaurant or supermarket,
| then the aggregate opinion of the market about the value of onions
| becomes information I can use, even if no bermuda slices are going on
| my burger. Price carries information I need, that I couldn't get
| any other way, or without efforts that the planned economies have
| shown us are probably futile. The opinion of any participant is
| subjective, but the aggregated opinion of the market, reflected in
| the price, is discoverable. The underlying individual opinions may
| even be based on irrationality ("But Kevin, how do you know you
| won't like these `sweet' onions unless you try them?") but those
| are human beings for you.
So it seems that all value is not subjective, because if it
were, exchange value would fluctuate randomly -- it would not
be tied to any material fact. There would be no way of guessing
whether a pound of onions was going to cost a dime or a thousand
dollars. It would make the restaurant business rather difficult.
But this is not what we observe.
In a way I regret this, because if all value, use and
exchange, were completely subjective, then I could write
weird postmodern rants about how prices were set purely by
power, fraud and illusion, and how everyone was working for
nothing -- absolute slavery. I could add a few references
to Foucault and Lacan and have it translated into perfect,
snotty French by my Martiniquaise friend Christine, and become
another Baudrillard, getting invited to the best parties and
film festivals and being pursued by the most elegant, decadent
_demimondaines_. Alas, it is not to be -- I am too stodgy,
too tied to facticity, and am justly condemned to labor in the
deserts of Usenet instead. I should probably be beaten and
made to write database programs.
Robert Vienneau
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:<rvien-5E12AC....@news.dreamscape.com>...
> > Try
> > http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
> What, you don't have any games emblazoned with swastikas,
> you have to settle for the sigil for of the other great,
> murderous regime of the 20th C? What wonders the taxpayers
> of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
> state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
> paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
By long established Usenet custom, Kevin loses and the thread
is dead.
I have never been supported by the taxpayers of Colorado, other
than through server space. I live in New York state.
I have heard that the Desert Fox was a great military stratageist.
I should hope my tax dollars are funding some study at West Point
of his tactics (as well as the military tactics and strategies of
others). They might even use simulations and war games decorated
with swastikas.
John J. Weatherby
> In article <ya5Y8.94412$eF5.2...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "John
> Weatherby" <jweat...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-
> > > The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
> > > economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
> > > rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
> > > in some sense.
>
> > So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or do
you
> > believe they got it wrong? This is almost a prepostorous statement.
>
> From experience, I doubt Mr. Weatherby understands what I said. At
> least, I find it difficult to interpret his question in a way that
> is responsive to my ideas.
You do know how to read don't you. You stated the best classical economist
rejected the labor theory of value. Just who are you refering to? Neither
Smith nor Ricardo rejected the labor theory of value. In fact they invented
it.
John
Constantinople
news:o5t5jugbinkfva9oe...@4ax.com:
>>On 15 Jul 2002 07:25:23 -0400,
>>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>>. . . Also, I believe he
>>said that the objective thing has to be completely
>>independent of perception or knowledge, but if it is, then
>>nobody perceives it or knows about it,
No, that would be "imperceptible", which is different from merely having an
existence which does not depend on being perceived.
>> so whatever it is, we
>>can't talk about it. The measurements he spoke of require
>>perception and mentation.
>
> That is not what I said and YOU KNOW IT. What I said was
> that objective things exist whether we know it our not.
> Their existance is in no way an effect of being perceived.
Quite. On this point, I understood you easily the first time.
>>When we get these problems clarified then we can proceed to
>>back to value and see whether it's subjective or objective.
>>At the moment objectivity seems to have been reserved for
>>things no one perceives or knows about,
No, as explained above.
>> so the distinction
>>(for Bernard) may be a foregone conclusion.
>
> You DELIBERATELY obfuscate what I say. You do it for effect.
I do have to wonder about that sometimes. I think it has to be on some level
deliberate.
> You do it because you are communist authoritarian and force
> and deceit underlie all of your interaction with other men.
That is a not entirely implausible explanation.
Robert Vienneau
Robert Vienneau
Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:rvien-5E12AC....@news.dreamscape.com...
> > In article <ya5Y8.94412$eF5.2...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "John
> > Weatherby" <jweat...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-
> > > > The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
> > > > economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
> > > > rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
> > > > in some sense.
> > > So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or do
> > > you
> > > believe they got it wrong? This is almost a prepostorous statement.
> > From experience, I doubt Mr. Weatherby understands what I said. At
> > least, I find it difficult to interpret his question in a way that
> > is responsive to my ideas.
> You do know how to read don't you. You stated the best classical economist
> rejected the labor theory of value. Just who are you refering to? Neither
> Smith nor Ricardo rejected the labor theory of value. In fact they
> invented it.
So if I accept Smith and Ricardo as among the best classical economists
and think that they rejected the labor theory of value, why would
I believe they got it wrong?
The Sraffian literature upon which I draw for many of my arguments
is freely available. And the stance that literature tends to take
on the LTV, I think, is clear.
If Mr. Weatherby wanted to say something substantial, perhaps he could
tell us what Ricardo is saying in this passage:
"Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a
year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year
I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of
1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that
I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per
cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed
1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one
year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour,
but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an
expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it
with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two
commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on
them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds - the other for 2,200
pounds."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Chapter I, Section IV
John J. Weatherby
> In article <KoFY8.123407$q53.3...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "John J.
> Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> So if I accept Smith and Ricardo as among the best classical economists
> and think that they rejected the labor theory of value, why would
> I believe they got it wrong?
>
I am not sure. I am trying to make sense of your statement that the labor
theory of value is not associated with classical economics and that the best
of the classical economist got it wrong. Most economist view Ricardo and
Smith as representive of classical economics. The orgins of a labor theory
of value is their work. So that means you either think that they are not
classical economist at all or that even though they speak of a labor theory
of value what they are talking about is something quite different. That is
why I asked what you mean by the statement. You can not answer this in other
way than your usual it is obvious you are moron.
> If Mr. Weatherby wanted to say something substantial, perhaps he could
> tell us what Ricardo is saying in this passage:
>
If Mr. Vienneau wanted to have a serious discussion instead of hurling
insults he would have told us why he thinks the labor of theory of value is
not associated with classical economics or even who he thinks are the best
classical economist who rejected the theory. Instead he makes an assertion
and then belittles anyone who even ask to clarify what he means. I would
have to look at the Ricardo passage in context however I believe it is
refering to a difference in natural price and value. I would have to look it
up and see what followed the passage to see what point he was making. It
ends with saying they have the same labor but two different prices. My hunch
is that the next paragraph explains something as to why this occurs. I would
have to see the next paragraph to determine what Ricardo is saying. Rob has
been good at catching my sound bites in the past, he may have done the same
here.
John
Bernard Curry
>Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Bernard Curry <bc...@televar.com> wrote in
>>news:o5t5jugbinkfva9oe...@4ax.com:
>>>On 15 Jul 2002 07:25:23 -0400,
>>>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>> That is not what I said and YOU KNOW IT. What I said was
>> that objective things exist whether we know it our not.
>> Their existance is in no way an effect of being perceived.
>
>Quite. On this point, I understood you easily the first time.
>
>>>When we get these problems clarified then we can proceed to
>>>back to value and see whether it's subjective or objective.
>>>At the moment objectivity seems to have been reserved for
>>>things no one perceives or knows about,
>
>No, as explained above.
>
>>> so the distinction
>>>(for Bernard) may be a foregone conclusion.
>>
>> You DELIBERATELY obfuscate what I say. You do it for effect.
>
>I do have to wonder about that sometimes. I think it has to be on some level
>deliberate.
>
>> You do it because you are communist authoritarian and force
>> and deceit underlie all of your interaction with other men.
>
>That is a not entirely implausible explanation.
OK _You_ got the point(s). I was not trying to make any
point with the commies on the list. If you read their
messages you can see that what they are doing is deliberate
propagandizing. They are either doing it for pay or because
they expect to work into the job.
That is why you can't get anywhere in a discussion with
them. What I am doing in a discussion like this is pointing
out things for the benefit of readers like yourself.
By following my discussions with Allen, Clore, GCF, Brehm,
Hall, etc., you see effective opposition (mine) to communist
propagandizing. Their messages are unimportant. The more
they write, the more I am able to present a reasoned
response to their deliberate propaganda.
Apparently you got the point (judging by your responses
herein). Responses like yours are my goal. I never expect
anything from them except the crap they post.
One of the interesting things about Marx's philosophizing is
that he developed a rational for the worst kinds of man's
behavior. It can be used to justify any crime. That is why
their societies are Stalinistic
In the exchange I had with John Hall, you can see the
effectiveness of their propagandizing in his concern for
criminals and his idea that there should be no retaliation
against a criminal in excess of the damage the criminal has
done.
That attitude has developed out of the Marxist-communist
attitude that a criminal is not responsible for criminal
acts because, as a product of society, the criminal act is
society's fault. That is just a rational for bestial,
communist behavior that justifies their criminal tendencies,
i.e., the victim, as a peaceful member of society, _should_
suffer.
I appreciate your making yourself apparent. I hope there are
a few more like you perusing the thread. But, I wonder.
James A. Donald
G*rd*n
> >When we get these problems clarified then we can proceed to
> >back to value and see whether it's subjective or objective. At
> >the moment objectivity seems to have been reserved for things
> >no one perceives or knows about, so the distinction (for
> >Bernard) may be a foregone conclusion.
Bernard Curry
> You DELIBERATELY obfuscate what I say. You do it for effect. You
> do it because you are communist authoritarian and force and
> deceit underlie all of your interaction with other men.
One tends to be a poor judge of the clarity of one's own words, so
if one's adversary misunderstands them, this is not automatically
evidence of bad conduct.
However, in this case I, a third party, understood your words
plainly enough, and did not recognize G*rd*n contorted twisting of
your plain and straightforward words, so yes, G*rd*n is lying.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
nINdLipBXdxgDtji2Uf97CrMAGijHxCzQfj2onUL
242Qm38556pZDys5Fq8FSQ0vvGdn0bbPRfA8dIOMX
Dan Clore
> >On 15 Jul 2002 07:10:12 -0400,
> >g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
> >| _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell
> >| you. You live in a mystical world of your own imagination
> >| that does not exist without your mind or brain. It is the
> >| world of Marx's dialectical materialism.
>
> >How can you experience something without your mind?
>
> For EXAMPLE: Find a rock (one that you don't even know
> exists), pick it up, focus on it. Stop all mentation. Just
> focus on the rock. As you do you will _probably_ sense that
> the rock does not exist within your mind, i.e., that it is
> objective. (As a Marxist, however, your mentation will
> reject that idea and insist that the rock exists within your
> mind.) As you continue to focus on the rock, with mentation
> stopped, you will sense its objectivenes. You are then
> experiencing the rock as it exists without your mind.
If all mentation has stopped, then you will not experience
anything whatsoever. What you are doing is *inferring* the
objective reality of the rock from your mental experience.
I'm reminded of the old Zen story:
Student: "Now I get it! That rock there is in my head!"
Zen Master: "You have a large head, to hold a rock that
size."
James A. Donald
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:54:22 GMT, "John J. Weatherby"
<jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> I am trying to make sense of your statement that the labor
> theory of value is not associated with classical economics and
> that the best of the classical economist got it wrong. Most
> economist view Ricardo and Smith as representive of classical
> economics. The orgins of a labor theory of value is their work.
I see no obvious connection between Ricardo and Smith's writings
on value and labor, and Marx's labor theory of value.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8jb5CFsUrGCAG3mkBTa3omoBftyfkl2Kzcl0f8By
2a6zKU40wwQ8hbb32Uvauq4MflTASTBaLF05ZIqwT
G*rd*n
Bernard Curry <bc...@televar.com>:
| > That is not what I said and YOU KNOW IT. What I said was
| > that objective things exist whether we know it our not.
| > Their existance is in no way an effect of being perceived.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| Quite. On this point, I understood you easily the first time.
That is one of the usual understandings of the notion of
_objective_, and what I would have guessed Bernard meant,
but then he said that objective things had to have
physicality, for example in the passage I already quoted
in another message:
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| ...
| All you have to do with anything objective is determine its
| weight, dimensions, molecular structure, chemical nature,
| whether it is liquid, solid, or gas, etc.
|
| If you can't do any of those things, then it can't be
| objective. Try so doing with "value."
Now I'm confused; I don't know whether Bernard is demanding
physicality or not. I think a resolution of the apparent
contradiction is going to require more than verbal abuse
of my intentions.
G*rd*n
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| .... so yes, G*rd*n is lying.
Sputtering does not become you, James. Since you understand
Bernard and me so clearly, though, perhaps you could help him
express himself more clearly to me. I have already posted
one of the apparent contradictions which is giving me difficulty.
I don't want to go into a long, tendentious thing about the
objectivity of exchange value if we're operating off different
premises and definitions. It should be easy to resolve: that
which is objective either does or doesn't have to have physical
attributes like weight, extent, temperature, and so forth.
Or maybe something in between does and doesn't, although at
the moment I'm at a loss to know what that would be.
Michael L. Coburn
> --
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:54:22 GMT, "John J. Weatherby"
> <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>> I am trying to make sense of your statement that the labor
>> theory of value is not associated with classical economics and
>> that the best of the classical economist got it wrong. Most
>> economist view Ricardo and Smith as Representative of classical
>> economics. The orgins of a labor theory of value is their work.
>
> I see no obvious connection between Ricardo and Smith's writings
> on value and labor, and Marx's labor theory of value.
>
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 8jb5CFsUrGCAG3mkBTa3omoBftyfkl2Kzcl0f8By
> 2a6zKU40wwQ8hbb32Uvauq4MflTASTBaLF05ZIqwT
The connection runs like this: The larcenous right, and the
Hayek school of aristocratic ass kissing like to
dismiss a THE proper value theory of Smith by associating
it with Marx. The objective, of course, is to allow the
"economics profession" to be supportive of just about any
theory that might be espoused by the current aristocracy.
Like the current aristocracy in the USA (that aristocracy
that has been in power sing 1980) wants economics people
to be supportive of creating mountains of debt and focusing
on the higher and higher mounds of "financial instruments"
as the indicator of "economic growth". Once we are able
to move away from the true meaning of "value" by proclaiming
it to be a "commie plot" we are free to replace it with
some kind of "utility" horseshit that allows the economics
profession to be infinitely more useful to whatever asshole
happens to be "on the throne".
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/handmaidens.php
Imagine Smith saying to the king "I've found this way
to make everyone richer, but it means you'll need to
clean your own bathroom". Doubtless, the WON would
not be in print.
We seem to have been concentrating
on a different aspect of the lying (the destruction of the
word "capital") a bit too much, and we've missed the word
that is actually at the very heart of the matter.
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/rudimentary_labor.php
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Sputtering does not become you, James. Since you understand
>Bernard and me so clearly, though, perhaps you could help him
>express himself more clearly to me. I have already posted
>one of the apparent contradictions which is giving me difficulty.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Bernard Curry
>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>Bernard Curry wrote:
>> >On 15 Jul 2002 07:10:12 -0400,
Snipped
>If all mentation has stopped, then you will not experience
>anything whatsoever.
Perception continues though mentation is stopped.
> What you are doing is *inferring* the
>objective reality of the rock from your mental experience.
Change "mental experience" to perception and allow enough
mentation to analyze the percepts and you've got it. That's
the way to deal with objective things.
What you _don't_ do is mentate (imagine) value and then
mentate (assume) value is part of the nature of the rock.
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>I find it hard to believe that men with such big reputations
>could propose such silly objections as those you attribute to
>them. Surely you've left something out? ...
No I didn't leave anything out. They did the same as you do.
They add too many subjective ideas (like value) to their
theories. Ideas that never existed as qualities of the
material phenomena.
> ... There may well be
>telling objections to a labor theory of value, but the
>supposedly impregnable subjectivity of value sure isn't one
>of them.
Yes it is.
G*rd*n
| >Sputtering does not become you, James. Since you understand
| >Bernard and me so clearly, though, perhaps you could help him
| >express himself more clearly to me. I have already posted
| >one of the apparent contradictions which is giving me difficulty.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I don't think the case is that dire, though. I just want to
know whether you think physicality is necessarily an attribute
or correlative of objectivity. At one point you seemed to
be saying that -- where you said 'All you have to do with
anything objective is determine its weight, dimensions,
molecular structure, chemical nature, whether it is liquid,
solid, or gas, etc. If you can't do any of those things, then
it can't be objective. Try so doing with "value."'
So is that still your view, or would you now agree that there
are things which do not have physical attributes which are
also objective? Something like Planck's Constant, for example,
or the Law of Gravity. If value is non-objective because it
lacks weight, dimensions, molecular structure and so forth,
then Planck's Constant is also non-objective. Yet Planck's
Constant is the same for all observers regardless of whether
they believe in it or not, or what they think of it, as long
as they perform certain experiments which reveal its value,
so it fulfills your other definition for objectivity.
I wouldn't bother with this point so much, but you made the
non-physicality of value a crucial point in your estimation
of whether it was objective or not (see above), and I'd like
to resolve the issue before attempting to proceed further.
James A. Donald
> you could help him express himself more clearly to me.
If I told you the sky was blue, you would scold me for saying it
was yellow.
I have long ago abandoned any attempt to hold an honest debate
with you, and merely post for the purpose of exposing you, rather
than conversing with you.
> I have already posted
> one of the apparent contradictions which is giving me
> difficulty.
There are apparent contradictions in his words about physicality,
but they are minor compared the contradictions between his words,
and your rendering of his words.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jMNerRp/XYOgvWwkwkf5kr56Bj8ZTqZPED21q2LM
2pOtZQAOQiYxb3l0HOQh4/fdiOvklFjJxZJ+QLW2J
Kevin Robinson
> In article <3be3f335.02071...@posting.google.com>,
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
>
> > Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> > news:<rvien-5E12AC....@news.dreamscape.com>...
>
>
> > murderous regime of the 20th C? What wonders the taxpayers
> > of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
> > state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
> > paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
>
> By long established Usenet custom, Kevin loses and the thread
> is dead.
A "game" that is a sick joke about dead "peasants" v. the steel production
target isn't thread-killer enough? And why is the equally repellent
Soviet regime given a pass in these discussions, while the National
Socialists are considered (properly) so toxic? Special pleading.
> I have never been supported by the taxpayers of Colorado, other
> than through server space.
Server space has become a free good lately? Still a case of "You
eat, I pay." None of those highly fungible federal taxes contribute,
either, I bet.
> I have heard that the Desert Fox was a great military stratageist.
> I should hope my tax dollars are funding some study at West Point
> of his tactics (as well as the military tactics and strategies of
> others). They might even use simulations and war games decorated
> with swastikas.
More likely they'd have the good taste to use an iron cross.
They wouldn't do it in "honor" of the dead general, though.
If people don't want moralistic reactions, maybe they shouldn't cross-
post into groups where their posts are going to attract them.
Kevin
Kevin Robinson
> | ...
> <deletia>
>> | > The analogy
> | > of the movements of molecules in a confined gas, and its
> | > observable volume, pressure and temperature suggests itself.
>
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
> | No, it doesn't. It is an unfortunately mechanistic, Newtonian way
> | of looking at the world, fine for describing the activities of
> | matter at sub-light speeds, but not too apt for gaining insight
> | into living, breathing, thinking human individuals, even when
> | we are studying them in the aggregate. Think psychology, rather
> | than physics.
>
> Well, it suggests itself to me. In fact, it seems to me you
> wind up agreeing with me below. Much of psychology seems
> like a collection of Just-So stories and voodoo to me, but I
> may be temporarily cranky from having had to read through a
> rather lengthy treatment of Sigmund Freud's theories in
> order to get at something else.
You have my sympathy.
I admit to not being comfortable with the terminology (or jargon)
of "use" v. "exchange" value. I tend to think in terms of price,
with any individual being more or less price resistant depending
on how they value the commodity, or even non-commodity good or
service. Different individual's buying or selling decisions make up
different data points on the curve of price elasticity of demand.
The decision making is subjective, even if there are underlying
facts - a rust on onion plants in and around Vandalia, GA, frex -
that will cause temporary "shortages" or "oversupply." There may
be commodity traders writing statistical packages that factor in all
such exogenous effects on the onion crop, and take into account
substitution of competing goods - celery, chiles - but those are
based on assumptions about the tastes of the individuals in the market.
If this was the first time we ever had a bad onion crop, people's
predictions might be all at sea. More likely the onion analysts
have historical data tables about trends of prices during past
good, bad, and normal seasons. At the margin, they'd probably do
a better job predicting the buying needs of McDonalds than of
the nation's 5-star restaurants, because of the larger numbers involved.
> There would be no way of guessing
You could guess, alright, and make an educated guess, but it
wouldn't be a law of nature.
> whether a pound of onions was going to cost a dime or a thousand
> dollars. It would make the restaurant business rather difficult.
> But this is not what we observe.
Actually, the restaurant business is very difficult, with very high
failure rates, if not for just this reason.
>
> In a way I regret this, because if all value, use and
> exchange, were completely subjective, then I could write
> weird postmodern rants about how prices were set purely by
> power, fraud and illusion, and how everyone was working for
> nothing -- absolute slavery. I could add a few references
> to Foucault and Lacan and have it translated into perfect,
> snotty French by my Martiniquaise friend Christine, and become
> another Baudrillard, getting invited to the best parties and
> film festivals and being pursued by the most elegant, decadent
> _demimondaines_. Alas, it is not to be -- I am too stodgy,
> too tied to facticity, and am justly condemned to labor in the
> deserts of Usenet instead. I should probably be beaten and
> made to write database programs.
Again, more sympathy. At least the plea for chastisement calls
forth echoes of that Frenchy, de Sade, and that Masoch fellow.
I think we agree, that when you aggregate the perhaps subjective,
often irrational decisions of millions and millions, statistics
allows you to treat the aggregate as a fascimile of objective fact.
But it remains an estimate, not a reality.
There is no way to defend against an inexplicable change in tastes,
that may be totally subjective, and widespread. That's
why we have manufacturer's factory outlets, where the ridiculous
style choices of last season are marked down, or remainder tables
at bookstores, or cut-out bins at CD/record shops.
Kevin
Bernard Curry
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
Snipped
>>Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
>>There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>I don't think the case is that dire, though. I just want to
>know whether you think physicality is necessarily an attribute
>or correlative of objectivity. At one point you seemed to
>be saying that -- where you said 'All you have to do with
>anything objective is determine its weight, dimensions,
>molecular structure, chemical nature, whether it is liquid,
>solid, or gas, etc. If you can't do any of those things, then
>it can't be objective. Try so doing with "value."'
>So is that still your view, or would you now agree that there
>are things which do not have physical attributes which are
>also objective? Something like Planck's Constant, for example,
>or the Law of Gravity. If value is non-objective because it
>lacks weight, dimensions, molecular structure and so forth,
>then Planck's Constant is also non-objective. Yet Planck's
>Constant is the same for all observers regardless of whether
>they believe in it or not, or what they think of it, as long
>as they perform certain experiments which reveal its value,
>so it fulfills your other definition for objectivity.
All ideas are subjective. Principles, generalizations, laws
(law of gravity), constants (Planck's), etc., all are ideas
and all are subjective. They cannot be weighed, etc. The Law
of Gravity is a subjective idea that man has developed
through a process of imagining and re-imagining -- and we
still don't know what gravity really is.
What you are doing now is confusing objectiveness of
phenomena with truth of ideas. Even the truest of ideas is
subjective as are the most false.
The difference between them is that the true idea is
correct, i.e., it is a subjective parallel, reflection, or
counterpart of the objective phenomenon with which it is
correlated.
The goal in studying things _without_ our minds is to form a
true (correct) idea of them _within_ our minds. The true
idea is still subjective.
>I wouldn't bother with this point so much, but you made the
>non-physicality of value a crucial point in your estimation
>of whether it was objective or not (see above), and I'd like
>to resolve the issue before attempting to proceed further.
Correct. The reality that comprises objective and subjective
phenomena is dyadic. The two components of that reality are
matter and energy. "Physical," objective things are
material. Mental, subjective things are energial.
Our minds proper are energial phenomena. Ideas about things
are energial phenomena. They are an effect of our
imagination (an energial phenomenon).
Things proper are material phenomena. To learn what they are
caused by (an effect of) is why we study material reality.
Energial phenomena (such as imagination) include valuation.
An effect of valuation is value. But value, like truth,
remains an energial (subjective) phenomenon.
The rock (one of gold) does not exist in your head. The
value of the gold rock does not exist in the rock.
That is why Marx's (or any other form) of LTV is incorrect
when used to explain price or to determine what price should
be. Price is an effect of material phenomena completely
apart from value and it can be understood only as a material
phenomenon.
Robert Vienneau
Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message
> news:rvien-311ACC....@news.dreamscape.com...
> > In article <KoFY8.123407$q53.3...@twister.austin.rr.com>, "John J.
> > Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > So if I accept Smith and Ricardo as among the best classical economists
> > and think that they rejected the labor theory of value, why would
> > I believe they got it wrong?
> I am not sure. I am trying to make sense of your statement that the labor
> theory of value is not associated with classical economics and that the
> best
> of the classical economist got it wrong.
Mr. Weatherby, as usual, seems to be making things up. I know of
no place where I said "the labor theory of value is not associated
with classical economics". And I know of no place where I said "that
the best of the classical economist [sic] got it wrong".
Here's my FAQ on the LTV:
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html>
> Most economist view Ricardo and
> Smith as representive of classical economics. The orgins of a labor
> theory
> of value is their work. So that means you either think that they are not
> classical economist at all or that even though they speak of a labor
> theory
> of value
Perhaps Mr. Weatherby can point out where Smith or Ricardo use
the phrase "labor theory of value". Or maybe, as usual, he is making
things up.
> what they are talking about is something quite different. That
> is
> why I asked what you mean by the statement. You can not answer this in
> other
> way than your usual it is obvious you are moron.
> > If Mr. Weatherby wanted to say something substantial, perhaps he could
> > tell us what Ricardo is saying in this passage:
"Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a
year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year
I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of
1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that
I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per
cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed
1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one
year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour,
but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an
expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it
with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two
commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on
them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds - the other for 2,200
pounds."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Chapter I, Section IV
> If Mr. Vienneau wanted to have a serious discussion instead of hurling
> insults he would have told us why he thinks the labor of theory of value
> is
> not associated with classical economics
It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Weatherby asserts that I have
said "the labor of theory of value is not associated with classical
economics". He will still be making things up and be putting things
exactly backwards.
> or even who he thinks are the
> best
> classical economist who rejected the theory.
Well, John Ramsay McCulloch wasn't one of the best.
> Instead he makes an
> assertion
> and then belittles anyone who even ask to clarify what he means.
Mr. Weatherby's is, of course, misrepresenting his own statements.
First, he made up a position for me:
"Do you believe [Smith and Ricardo] got it wrong?"
And this sort of attack is not a simple request for clarification:
"This is almost a prepostorous statement."
And when I just as kindly asked him why he thought I would
believe they got it wrong, this is what he said:
"You do know how to read don't you. [sic]"
> I would
> have to look at the Ricardo passage in context however I believe it is
> refering to a difference in natural price and value.
In other words, Mr. Weatherby is stating that Ricardo recognized
that the labor theory of value is not true (although it is ambiguous
what Mr. Weatherby thinks "value" means in this context).
To summarize. Consider this principle: the value of a commodity, or
the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange,
depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for
its production (and not on the greater or less compensation which
is paid for that labour). This is the LTV. Ricardo rejects that
this principle can apply without considerable modification to
industrial economies.
And Mr. Weatherby now has accepted that Ricardo rejects the
LTV, I guess.
All of the whining in his post, I gather, is to avoid admit
that my "prepostorous statement" was simply correct.
> I would have to look
> it
> up and see what followed the passage to see what point he was making.
Nothing is stopping Mr. Weatherby from doing so.
It appears a section or two after Ricardo has criticized Smith
for rejecting the LTV's applicability to capitalist economics.
Ricardo thought Smith's rejection was based on inadequate grounds.
I think this statement is an important part of Ricardo's
analysis:
"There can be no rise in the value of labour without a fall of
profits...Suppose then, that owing to a rise of wages, profits
fall from 10 to 9 per cent., instead of adding 550 l. to the
common price of their goods (to 5,500 l.) for the profits on
their fixed capital, the manufacturers would add only 9 per
cent. on that sum, or 495 l., consequently the price would be
5,995 l. instead of 6,050 l... The degree of alteration in the
relative value of goods, on account of a rise or fall of labour,
would depend on the proportion which the fixed capital bore
to the whole capital employed."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Chapter I, Section IV
> It
> ends with saying they have the same labor but two different prices. My
> hunch
> is that the next paragraph explains something as to why this occurs.
The quoted paragraphs present the most widely-discussed objection
to the LTV in the literature. At least, I think so.
> I
> would
> have to see the next paragraph to determine what Ricardo is saying. Rob
> has
> been good at catching my sound bites in the past, he may have done the
> same here.
The first quoted Ricardo passage appears in my FAQ as part of the
answer to the question:
"6.1 Why would one expect prices of production to differ from labor
values?"
It has been there long before Mr. Weatherby decided to denigrate
the reputation of mainstream economists by putting himself forward
on Usenet as one, if I remember correctly.
I would be puzzled why Mr. Weatherby says he presents "sound bites"
instead of serious discussion - I would be puzzled, that is, if I
weren't used to his inarticulateness.
G*rd*n
| > Since you understand Bernard and me so clearly, though, perhaps
| > you could help him express himself more clearly to me.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| If I told you the sky was blue, you would scold me for saying it
| was yellow.
|
| I have long ago abandoned any attempt to hold an honest debate
| with you, and merely post for the purpose of exposing you, rather
| than conversing with you.
But I wasn't "debating" in this instance. In any case, your
imputation of insincerity to me may be a significant
underestimation of my capacities and performance.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > I have already posted
| > one of the apparent contradictions which is giving me
| > difficulty.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| There are apparent contradictions in his words about physicality,
| but they are minor compared the contradictions between his words,
| and your rendering of his words.
So what? That just gave you a better opportunity to step
forward and clarify everything. But you wasted it on a
useless excursion into personal abuse.
G*rd*n
| >>There are none so blind as those who will not see.
G*rd*n:
| >I don't think the case is that dire, though. I just want to
| >know whether you think physicality is necessarily an attribute
| >or correlative of objectivity. At one point you seemed to
| >be saying that -- where you said 'All you have to do with
| >anything objective is determine its weight, dimensions,
| >molecular structure, chemical nature, whether it is liquid,
| >solid, or gas, etc. If you can't do any of those things, then
| >it can't be objective. Try so doing with "value."'
|
| >So is that still your view, or would you now agree that there
| >are things which do not have physical attributes which are
| >also objective? Something like Planck's Constant, for example,
| >or the Law of Gravity. If value is non-objective because it
| >lacks weight, dimensions, molecular structure and so forth,
| >then Planck's Constant is also non-objective. Yet Planck's
| >Constant is the same for all observers regardless of whether
| >they believe in it or not, or what they think of it, as long
| >as they perform certain experiments which reveal its value,
| >so it fulfills your other definition for objectivity.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| All ideas are subjective. Principles, generalizations, laws
| (law of gravity), constants (Planck's), etc., all are ideas
| and all are subjective. They cannot be weighed, etc. The Law
| of Gravity is a subjective idea that man has developed
| through a process of imagining and re-imagining -- and we
| still don't know what gravity really is.
|
| What you are doing now is confusing objectiveness of
| phenomena with truth of ideas. Even the truest of ideas is
| subjective as are the most false.
|
| The difference between them is that the true idea is
| correct, i.e., it is a subjective parallel, reflection, or
| counterpart of the objective phenomenon with which it is
| correlated.
|
| The goal in studying things _without_ our minds is to form a
| true (correct) idea of them _within_ our minds. The true
| idea is still subjective.
In that case, it seems that prices are subjective, because
they are ideas in people's minds; but I thought you said they
were objective.
I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
subjectivity, by the way, but I'll go along with this for
the sake of the discussion. I think your definitions leave
a gap between facts or phenomena which are true for all
observers and those which are different for different
observers. It's not filled by the idea of correctness
because, for instance, I might have a dream about which I
had a correct memory, but no one else could perceive it or
know anything about it until I told them.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| >I wouldn't bother with this point so much, but you made the
| >non-physicality of value a crucial point in your estimation
| >of whether it was objective or not (see above), and I'd like
| >to resolve the issue before attempting to proceed further.
|
| Correct. The reality that comprises objective and subjective
| phenomena is dyadic. The two components of that reality are
| matter and energy. "Physical," objective things are
| material. Mental, subjective things are energial.
Energy has weight, though. What doesn't have weight (as far
as I know) yet is materially very significant is relation.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| Our minds proper are energial phenomena. Ideas about things
| are energial phenomena. They are an effect of our
| imagination (an energial phenomenon).
|
| Things proper are material phenomena. To learn what they are
| caused by (an effect of) is why we study material reality.
|
| Energial phenomena (such as imagination) include valuation.
| An effect of valuation is value. But value, like truth,
| remains an energial (subjective) phenomenon.
|
| The rock (one of gold) does not exist in your head. The
| value of the gold rock does not exist in the rock.
But the exchange value of a gold rock might be revealed in a
market. That's the way psychologists get at use-values
stored in people's minds -- they get the people to put their
desires in order, or to balance some against others. With
some ingenuity, one can do this with non-human animals as
well. In a market, two or more sets of desires become
externalized into actual exchanges. In my view, the subjective
crosses the line and become objective, because the facts
of the exchange are the same for all observers.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| That is why Marx's (or any other form) of LTV is incorrect
| when used to explain price or to determine what price should
| be. Price is an effect of material phenomena completely
| apart from value and it can be understood only as a material
| phenomenon.
But it's still not material itself. So it seems to be
subjective according to your system of categorization.
G*rd*n
| ...
| I think we agree, that when you aggregate the perhaps subjective,
| often irrational decisions of millions and millions, statistics
| allows you to treat the aggregate as a fascimile of objective fact.
| But it remains an estimate, not a reality.
But if we observe that certain prices fluctuate around certain
points (or attractors) with considerable regularity, we have
an analogy to the case where physical observations approximate
simple mathematical entities like "f = G*Ma*Mb / r^2" or
Planck's Constant, and we believe we have found objective
physical "laws". (Not objective in Bernard's sense, but in
the sense of being the same for all observers.)
One of the participants in the present discussion once
posted that the exchange relation between bread and gold had
remained about the same since the days of Babylon, which if
true would be a considerable testimony of some kind of
underlying regularity.
John J. Weatherby
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-.
>
> Mr. Weatherby, as usual, seems to be making things up. I know of
> no place where I said "the labor theory of value is not associated
> with classical economics".
You have already forgotten what you wrote. Do you deny writing "> The Labor
Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
> economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
> rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
> in some sense." ?
> Here's my FAQ on the LTV:
>
In which you assert that Ricardo only believed the labor theory of value in
his first edition. I would like to know what proof you have of this. Ricardo
and Smith invented the labor theory of value.
> Perhaps Mr. Weatherby can point out where Smith or Ricardo use
> the phrase "labor theory of value". Or maybe, as usual, he is making
> things up.
>
Please the labor theory of value is a label given after the fact. You seem
to think that no one could describe or formulate a labor theory of value and
never use the title labor theory of value. You are engaging in silliness in
addition to lies. Why do you just admit that you were refering to Marx as
the best classical economist. Marx rejected classical economics he was not a
classical economist.
> It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Weatherby asserts that I have
> said "the labor of theory of value is not associated with classical
> economics". He will still be making things up and be putting things
> exactly backwards.
>
Look back to your original post what I said is what you wrote. You may have
meant something else but that is what you wrote.
> In other words, Mr. Weatherby is stating that Ricardo recognized
> that the labor theory of value is not true (although it is ambiguous
> what Mr. Weatherby thinks "value" means in this context).
>
Value is different from price. The classical economist believe their was use
value and market prices. The classical economist simply believe that value
is determined by the amount of labor used to construct the good. Price is
not necessarily representive of value. This is why the diamonds water
paradox was so puzzling to them.
> To summarize. Consider this principle: the value of a commodity, or
> the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange,
> depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for
> its production (and not on the greater or less compensation which
> is paid for that labour). This is the LTV. Ricardo rejects that
> this principle can apply without considerable modification to
> industrial economies.
>
Neither Marx nor classical economist accept that value is reflected in
prices. Neither accept that value is what a good trades for. That is modern
theory. Both schools believed there was a difference in value and what a
good exchanged for. The idea of use value versus market prices goes all the
way back to Aristotle. The Labor Theory of Value is supported by the
classical economist. The problem is that you do not understand what the
classical economist nor Marx meant by value.
>All of the whining in his post, I gather, is to avoid admit
> that my "prepostorous statement" was simply correct.
>
Simply amazing you deny you ever made the statement and say I am making
things up to make you look bad. Then you say my post agreed with your
statement, the very statement you earlier denied making. I assume you voted
for Clinton. He did the same thing.
> The quoted paragraphs present the most widely-discussed objection
> to the LTV in the literature. At least, I think so.
>
Considering the accucary of URLs you have posted before I doubt it. It seems
like paragraphs quoted and taken out of context. This is almost as bad as
the link to the paper you posted about endogenous growth models looking like
Sraffa. The conclusions about AK models were wrong. I doubt your FAQ is any
more accurate, especially when you do not even understand what value meant
to the classical economist.
> The first quoted Ricardo passage appears in my FAQ as part of the
> answer to the question:
>
Oh you wrote something and called it a FAQ it must be a definitive source of
information.
>
> I would be puzzled why Mr. Weatherby says he presents "sound bites"
> instead of serious discussion - I would be puzzled, that is, if I
> weren't used to his inarticulateness.
>
A sound bite is one line often taken out of context that the media
spreads around will ignoring the content of the argument. For instance I
could write an essay on when welfare is a good thing and place someone in
their a statement that unemployment is voluntary. I later follow that with a
statement of that although unemployment is voluntary it could be a result of
very bad economic conditions. A sound bite would be that I supported the
position all unemployed are unemployed by choice implying I did not think
welfare was a good idea!
John
John J. Weatherby
"Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
What wonders the taxpayers
> > > of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
> > > state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
> > > paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
> >
As a note Rob's email adress although ending in edu is no connection to any
state supported university. In fact after looking at the site I do not even
believe it is anything like a university in the first place. The use of .edu
does not mean someone is an employee of a university. I am sure Rob uses the
email address to give him a false credibility.
> And why is the equally repellent
> Soviet regime given a pass in these discussions, while the National
> Socialists are considered (properly) so toxic? Special pleading.
>
However, in Rob's words he does support communism nor is he a Marxist.
> More likely they'd have the good taste to use an iron cross.
> They wouldn't do it in "honor" of the dead general, though.
>
Moot point. Rommel is only a blip on the screen of military history. It is
more likely Guerdian and Van Melenthin not are studied. Rommel's work on
infantry tactics writen after WWI is probably the only thing studied. If you
wanted to decocrate something that dealt with Rommel the appropiate symbol
would be the Pour Le Merit. Rommel was never a NAZI nor did he care for
politics. He only mildly supported Hitler in the beginning becuase he was
reviving the army.
John
G*rd*n
|>>> What wonders the taxpayers
|>>> of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
|>>> state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
|>>> paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
"John J. Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com>:
| As a note Rob's email adress although ending in edu is no connection to any
| state supported university. In fact after looking at the site I do not even
| believe it is anything like a university in the first place. The use of .edu
| does not mean someone is an employee of a university. I am sure Rob uses the
| email address to give him a false credibility.
How much credibility does ".edu" give anyone? I would think
it would be quite the reverse -- one imagines silly students
and idle janitors wasting time, whereas the real academics
are all off publishing real books and articles and attending
conferences. The ".com", ".gov", ".mil" and ".net" sites, by
contrast, must be respectively dominated by hard-headed
businessmen, powerful bureaucrats, brave, eagle-eyed soldiers,
and high-powered computer wizards respectively. ".edu" cannot
compete; it's a brave man (or woman) who dares append it to
his (or her) domain.
| ...
In any case, does reversion to personal, nay, domain name
attacks mean you all have run out of steam as far as the
subject of the discussion goes? What ever happened to
alt.flame?
G*rd*n
| I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
| subjectivity, by the way, but I'll go along with this for
| the sake of the discussion. I think your definitions leave
| a gap between facts or phenomena which are true for all
| observers and those which are different for different
| observers. It's not filled by the idea of correctness
| because, for instance, I might have a dream about which I
| had a correct memory, but no one else could perceive it or
| know anything about it until I told them.
I meant:
I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
subjectivity.... I think your definitions leave a gap
between material facts and purely subjective experiences,
where we find facts and phenomena which are true for all
observers, thus appearing to have the same independence
from particular observation as physical objects. It's not
covered by the idea of correctness.... etc.
To amplify: Planck's Constant, the Law of Gravity, and the
like are not themselves physical, but they are reliable
relations between physical phenomena which appear whenever
the appropriate experiments or observations are made, regardless
of who makes the observations or what they think of them. So
they resemble physical objects more than they do purely
internal, psychical phenomena, which are not tied to physical
phenomena in the same way, and I would consider them to be
objective by the dictionary definition.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > There are apparent contradictions in his words about
> > physicality, but they are minor compared the contradictions
> > between his words, and your rendering of his words.
G*rd*n
> So what? That just gave you a better opportunity to step
> forward and clarify everything.
But where he spoke clearly and consistently, you ignored what he
said, and attributed nonsense to him, and on past performance, if
I were to address the topic, attempting to define the distinction
between subjective and objecive, you would proceed to ignore what
I said and attribute nonsense to me.
Where he makes an error, you understand him just fine and point it
out. Where he makes no error, you attribute to him a position he
does not hold.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
h0HoqQSZ4a/MuiDj+DpzfixsHvjf6azqHQfGBAFI
28rhsmTfoztlJyYsOrLsVymqdFbKFxjrrUpCfyNS9
G*rd*n
| > > There are apparent contradictions in his words about
| > > physicality, but they are minor compared the contradictions
| > > between his words, and your rendering of his words.
G*rd*n
| > So what? That just gave you a better opportunity to step
| > forward and clarify everything.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| But where he spoke clearly and consistently, you ignored what he
| said, and attributed nonsense to him, and on past performance, if
| I were to address the topic, attempting to define the distinction
| between subjective and objecive, you would proceed to ignore what
| I said and attribute nonsense to me.
Yes, but think of all the new fans you'd win to add to your
collection. You may be passing up a great opportunity to
enlarge your entourage and widen your fame.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| Where he makes an error, you understand him just fine and point it
| out. Where he makes no error, you attribute to him a position he
| does not hold.
I'm not sure he's making an error. He's free to define
_objective_ any way he likes; I just want to know what his
definition is. Everyone's writing, _even_mine_ if you could
believe it, is unclear at times, but that's not really the
same as an error.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Where he [Bernard Curry] makes an error, you understand him
> > just fine and point it out. Where he makes no error, you
> > attribute to him a position he does not hold.
G*rd*n:
> I'm not sure he's making an error. He's free to define
> _objective_ any way he likes
No he is not, nor does he believe that he is. Words have well
known meanings, and to use them differently shows ignorance,
deceit, or carelessness.
> I just want to know what his definition is.
No you do not. You take words at random from his several
definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
7F8IkfP4PCBdKuX5zTytAD3oJiu1wmXNeQb5JVxt
2VvLTSIxjNNOVRAp3r6GltnjRl5Ybiew++hn3ltMH
Alexander Nekvasil
> >On 14 Jul 2002 23:07:33 +0200,
> >Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> >>Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> writes:
>
> >> The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
> >> other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
> >> something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
> >> material reality.
> >
> >Value is a _social_ reality.
>
> You are saying that "social" is mystical as is value, and
> that both exist in reality.
I said: "Value is a social reality." I did not say what
relation the social has to the objective, the
non-mystical, the actual, the material.
I left that to you.
> What you are saying is that there is mystical reality apart
> from material reality and that the former includes "value"
> and "social." You are correct.
In fact I said nothing of the kind, but now at least we
know that you oppose the material and the mystical. Is
that an exclusive distinction? Do material and mystical
make up for all things? (So that there is nothing that
is both, nothing that is neither?)
> I would compliment you on your thinking, but I don't think
> you understand what you wrote.
You have no idea what it's like when I start to _think_.
Robert Vienneau
wrote:
> "Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> |>>> What wonders the taxpayers
> |>>> of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
> |>>> state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
> |>>> paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
> "John J. Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com>:
> | As a note Rob's email adress although ending in edu is no connection to
> | any
> | state supported university. In fact after looking at the site I do not
> | even
> | believe it is anything like a university in the first place. The use of
> | .edu
> | does not mean someone is an employee of a university. I am sure Rob
> | uses the
> | email address to give him a false credibility.
> How much credibility does ".edu" give anyone? ...
> In any case, does reversion to personal, nay, domain name
> attacks mean you all have run out of steam as far as the
> subject of the discussion goes? What ever happened to
> alt.flame?
The odd thing about this silliness is ...
...My email address does not end in .edu.
G*rd*n
| > > Where he [Bernard Curry] makes an error, you understand him
| > > just fine and point it out. Where he makes no error, you
| > > attribute to him a position he does not hold.
G*rd*n:
| > I'm not sure he's making an error. He's free to define
| > _objective_ any way he likes
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| No he is not, nor does he believe that he is. Words have well
| known meanings, and to use them differently shows ignorance,
| deceit, or carelessness.
I think you're being silly. Words have well-known meanings
which are often ambiguous or contradictory, and often many
not-so-well-known meanings as well, just as we would expect
from a system of conventions. However, you may go lecture
Bernard in the pages of Usenet on the correct meaning of
_objective_ and see where it gets you. Be sure to start
by presenting your credentials as a irrefutable authority
on the meaning of language.
G*rd*n:
| > I just want to know what his definition is.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| No you do not. You take words at random from his several
| definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
Mind-reading again, eh, James? You have remarkable powers.
But what may seem random to _you_ may be in fact a higher
order of meaning than you are capable of apprehending, eh?
There's always that possiblity, isn't there?
G*rd*n
| > |>>> What wonders the taxpayers
| > |>>> of Colorado are forced to pay for. Considering the way
| > |>>> state universities scarf down federal grant money, I'm probably
| > |>>> paying for this tripe, too. Give me my money back, thief.
"John J. Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com>:
| > | As a note Rob's email adress although ending in edu is no connection to
| > | any
| > | state supported university. In fact after looking at the site I do not
| > | even
| > | believe it is anything like a university in the first place. The use of
| > | .edu
| > | does not mean someone is an employee of a university. I am sure Rob
| > | uses the
| > | email address to give him a false credibility.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > How much credibility does ".edu" give anyone? ...
|
| > In any case, does reversion to personal, nay, domain name
| > attacks mean you all have run out of steam as far as the
| > subject of the discussion goes? What ever happened to
| > alt.flame?
Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com>:
| The odd thing about this silliness is ...
| ...My email address does not end in .edu.
Picky, picky!
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > if I were to address the topic, attempting to define the
> > distinction between subjective and objecive, you would proceed
> > to ignore what I said and attribute nonsense to me.
G*rd*n
> Yes, but think of all the new fans you'd win to add to your
> collection.
Everyone except yourself and handful of nutty Marxists and
postmodernists already knows the distinction between subjective
and objective., so I doubt if my attempt to explain this to
someone determined not to understand would impress anyone.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
fyiRNOFxa+9zYXNWTrvxur4pu2X89krckTxI6wGg
2VJXguYF61UAl1OtZCk734F+U2vW+LyEVH5lEJ+qK
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > > > Where he [Bernard Curry] makes an error, you understand
> > > > him just fine and point it out. Where he makes no error,
> > > > you attribute to him a position he does not hold.
G*rd*n:
> > > I'm not sure he's making an error. He's free to define
> > > _objective_ any way he likes
James A. Donald :
> > No he is not, nor does he believe that he is. Words have well
> > known meanings, and to use them differently shows ignorance,
> > deceit, or carelessness.
G*rd*
> I think you're being silly. Words have well-known meanings
> which are often ambiguous or contradictory, and often many
> not-so-well-known meanings as well, just as we would expect from
> a system of conventions.
That is far cry from being free to use words to mean anything one
pleases, after the fashion of yourself, Marxists and Humpty
Dumpty.
G*rd*n:
> > > I just want to know what his definition is.
James A. Donald
> > No you do not. You take words at random from his several
> > definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
G*rd*n:
> Mind-reading again, eh, James?
I simply described your behavior. The behavior I described
obviously implies a an intent, but I did not bother to state the
intent explicitly.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wS7omGuxIbMbiv2Yz2xWIBTHQPuDs8RHVZ4yPhPH
2BgtrY90SqtqBSXWeJhzj7vhjNIAVQaWBkcLKshM7
Kevin Robinson
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
> | ...
> | I think we agree, that when you aggregate the perhaps subjective,
> | often irrational decisions of millions and millions, statistics
> | allows you to treat the aggregate as a fascimile of objective fact.
> | But it remains an estimate, not a reality.
> | ...
>
> But if we observe that certain prices fluctuate around certain
> points (or attractors) with considerable regularity, we have
> an analogy to the case where physical observations approximate
> simple mathematical entities like "f = G*Ma*Mb / r^2" or
> Planck's Constant, and we believe we have found objective
> physical "laws". (Not objective in Bernard's sense, but in
> the sense of being the same for all observers.)
I won't deny such an analogy could exist, and would be useful
if it did. I'd suspect that the relationship would not be
as trustworthy as in the physical sciences.
>
> One of the participants in the present discussion once
> posted that the exchange relation between bread and gold had
> remained about the same since the days of Babylon, which if
> true would be a considerable testimony of some kind of
> underlying regularity.
Yes, it would. I'd be careful to properly "baseline" the market
basket, though. 1 lb. of hearth-baked whole wheat bread such as
my local bakery makes is going to sell at a premium over a pound
of generic supermarket white bread, in the processed "Wonder
Bread" style. Problems in improved or degraded quality in goods
is a major source of bias in our current Consumer Price Index.
Kevin
Beware Physics Envy
G*rd*n
| > I think you're being silly. Words have well-known meanings
| > which are often ambiguous or contradictory, and often many
| > not-so-well-known meanings as well, just as we would expect from
| > a system of conventions.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| That is far cry from being free to use words to mean anything one
| pleases, after the fashion of yourself, Marxists and Humpty
| Dumpty.
So you're not going to lecture Bernard? Perhaps that's a
wise choice.
G*rd*n:
| > > > I just want to know what his definition is.
James A. Donald
| > > No you do not. You take words at random from his several
| > > definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
G*rd*n:
| > Mind-reading again, eh, James?
James A. Donald
| I simply described your behavior. The behavior I described
| obviously implies a an intent, but I did not bother to state the
| intent explicitly.
My rhetorical behavior was to ask him what he meant, giving
examples. You seem to have become annoyed because I declined
to make the same assumptions you make. Too bad. As I now
understand him, Bernard has a stricter definition for
objectiveness than I do -- I would say that Planck's Constant
was objective, he says he would not. I think that's an
important difference of view of exactly the kind which should
be elicited to prevent those boring, often abusive exchanges
which are based on people having different definitions of the
things they're talking about. Or am I depriving you of what
you prefer?
G*rd*n
| > | ...
| > | I think we agree, that when you aggregate the perhaps subjective,
| > | often irrational decisions of millions and millions, statistics
| > | allows you to treat the aggregate as a fascimile of objective fact.
| > | But it remains an estimate, not a reality.
| > | ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > But if we observe that certain prices fluctuate around certain
| > points (or attractors) with considerable regularity, we have
| > an analogy to the case where physical observations approximate
| > simple mathematical entities like "f = G*Ma*Mb / r^2" or
| > Planck's Constant, and we believe we have found objective
| > physical "laws". (Not objective in Bernard's sense, but in
| > the sense of being the same for all observers.)
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| I won't deny such an analogy could exist, and would be useful
| if it did. I'd suspect that the relationship would not be
| as trustworthy as in the physical sciences.
All we have to do is -- trick someone into doing the math.
And then we'll see.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > One of the participants in the present discussion once
| > posted that the exchange relation between bread and gold had
| > remained about the same since the days of Babylon, which if
| > true would be a considerable testimony of some kind of
| > underlying regularity.
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| Yes, it would. I'd be careful to properly "baseline" the market
| basket, though. 1 lb. of hearth-baked whole wheat bread such as
| my local bakery makes is going to sell at a premium over a pound
| of generic supermarket white bread, in the processed "Wonder
| Bread" style. Problems in improved or degraded quality in goods
| is a major source of bias in our current Consumer Price Index.
Yes, Wonder Bread would certainly throw a wrench into the
mathematical works, as well as the biological ones.
James A. Donald
G*rd*n:
> > > > > I just want to know what his definition is.
James A. Donald
> > > > No you do not. You take words at random from his several
> > > > definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
G*rd*n:
> > > Mind-reading again, eh, James?
>
James A. Donald
> | I simply described your behavior. The behavior I described |
> obviously implies a an intent, but I did not bother to state the
> | intent explicitly.
G*rd*n:
> My rhetorical behavior was to ask him what he meant, giving
> examples.
Not what you did. Your behavior was to tell him what he meant,
when he had made it perfectly clear he did not mean the things you
attributed to him, something you also do to me a great deal,
though I usually just delete it, rather than reply with a
clarification which will then be further twisted. When your
misinterpretation of my words is exceptionally offensive, I make a
one line reply "Liar, not what I said".
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BE9Uq6jgq2J9bDKqIPnqVeIOD3w7AZjXkC8h4yHW
2JPq3aw2jJBdeNwH+ak41LgqnrfWAfxeAlj2iALoT
Robert Vienneau
Weatherby" <jjwea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote in message news:rvien-.
> > Mr. Weatherby, as usual, seems to be making things up. I know of
> > no place where I said "the labor theory of value is not associated
> > with classical economics".
> You have already forgotten what you wrote. Do you deny writing
"The Labor Theory of Value should not be identified with classical
economics. In fact, I think, the best classical economists
rejected the LTV, while maintaining an objective theory of value,
in some sense."
Well, that doesn't say the LTV "is not associated with classical
economics". And that bit about "in some sense" even suggests there
could be problems that need clarification here.
> > Here's my FAQ on the LTV:
<http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/LTV-FAQ.html>
In which I say,
"Although the LTV is commonly associated with Classical economics,
arguably neither Marx nor any first tier Classical economist accepted
the LTV as a valid theory for capitalist economies."
There I explicitly say the LTV is associated with classical economics. In
the post to which Mr. Weatherby is pretending to reply, I brought up
John Ramsay McCulloch. I said McCulloch was not one of the best
Classical economists. But he did accept the LTV for some period of
time.
> In which you assert that Ricardo only believed the labor theory of value
> in
> his first edition.
In fact, I specifically do not assert that. I say,
"Terry Peach argues that Ricardo accepted the LTV when writing the
first edition of The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, but
not before or when modifying his book for later editions."
In other words, I point out the opinion of one recent scholar on the
relevant topic. That's the sort of thing you should learn to do at
an university - point out the range of informed opinions on your
topic. In my FAQ, I do not endorse Peach's opinion. His book happens
to be a good reference in that he explicitly considers a range of
opinions on Ricardo, a very contentious subject. His own opinions
are a matter of debate.
> I would like to know what proof you have of this. Ricardo
> and Smith invented the labor theory of value.
That, of course, seems doubtful. William Petty (1623-1687) could be
said to have a primitive LTV which he apparently presented as a
simplification of a more complex search for a par between land
and labor. Petty could be said to be a founder of Classical
economics.
"What is especially relevant for all subsequent analyses of
price is Petty's distinction between 'actual' and 'natural'
prices or, in other terms, between exchange relationships
actually taking place, and theoretical prices which express
the most relevant factors influencing current prices. Petty
clearly identifies...the existence of a regular market, namely
of repeated acts of exchange following regular patterns -
necessary for the notion of 'natural price' to be meaningful.
This is an OBJECTIVE notion of natural price..."
-- Alessandro Roncaglia, New Palgrave.
More on the objective nature of the classical theory of value...
"To express my self in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to
use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes,
as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that depend
upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites and Passions of
particular Men, to the Consideration of others."
-- W. Petty (as quoted by Roncaglia)
> > Perhaps Mr. Weatherby can point out where Smith or Ricardo use
> > the phrase "labor theory of value". Or maybe, as usual, he is making
> > things up.
> Please the labor theory of value is a label given after the fact. You
> seem
> to think that no one could describe or formulate a labor theory of value
> and
> never use the title labor theory of value. You are engaging in silliness
> in
> addition to lies.
Mr. Weatherby is making silly lies. He deleted his own words:
"Ricardo and Smith... speak of a labor theory of value..."
One can see why. He does not want to acknowledge that Smith and Ricardo
do not speak of a labor theory of value.
> Why do you just admit that you were refering to Marx as
> the best classical economist. Marx rejected classical economics he was
> not a classical economist.
Now we get to stupid and irrelevant red-baiting. My statement repeats
part of what I say in my FAQ:
"arguably neither Marx nor any first tier Classical economist
accepted the LTV"
This remark specifically excludes Marx as a first tier Classical
economist. I think Marx's relationship to classical economics is
complex.
Near the end of my FAQ, I say:
"The LTV, as presented in this FAQ, is a mostly 20th century,
mostly Anglo-American interpretation of Classical economics and
Marx. The most important Classical economists, in this context,
are Adam Smith and David Ricardo."
And I specifically suggested here I accept Smith and Ricardo as among
the best classical economists. Mr. Weatherby registered his ignorance
and incomprehension:
"So are you saying Smith and Ricardo are not classical economist or
do you believe they got it wrong?"
I asked:
"So if I accept Smith and Ricardo as among the best classical
economists and think that they rejected the labor theory of value,
why would I believe they got it wrong?"
I have received no answer to my question about what Mr. Weatherby
is going on about.
> > It doesn't matter how many times Mr. Weatherby asserts that I have
> > said "the labor of theory of value is not associated with classical
> > economics". He will still be making things up and be putting things
> > exactly backwards.
> Look back to your original post what I said is what you wrote. You may
> have
> meant something else but that is what you wrote.
Nope. Mr. Weatherby is making things up.
> > In other words, Mr. Weatherby is stating that Ricardo recognized
> > that the labor theory of value is not true (although it is ambiguous
> > what Mr. Weatherby thinks "value" means in this context).
> Value is different from price. The classical economist [sic]
> believe [sic] their [sic] was use value and market prices.
None of this is relevant to the Ricardo quote. Using "value" unqualified
and without explanation in discussions of Smith and Ricardo can
only lead to problems. Value could mean:
Use value (which I hold is not unidimensional)
Exchange value
A market price
A natural price
The amount of labor embodied in a commodity
The amount of labor that a commodity commands.
> The classical economist simply believe that
> value
> is determined by the amount of labor used to construct the good.
Ambiguous, and Ricardo explicitly says otherwise in the passage that
Mr. Weatherby cannot read.
> Price is
> not necessarily representive of value. This is why the diamonds water
> paradox was so puzzling to them.
None of this is relevant to the Ricardo passages I quoted.
> > To summarize. Consider this principle: the value of a commodity, or
> > the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange,
> > depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for
> > its production (and not on the greater or less compensation which
> > is paid for that labour). This is the LTV. Ricardo rejects that
> > this principle can apply without considerable modification to
> > industrial economies.
> Neither Marx nor classical economist accept that value is reflected in
> prices. Neither accept that value is what a good trades for.
Mr. Weatherby is making things up and points to no texts whatsoever
to back him up. On the other hand, I was alluding to Ricardo. He
begins the first chapter of the 3rd edition of the Principles
like so:
"The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity
for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of
labour which is necessary for its production (and not on the greater
or less compensation which is paid for that labour)."
(The bit about "considerable modification" was also an allusion to
Ricardo.)
> That is
> modern
> theory. Both schools believed there was a difference in value and what a
> good exchanged for. The idea of use value versus market prices goes all
> the
> way back to Aristotle. The Labor Theory of Value is supported by the
> classical economist. The problem is that you do not understand what the
> classical economist nor Marx meant by value.
Mr. Weatherby has points to no evidence whatsoever for his views. But
let's see what a reactionary columnist has to say:
"For all the controversy generated by the 'labor theory of
value' it was tangential to classical value theory, and seldom
was it even alleged that any substantive conclusion would be
different without it...Such [Ricardian] disciples as McCulloch
and James Mill might, in the heat of polemics, become more
Ricardian than Ricardo in insisting on the ultimate role of
labor, but Ricardo himself chided them for going as far as
they sometimes did."
-- Thomas Sowell (1974)
> >All of the whining in his post, I gather, is to avoid admit
> > that my "prepostorous statement" was simply correct.
> Simply amazing you deny you ever made the statement and say I am making
> things up to make you look bad.
Actually, Mr. Weatherby's fabrications can only make him look like
a joke.
> Then you say my post agreed with your
> statement, the very statement you earlier denied making.
> [Topical stupidity - deleted.]
Exactly backwards. The statement of mine he called "prepostorous" was:
"the best classical economists rejected the LTV, while maintaining
an objective theory of value, in some sense."
I made the mistake of thinking Mr. Weatherby's response had something
to do with the Ricardo passage he was ignoring. If I had been
correct - I wasn't - Mr. Weatherby would have been agreeing with
me that Ricardo rejected the LTV, in some sense.
> > The quoted paragraphs present the most widely-discussed objection
> > to the LTV in the literature. At least, I think so.
> Considering the accucary of URLs you have posted before I doubt it.
> [Continued silliness deleted.]
> > The first quoted Ricardo passage appears in my FAQ as part of the
> > answer to the question:
> Oh you wrote something and called it a FAQ it must be a definitive source
> of information.
Mr. Weatherby is being stupid. My FAQ is good for seeing how *I* might
present a fairly detailed treatment of the LTV.
Now to offer a prediction. Mr. Weatherby will not and cannot answer
the following questions correctly:
"Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of 1000 pounds for a
year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year
I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of
1000 pounds in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that
I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per
cent., my commodity must sell for 2,310 pounds.; for I have employed
1000 pounds capital for one year, and 2,100 pounds capital for one
year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labour,
but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an
expense of 2000 pounds, and at the end of the first year he sells it
with 10 per cent. profit, or for 2,200 pounds. Here then are two
commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on
them, one of which sells for 2,310 pounds - the other for 2,200
pounds."
-- David Ricardo, _Principles_, Chapter I, Section IV
1. If one employs 20 men at an expense of 1000 l. for a year, what
is the wage? ________ Pounds per year
2. If one employs 40 men at an expense of 2000 l. for a year, what
is the wage? ________ Pounds per year
3. Ricardo describes the production of two commodities. In producing
the commodity produced by 20 men for a year and 20 men for another
year in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, how much
labor has been expended? __________ Man-years
4. In producing a commodity by employing 40 men for one year, how
much labor has been expended? _________ Man-years
5. Is the same amount of labor expended in producing these
commodities? Yes or no?
6. How much is 10% more than 1000 pounds? ________ Pounds
7. How much would a semifinished commodity be worth if it
needed an expense of 1000 pounds for a year at a rate of
profits of 10 percent? ________ Pounds
8. What is the sum of 1,100 pounds and 1,000 pounds? ________ Pounds
9. How much is 10% more than 2,100 pounds? _________ Pounds
10. How much would a commodity be worth if it needed an expense of
1000 pounds for a year and 1000 pounds for another year, assuming
a rate of profits of 10 percent? _________ Pounds
11. How much is 10% more than 2,000 pounds? _______ Pounds
12. How much would a commodity be worth if it needed an expense
of 2000 pounds for a year at a rate of profits of 10 percent?
________ Pounds
13. Compare your answers to Questions 10 and 12. Are the prices
of these two commodities, assuming a rate of profits of 10%,
the same? Yes or no?
14. Compare your answers to Questions 5 and 13. Could some
commodities that require expending the same amount of labor
trade for different prices, assuming a common rate of profit?
15. Does Ricardo claim that it is always true that, "the value of
a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it
will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which
is necessary for its production"? Yes or no?
By the way, all exchange values in section IV are natural prices, I
believe. Nowhere in that section does Ricardo refer to "use value".
Ron Allen
> In any case, we can never experience or know about what exists without
> our mind or brain.
Bernard Curry wrote:
> _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell you. You
> live in a mystical world of your own imagination that does not exist
> without your mind or brain. It is the world of Marx's dialectical
> materialism.
G*rd*n wrote:
> How can you experience something without your mind?
Ron Allen answers:
A very good question, and directed at just the right person.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"It requires a very unusual mind to make an analysis of the
obvious."
-- Alfred North Whitehead
G*rd*n
| > > > > > I just want to know what his definition is.
James A. Donald
| > > > > No you do not. You take words at random from his several
| > > > > definitions, and rearrange them into nonsense.
G*rd*n:
| > > > Mind-reading again, eh, James?
James A. Donald
| > I simply described your behavior. The behavior I described
| > obviously implies a an intent, but I did not bother to state the
| > intent explicitly.
G*rd*n:
| > My rhetorical behavior was to ask him what he meant, giving
| > examples.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| Not what you did. Your behavior was to tell him what he meant,
| when he had made it perfectly clear he did not mean the things you
| attributed to him, something you also do to me a great deal,
| though I usually just delete it, rather than reply with a
| clarification which will then be further twisted. When your
| misinterpretation of my words is exceptionally offensive, I make a
| one line reply "Liar, not what I said".
Well, you appear to be terribly enraged, so maybe it's the
best thing for you. I myself don't see much benefit or
enjoyment in accusation and insult. And of course I generally
have no idea whether people are lying, mistaken, or even,
incredibly, more enlightened than I, so hesitate to arraign
them. Just prissy of me, I suppose.
Dan Clore
> >On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:40:26 -0700,
> >Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >>Bernard Curry wrote:
> >> >On 15 Jul 2002 07:10:12 -0400,
> >If all mentation has stopped, then you will not experience
> >anything whatsoever.
>
> Perception continues though mentation is stopped.
>
> > What you are doing is *inferring* the
> >objective reality of the rock from your mental experience.
>
> Change "mental experience" to perception and allow enough
> mentation to analyze the percepts and you've got it. That's
> the way to deal with objective things.
>
> What you _don't_ do is mentate (imagine) value and then
> mentate (assume) value is part of the nature of the rock.
Here's the definition that you gave before:
> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
> conceive it.
Perception requires the use of your mind and brain. Whether
you also imagine and/or make assumptions is irrelevant. You
are not dealing with "objective things" when you are dealing
with percepts. Get a book of optical illusions and
experiment. And as admirable as I find your
well-demonstrated ability to halt all mentation, you may
want to engage in the process before making further
contributions to this discussion.
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
Including all my fiction through 2001, and more.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
I've watched the dogs of war enjoying their feast
I've seen the western world go down in the east
The food of love became the greed of our time
But now we're living on the profits of crime
--Black Sabbath, "Hole in the Sky"
Dan Clore
> I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
> subjectivity....
As well you should be--the dichotomy subjective vs.
objective is inadequate to understand things like this.
Properly speaking, Planck's Constant is intersubjective. Not
that I want to go into a detailed explanation if no one is
interested in anything but scoring debate points against
political opponents. Those interested should read works by
Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Robert Anton Wilson, among
others.
G*rd*n
| > I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
| > subjectivity....
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>:
| As well you should be--the dichotomy subjective vs.
| objective is inadequate to understand things like this.
| Properly speaking, Planck's Constant is intersubjective. Not
| that I want to go into a detailed explanation if no one is
| interested in anything but scoring debate points against
| political opponents. Those interested should read works by
| Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Robert Anton Wilson, among
| others.
But they won't.
I don't really like "intersubjective", either, since it
suggests that Planck's Constant is actually dependent on a
kind of group perception or opinion of it -- whereas it's my
guess that it isn't. (Godlike universal minds, etc.,
excepted, of course, in case there are any.)
This is just a belief, but it's a pretty widespread belief
which the believers need to be able to express. Generally
I'd use the word "objective" in the sense that I think its
value does not appear to be dependent on particular observation,
observers, beliefs, etc. Of course it is also (as far as I
know) a human construct, a relation between physical phenomena.
Whether such things would really, really exist if there were
no humans to construct them is another one o' those things
you can have endless debates about.
Bernard Curry
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Bernard Curry wrote:
>> >On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:40:26 -0700,
>> >Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >>Bernard Curry wrote:
>> >>>On 15 Jul 2002 07:10:12 -0400,
>> >If all mentation has stopped, then you will not experience
>> >anything whatsoever.
>> Perception continues though mentation is stopped.
>> > What you are doing is *inferring* the
>> >objective reality of the rock from your mental experience.
>>
>> Change "mental experience" to perception and allow enough
>> mentation to analyze the percepts and you've got it. That's
>> the way to deal with objective things.
>>
>> What you _don't_ do is mentate (imagine) value and then
>> mentate (assume) value is part of the nature of the rock.
>
>Here's the definition that you gave before:
>
>> "Objective," as I use it, signifies what exists without our
>> mind or brain, regardless of whether we perceive it or
>> conceive it.
>
>Perception requires the use of your mind and brain. Whether
>you also imagine and/or make assumptions is irrelevant. You
>are not dealing with "objective things" when you are dealing
>with percepts.
Well, hooray for Clore. He made an intelligent statement.
The next question is if, when dealing with percepts, you are
not dealing with objective things, what are you dealing
with? Subjective things? If you really understand that, you
are learning something.
> Get a book of optical illusions and
>experiment. ...
Not necessary. Dealing with your mental illusions (or
delusions) is interesting enough.
>... And as admirable as I find your
>well-demonstrated ability to halt all mentation, you may
>want to engage in the process before making further
>contributions to this discussion.
Hey, I'm just trying to get down to your level of
comprehension (if you have one).
Bernard Curry
Bernard Curry
************************************************************************
The eternal vigil that is the price of liberty is a vigil against
authority that begins within ourselves as individuals and within
the groups to which we belong.--Bernard Curry
************************************************************************
Email : bc...@rovin.net
******************************************************
Bernard Curry
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
Snipped
> Those interested should read works by
>Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Robert Anton Wilson, among
>others.
Authors can be judged by the thinking of their readers. If
reading them is what unscrewed your head, I'll pass.
Alexander Nekvasil
> >On 14 Jul 2002 23:07:33 +0200,
> >Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
> >>Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> writes:
>
> >> The burden of proof is on you: Prove that value is anything
> >> other than mystical experience, i.e., that "value" signifies
> >> something that exists in objective, non-mystical, actual,
> >> material reality.
> >
> >Value is a _social_ reality.
>
> You are saying that "social" is mystical as is value, and
> that both exist in reality.
>
> What you are saying is that there is mystical reality apart
> from material reality and that the former includes "value"
> and "social." You are correct.
>
> I would compliment you on your thinking, but I don't think
> you understand what you wrote.
Well, how could I? Even you seem to have trouble making
sense of it.
I'm especially interested how you figured out that I say the
social is mystical.
Bernard Curry
>Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Snipped
>Bernard Curry wrote:
>> _You_ can't. I _can._ That's what I've been trying to tell you. You
>> live in a mystical world of your own imagination that does not exist
>> without your mind or brain. It is the world of Marx's dialectical
>> materialism.
>
>G*rd*n wrote:
>> How can you experience something without your mind?
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>A very good question, and directed at just the right person.
I can't setermine if that is an insult or a compliment.
That is undoubtedly the the most concise example yet, of
your doublethinking inability to confront issues.
G*rd*n
| >Perception requires the use of your mind and brain. Whether
| >you also imagine and/or make assumptions is irrelevant. You
| >are not dealing with "objective things" when you are dealing
| >with percepts.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| ...
| The next question is if, when dealing with percepts, you are
| not dealing with objective things, what are you dealing
| with? Subjective things? If you really understand that, you
| are learning something.
If all percepts are subjective, then we can never deal with
objective things, because obviously dealing with something
requires perception of it. A rock would be as subjective
(for us) as Planck's Constant -- or a dream -- would it not?
J.X.Rodriguez
> .......
> That is why Marx's (or any other form) of LTV is incorrect
> when used to explain price or to determine what price should
> be. Price is an effect of material phenomena completely
> apart from value and it can be understood only as a material
> phenomenon.
So how can price be material? It's an idea.
Dan Clore
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > I'm not happy about consigning Planck's Constant to
> | > subjectivity....
>
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>:
> | As well you should be--the dichotomy subjective vs.
> | objective is inadequate to understand things like this.
> | Properly speaking, Planck's Constant is intersubjective. Not
> | that I want to go into a detailed explanation if no one is
> | interested in anything but scoring debate points against
> | political opponents. Those interested should read works by
> | Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Robert Anton Wilson, among
> | others.
>
> But they won't.
But someone out there might.
> I don't really like "intersubjective", either, since it
> suggests that Planck's Constant is actually dependent on a
> kind of group perception or opinion of it -- whereas it's my
> guess that it isn't. (Godlike universal minds, etc.,
> excepted, of course, in case there are any.)
Planck's Constant is a theoretical construct that relies on
experimentation and abstraction and inference. At least,
that's the Planck's Constant that we can experience. There
may (!) also be objective "laws of the universe", one of
which corresponds to Planck's Constant, or is described by
Planck's Constant, or whatever formulation you want to use.
> This is just a belief, but it's a pretty widespread belief
> which the believers need to be able to express. Generally
> I'd use the word "objective" in the sense that I think its
> value does not appear to be dependent on particular observation,
> observers, beliefs, etc. Of course it is also (as far as I
> know) a human construct, a relation between physical phenomena.
> Whether such things would really, really exist if there were
> no humans to construct them is another one o' those things
> you can have endless debates about.
Yup.
Bernard Curry
> jxr...@yahoo.com (J.X.Rodriguez) wrote:
Snipped
>So how can price be material? It's an idea.
Try paying for your next hamburger with your immaterial,
idea of price.
G*rd*n
| >So how can price be material? It's an idea.
Bernard Curry<bc...@rovin.net>:
| Try paying for your next hamburger with your immaterial,
| idea of price.
1. I have a counterfeit $5 bill in my pocket, and pay with
that. Neither of us knows it's counterfeit until they take
it to the bank the next day. Then they don't remember who
they got it from.
2. It's in the middle of the great German inflation of the
'20s. I pay 100,000 marks for the hamburger, but by the
time the restaurateur tries to spend the money, it's
completely worthless.
3. I tell the restaurateur that I'll pay him next week, and
he believes me.
4. I direct the restaurateur to withraw the money from my
account via EFT. A few electrons are stirred about, and
some molecules change their attitude, but no molecule
changes its location. Nevertheless, my account is debited
and his is credited with the price of one hamburger.
5. I remind the restaurateur that he lost 50 dollars to me
in a poker game last week, and stil hasn't paid me.
In all these cases, it appears that the money, or the value
of the money, is an idea, a bit of information. It does not
necessarily have any particular physical embodiment.
Bernard Curry
> Alexander Nekvasil <a850...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote:
Because you equate social and value. If you equate one
mystical (subjective) thing with another, then both are
mystical (subjective).
Actually, when you get into the idea of "social" it is
extremely problematic at your stage of intellectual
evolution. Social as a belief is subjective (mystical). But
social is (or can be) an instinctive attitude. As an
instinct it is objective to the mind though it exists within
(the autonomous nervous system of) the organic body of man.
If you can't differentiate between subjective and objective
in the relativity of mind and external (objective) reality,
then you can't possibly differentiate between subjective and
objective in the relativity between mind and function of the
autonomous nervous system within man as an organic entity.
Also, unless you understand the difference between social
(the subjective idea) and society (the objective phenomenon)
you will never understand why social and value are
equatable.
Also, when you consider society as an objective phenomenon
you get into natural and artificial. Objective phenomena
that are artificial are like a reverse abstract. Where an
abstract is a subjective idea drawn from objective reality,
and the reverse abstract is an objective thing that is drawn
from the subjective mind to create an artificial thing in
objective reality.
Society as an artificial, objective phenomenon is "reverse
abstracted" from our mind to objective reality. The problem
with creating artificial things is that, though abstracted
from the mind, they must conform to the laws of objective
reality.
That is why we can't think of value as a factor in the
exchange of goods (except as the underlying desire for
things). We need understand price.
Til next time.
J.X.Rodriguez
are mystical and subjective, because a price is an
agreement between two or more people, so it is social. But
previously you said prices were objective, so this is pretty
confusing.
I don't know what difference it makes anyway. Someone
said that Mises and Hayek said Marx was wrong because Marx
said value was objective and Mises and Hayek said or proved
that it was subjective. So what counts is not Bernard
Curry's or G*rd*n's idea of what the difference is between
subjective and objective, but Mises and Hayek's. Therefore
I would like to see what Mises and Hayek had to say about
it, and some evidence about what they mean by objective
and subjective since these words seem to be in dispute. I
would also like a pointer to where Marx says objective,
but maybe that is in the stuff from Mises and Hayek.
Bernard Curry <bc...@rovin.net> wrote in message news:<3o8cju0lmcrvnv65l...@4ax.com>...
G*rd*n
| If social facts are mystical and subjective, then prices
| are mystical and subjective, because a price is an
| agreement between two or more people, so it is social. But
| previously you said prices were objective, so this is pretty
| confusing.
|
| I don't know what difference it makes anyway. Someone
| said that Mises and Hayek said Marx was wrong because Marx
| said value was objective and Mises and Hayek said or proved
| that it was subjective. So what counts is not Bernard
| Curry's or G*rd*n's idea of what the difference is between
| subjective and objective, but Mises and Hayek's. Therefore
| I would like to see what Mises and Hayek had to say about
| it, and some evidence about what they mean by objective
| and subjective since these words seem to be in dispute. I
| would also like a pointer to where Marx says objective,
| but maybe that is in the stuff from Mises and Hayek.
I think Bernard Curry is a lot more interesting than Mises
and Hayek. And he appears to be alive, so we can interrogate
him, whereas Mises and Hayek have said their pieces and fallen
silent.
The message to which you're referring is probably this:
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson):
| Regarding the start of this thread:
|
| The Labor Theory of Value has been rendered obsolete by the discoveries
| of the Austrian school economists, especially Hayek and Mises, that all
| value is subjective, whether you are talking about an individual's
| judgement, or the aggregate valuation of the market. Can an individual
| or market over- or under-value a good or service, compared to some
| objective standard? Of course, but no one is in the position to set
| that standard, so the point is moot.
|
| What does the LTV say about the price of rotary phones, buggy whips,
| or manual typewriters, nowadays?
|
| Don't even get me started on FASHION!
Rotary phones, buggy whips and manual typewriters in good
working order are hard to find these days, and might be
pretty expensive, since a lot of labor has gone into keeping
the rent paid on the antique stores they're in. But I think
a labor theory of value could reasonably apply only to
commodities and large populations.