BREAKING NEWS LTV AND Holla Forums COMPLETELY BTFO FOREVER

Economics seems like a waste of time to me, there's nothing valuable to be gained from understanding it, there's no real action to be gained from its understanding.

It's fruitless.

I don't know.

Give me a fucking break

Cannot wait for you to kill yourself

Looks like you're stumped.

Two different forms of value. You're arguing against the meaning of the word value.

The presence of subjective value of a product on the market, does not take away the fact that it had a labour value as cost to produce it.

You can't deflate both conceptions into one just because you wish it to.

...

Go learn more about economics from your local community college poindexter

This does makes a lot of sense… But:
But we are kinda too far screwed right now for that to be a real option.
8 people control over 50% of the worlds wealth. If currency were deflated to the point that poor people were brought out of poverty, that would mean that the bourg (or even those top 8 I mentioned) would be elevetated to a nearly god-like status, even more unatainable than their current status

But, an effective deflationary currency could be attained by effective taxing of both accumulated wealths and incomes by those who are most wealth.

Although the US has never had an accumulated wealth tax, the extremely wealthy have gotten to that point because the US income taxes on the super-wealthy are historically low. and this historically low tax rate, sadly, does not 'trickle down'

SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOR TIME

deflationary currencies are by definition inegalitarian always benefiting those who have hoarded it in the first place.

That's accounted for.

MARXISM DEBUNKED EVEN MORE
youtube.com/watch?v=2W79tD1FpyM

BTFO
T
F
O

That is the point I was making. The deflationary currency concept would only be egalitarian if accumulated wealth were also heavily taxed, for example an exponential tax rate which taxes the heavily rich more and more. this would create somewhat of a wealth limit during currency devaluation

trash tier video

So basically the Transformation problem?

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/what-transformation-problem/

It gets worse. Watch the whole thing.

OP's picture isn't even really about that.

The writer in OP makes the tired same old argument that Austrian school and ancraps make against LTV by trying to collapse the difference between exchange value and use value.

The author makes especially the mistake by saying that exchange value commodities acquire their real value when they are traded amongst each other.

But he puts out no proof on how this happens, and accuses Marxism of a tautology fallacy of conflating the two values as being interrelated.

The argument that is presented here is very weak. True, market fluctuations does not describe how an organic capitalist mode of production arises. But this argument is made in hindsight 100 years after Kapital was written. Marx described in Kapital the Northern European capitalist mode ofproduction and set out some general laws on how it operates.

In contrast the uathors arguments "from analogy" that there must be a similar "weight value" or that all animals have extended "life spans" is fallacious and leads to infinite regress. One can generally describe something as law, without having to refute every single instance that seemingly deviates from the rule. If it does a new law must be presented, which revokes the aforementioned one. So the burden of proof is at the feet of the author, not Marx.

Jesus the text-to-speech is horrid. Why not just narrate yourself instead of a 90's apple text-to-talk emulator

also, 0:16 - "Marx invented socialism" I stopped right there.

Ill listed to a 4 minute video with an annoying robot voice, but not if the robot voice doesnt know what its talking about

Listen to the rest. It gets much worse.

fuuug….
Ill give it a shot.

That's pretty interesting. Is there more in-depth answers to that type of argument at the /econ/ general? It would be useful.

Whats the transformation problem.

thats some damn good genetic engineering he mustve done. Doctors in this day and age still have yet to completely conquer AIDS.
no comment
Bandwagon fallacy
presupposes shit sandwiches are a commodity
this must be a joke
implying that the current world is not already falling apart due to its current profit motif

Its possibly the worst thing ever.

an unsolved problem in marxist theory, that has to do with organic composition n shiet

It seemed like complete farce at first, but then the author actually TRIED to make valid points to argue… all of which fell short of a valid argument

Can you describe it?

It left me with one nagging question:
Can one commodify a shit sandwich?
Interesting postulation.

Maybe if there was a huge demand for shit sandwiches.

He says: Some leftists say that value and price are different. But that's not true for no reason leftists BTFO XDXDXDDDD

no

The transformation problem is a technical problem. That concerns as the name says how necessary labor time is converted into competitive exchange prices.

OP's picture argument is a logical argument "by analogy". It is not technical in any sense. The transformation problem does not deal with commodity exchange, and there is no real knowledge to be derived by only looking at commodity exchange value.

Can you give a link? What is it?

If I glued a "trump hairdo" to the top of my theoretical shit sandwich, there would be demand for this hilarious novelty product
shit sandwich == comodified

Maybe. It would still be piratically worthless.

But it would be comodified nontheless.

There was the 'pet rock' in the 70's. this was no more than a rock with googely eyes glued on it. The man who comodified these intrinsically worthless rocks made $6 million.

Not that I want to get my hands dirty making a literal shit sandwich with a Trump hairdo, my point is that even a shit sandwich could be comodified.

The aggregate labor time of one commodity is proportional to its aggregate price RELATIVE to other aggregate commodities. No, LTV is not a theory meant to describe why a bottle of water costs more than a bottle of water elsewhere, rather it is a theory that describes why the aggregate price of one unit of water is equal to two units of erasers and so on. Yes, it is a tautology, but so are many concepts in economics! It however, remains useful, for as even the author has just admitted, through calling it a tautology, that it is labor which produces exchange value in the aggregate.

The final passage of this retard's ""critique"" posits a hypothetical situation which would seemingly disprove the LTV. That is, a situation where a commodity has a higher value compared to another despite requiring less labor. This, however is a complete fiction of the author's imagination. In the aggregate of the real world, situations such as the one he proposed does not exist thanks to real competition. That is, businesses producing the same commodity will invest money into capital precisely to save money and increase profit, but that due to competition and undercutting, this will also lead to lower prices. No one would buy capital to produce a commodity that didn't save money in the long run!

Actual economic studies have proven LTV correct
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

Marx says that the prices commodities as a whole reflect the amount of labor put into the production of commodities as a whole and that fluctuations occur around that total value. The author makes the obvious mistake of using the fluctuations of two specific commodities relative to one another instead of the total of commodities as a whole. At least the guy he plagerized quoted extenively from got that bit right. Of course that guy makes the classic blunder of confusing exchange value with value.

False. It's about how the value conception of Capital I and the concept of prices of production in Capital III fit together, if at all.

OP actually got a well-written account of the problems people have with the LTV, without any muh mudpies in it. I prefer to see some non-memey responses.

The gist: In Capital I, the assumption is that the exchange ratio of goods depends on their labour content, with some fluctuations around that allowed. Which begs the question: If that's how it is and profits of the ruling class come from freshly applied labour, why would anyone invest in capital-intensive industry?

In Capital III, profit-rate equalization is brought up. Too much competition in industries with low capital drive down the profit rates there, so investments do go into capital-intensive industries. For investments in capital-intensive industries to work out, what the things produced sell for has to be above Capital-I-style value, and vice versa for sectors with low intensity. So prices fluctuate around these ratios (called prices of production in econ writing inspired by Marx and classical economists). This answers the question that comes up when reading Capital I, and leads to the question whether Capital III makes Capital I superfluous.

The high priests of Marxism say then that Capital III is true, and that in aggregate, the model from Capital I is still right because the aggregate of prices corresponds to the aggregate of values, which makes one wonder how that could possibly be checked.

I would like to hear some explanation how the models in Capital I and III fit together (doesn't have to correspond to what you think Marx believes, if it makes sense to you, that's good enough to hear), without obscurantist language. I've already seen Andrew Kliman and that kapitalism101 blog and neither makes sense to me. Please use plain language.

You'd invest to save money on labor costs. The profit of the ruling class comes from exploiting labor as much as possible. In terms of relative to non-capital intensive industry, the high barrier of entry posed by the capital-intensive costs means that there's less competition and thus a higher rate of profit.

In what way? You still need labor input to figure out prices. It's simply admitted you need to know the level of competition in the market as well. Kind of like how the concept of elasticity works. In this case, the general rate of profit of an industry can clue us in pretty well as to the amount of competition.

I believe in heterodox marxian economics, there's no need to take every word of Marx's as gospel. But, the general principles of Capital 1 and capital 2, taken together, can give us a pretty solid idea of how to predict exchange value in the aggregate.

Very simply, you take the units of goods produced in the aggregate, you multiply that by the cost of capital or dead labor, and then you add the socially necessary labor time of living labor. From there you multiply it by the rate of profit, which we're using as an indicator of the amount of competition, (the higher the profit, the less the competition), and then add it to the number you got before multiplying it be the rate of profit. This number will correspond to the price and reflect it's relative exchange value to other goods.

In particular, what I just described is approximately TSSI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_single-system_interpretation
A system which was accused of being TOO orthodox
In the study I linked earlier, it was proven to be the most accurate form of LTV.
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

I think the author is making a strawman of Marx (like so many have). The divergence of prices from labour values is not a "cop out", is a necessary result of Capitalist production. In fact, it is tautological but there is virtually no theory of value in economics that is not in some way tautological. Post Keynesian price theory is cost of production + markup = price. When we break this down they are saying price = price. Marginalist say price is determined by marginal utility, but utility can't be determined without recourse to price and vice versa. Why these tautologies do not debunk economics if Marx's debunks the law of value, I have no idea.

Marx explains the average rate of profit in volume 3 not as being something "real", but coming out as capital switches from industry to industry looking for the next most profitable industry. The result is that the market is flooded by overproduction and save for special cases (like with sticky prices), the price of the good falls be low the labor value. Perhaps this good, let's say it's cotton is used as an input in production for another producer. Maybe now instead of the cost price being $10, it's $8.5 since cotton fell by $1.5.

The author thinks that the fact the fluctuations of the price in a good end up as a loss for one man and a gain for another, the LTV looses all explanatory power. This disregards many aspects of what the LTV is trying to explain. For example, the producers never escape the law of SNLT due to competition. Competition brings about an average productivity, which those who perform under are punished for and those who perform above are rewarded. The goods used up with an average rate of deprecitation through use adhere to this law to. This is the SNLT.

Marx assumed prices = value in volumes 1&2 for two reasons. Because he wanted to prove labour values are the bases of price. And secondly, because he wanted to show how these come about as a historical process. The authors last part is particularly stupid, because commodity A and B good both be selling over their values due to high demand. The issue is not The cost of production in value terms could be $35. The argument at the end is bizarre for this reason. Market prices will fluctuate around the prices of production, and these diverge from exchange values as a historical process. The laws Marx lays out in 1 and 2 form the axis which these prices of production move around, being regulated in the long term by how much labour is allocated to their production.

No.

Communist supply & demand at work. Given that Kliman's TSSI relies on market prices to a great degree, it is not really mind-blowing that its predictions correlate well with market prices. I have never heard anybody accusing Kliman's TSSI of being too orthodox. Rather, people said they couldn't make sense of it.

See my post here

It would be impossible to understand why prices of production diverge from labour values without having an understanding of production and circulation in the most general sense. Take for example learning trigonometry. If you were to confront a highschooler with a complicated trigonometric equation when they know nothing of trigonometry, they would not be able to decipher it. You first have tell them about ratios, how Sinx and the like appear on a graph, how transformations work etc.

This is what Marx is outlining in volume 1 and 2. The laws that regulate production are always working and inevitably the course of capitalism in the long term. But their affect is obscured by the subjective interest of buyers and sellers, and the erratic movements of the market

*inevitably affect the course

...

boffyblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-transformation-problem-once-more.html

This might held, I think he explains it adequately. TSSI is revisionism.

"without words with specific meanings I either disagree with or don't understand"

Well, the difference in correlation was .6%. So, if you'd like the other versions, then have at it.

Anyway, you could obviously just substitute labor time for price in this model, and it'd still work, although by slightly less accurate. (Although not to inaccurate, as the basic LTV values in the comparison doesn't use monetary prices in its model).

And what was so hard to understand about what I posted?

From the pdf:

Its a fucking non-problem that arises when idiotic capitalists try to put the total amount of value in society at the end of a years work into the start of the same year.

Kliman is a revisionist. Reproduction cost, not historic cost. Praise Marx@

My mistake. The Saffrian model was actually the most effective, I missed that part, although it's about even with regular LTV. The paper also points out that the Capital Vol 1 theory was accurate at predicting the rate of profit, although less so of industries with high organic capital composition

How can Sraffa's model be used to predict anything if he abstracts from time?

youtube.com/watch?v=3eTTm90LAWQ

We should get the WEBMed TBH.

I get it.

There was an artist selling cans that contained the artist's shit. To be precise, you can't see it, the shit inside was the promise by the artist and there is some debate among experts in modern art whether the artist's shit is really inside the cans. If you open such a can to check whether there is shit inside or not, then, irrespective of how the answer turns out, its market value will be greatly damaged.

That artist's name? Kat Schrödinger. Not really the name. The rest of the story is true though.

whoever it was that copy-pasted a bunch of mises shit into a jpg must be the greatest capitalist intellectual in decades. people must think these btfo marx must just think "well they're long, and it author acts like he has read Marx, so…". How else could anyone take Alienation i.e. "you work for wages" end up prattling about "Marx was a Plotinist who wanted to enslave mankind". That Plotinus referance just comes out of nowhere.

Are you dumb? Or do you just revel in being ignorant of the central concern of leftism in general?

Read a fucking book for god's sake. Hell, even an introductory college textbook (on both micro and macroeconomics; this is important) will help you immensely, so long as it focuses on Keynesianism.

uh huh