yth. mba fau,
terimakasih banyak atas kiriman artikel dari anda di bawah ini. Kebetulan saya juga baru- ini membaca adanya 'pengakuan' mengenai kontribusi Ibn Chaldun, sosiolog Muslim di masa lalu di dalam menurunkan teori-teori ekonomi, sebelum Adam Smith yang selama ini dianggap sebagai bapak ilmu ekonomi. Di bawah ini saya tambahkan lagi sedikit referensi lain mengenai kontribusi Ibn Khaldun. ****** ihm **************************************** <http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/oweissi/ibn.htm> Labor Theory of Value, Economics of Labor, ------------------------------------------------------ Labor as the Source of Growth and Capital Accumulation With the exception of Joseph A. Schumpeter, who discovered Ibn Khaldun's writings only a few months before his death,3 Joseph J. Spengler,4 and Charles Issawi, major Western economists trace the theory of value to Adam Smith and David Ricardo because they attempted to find a reasonable explanation for the paradox of value. According to Adam Smith and as further developed by David Ricardo, the exchange value of objects is to be equal to the labor time used in its production. On the basis of this concept, Karl Marx concluded that "wages of labour must equal the production of labour"5 and introduced his revolutionary term surplus value signifying the unjustifiable reward given to capitalists, who exploit the efforts of the labor class, or the proletariat. Yet it was Ibn Khaldun, a believer in the free market economy, who first introduced the labor theory of value without the extensions of Karl Marx. According to Ibn Khaldun, labor is the source of value. He gave a detailed account of his labor theory of value, presenting it for the first time in history. It is worth noting that Ibn Khaldun never called it a "theory," but had skillfully presented it (in volume 2 of Rosenthal translation) in his analysis of labor and its efforts.6 Ibn Khaldun's contribution was later picked up by David Hume in his Political Discourses, published in 1752: "Everything in the world is purchased by labour."7 This quotation was even used by Adam Smith as a footnote. "What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities."8 If this passage which was published in A.D. 1776 in Adam Smith's major work, is carefully analyzed, one can find its seeds in Ibn Khaldun's Prolegomena (The Muqaddimah). According to Ibn Khaldun, labor is the source of value. It is necessary for all earnings and capital accumulation. This is obvious in the case of craft. Even if earning "results from something other than a craft, the value of the resulting profit and acquired (capital) must (also) include the value of the labor by which it was obtained. Without labor, it would not have been acquired."9 Ibn Khaldun divided all earnings into two categories, ribh (gross earning) and kasb (earning a living). Ribh is earned when a man works for himself and sells his objects to others; here the value must include the cost of raw material and natural resources. Kasb is earned when a man works for himself. Most translators of Ibn Khaldun have made a common mistake in their understanding of ribh. Ribh may either mean a profit or a gross earning, depending upon the context. In this instance, ribh means gross earning because the cost of raw material and natural resources are included in the sale price of an object. Whether ribh or kasb, all earnings are value realized from human labor, that is, obtained through human effort. Even though the value of objects includes the cost of other inputs of raw material and natural resources, it is through labor and its efforts that value increases and wealth expands, according to Ibn Khaldun. With less human effort, a reversal to an opposite direction may occur. Ibn Khaldun placed a great emphasis on the role of "extra effort," which later became known as "marginal productivity," in the prosperity of a society. His labor effort theory gave a reason for the rise of cities, which, as his insightful analysis of history indicated, were the focal points of civilizations. Whereas labor may be interpreted from Ibn Khaldun's ideas as both necessary and sufficient conditions for earnings and profit, natural resources are only necessary. Labor and its effort lead to production, which is in turn used for an exchange through barter or through the use of money, that is, gold and silver. The process therefore creates incomes and profits which a man derives from a craft as the value of his labor after having deducted the cost of raw material. Long before David Ricardo published his significant contribution to the field of economics in 1817, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Ibn Khaldun gave the original explanation for the reasons behind the differences in labor earnings. They may be attributed to differences in skills, size of markets, location, craftsmanship or occupation, and the extent to which the ruler and his governors purchase the final product. As a certain type of labor becomes more precious, that is, if the demand for it exceeds its available supply, its earnings must rise. High earnings in one craft attract others to it, a dynamic phenomenon which will eventually lead to an increase in its available supply and consequently lower profits. This principle explains Ibn Khaldun's original and insightful analysis of long-term adjustments within occupations and between one occupation and another. However, this point of view was attacked by John Maynard Keynes in his famous statement that in the long run we are all dead. Nevertheless, Ibn Khaldun's analysis has not only proved to be historically correct but has also constituted the core thinking of classical economists.10 Ibn Khaldun succinctly observed, explained, and analyzed how earnings in one place may be different from another, even for the same profession. Earnings of judges, craftsmen, and even beggars, for example, are directly related to each town's degree of affluence and standard of living, which in themselves are to be achieved through the fruits of labor and the crystallization of productive communities. Adam Smith explained differences in labor earnings by comparing them in England and in Bengal11 along the same lines of reasoning given by Ibn Khaldun four centuries earlier as he compared earnings in Fez with those of Tlemcen.12 It was Ibn Khaldun, not Adam Smith, who first presented the contribution of labor as a means of building up the wealth of a nation, stating that labor effort, increase in productivity, and exchange of products in large markets are the main reasons behind a country's wealth and prosperity. Inversely, a decline in productivity could lead to the deterioration of an economy and the earnings of its people. "A large civilization yields large profits [earnings] because of' the large amount of [available] labor which is the cause of [profit]."13 It was also Ibn Khaldun, long before Adam Smith, who made a strong case for a free economy and for freedom of choice. Among the most oppressive measures, and the ones most deeply harming society, is the compelling of subjects to perform forced work unjustly. For labour is a commodity, as we shall show later, in as much as incomes and profits represent value of labour of their recipients...nay most men have no source of income other than their labour. If, therefore, they should be forced to do work other than that for which they have been trained, or made to do forced work in their own occupation, they would lose the fruit of their labour and be deprived of the greater part, nay of the whole, of their income.14 To maximize both earnings and levels of satisfaction, a man should be free to perform whatever his gifted talents and skilled abilities dictate. Through natural talents and acquired skills, man can freely produce objects of' high quality, and, often, more units of labor per hour. Demand, Supply, Prices, and Profits In addition to his original contribution to the economics of labor, Ibn Khaldun introduced and ingeniously analyzed the interplay of several tools of economic analysis, such is demand, supply, prices, and profits. Demand for an object is based on the utility of acquiring it and not necessarily the need for it. Utility is therefore the motive force behind demand. It creates the incentives for consumer spending in the marketplace. Ibn Khaldun had therefore planted the first seed of modern demand theory, which since been developed and expanded by Thomas Robert Malthus, Alfred Marshall, John Hicks, and others. As a commodity in demand attracts increased consumer spending, both the price and the quantity sold are increased. Similarly, if the demand for a certain craft decreases, its sales fall and consequently its price is reduced. Demand for a certain commodity also depends upon the extent to which it will be purchased by the state. The king and his ruling class purchase much larger quantities than any single private individual is capable of purchasing. A craft flourishes when the state buys its product. With his ingenious analytical mind, Ibn Khaldun had further discovered the concept known in modern economic literature as "derived demand." "Crafts improve and increase when the demand for their products increases."15 Demand for a craftsman is therefore derived from the demand for his product in the marketplace. As is commonly known, modern price theory states that cost is the backbone of supply theory. It was Ibn Khaldun who first examined analytically the role of the cost of production on supply and prices. In observing the differences between the price of foodstuffs produced in fertile land and of that produced in poor soils, he traced them mainly to the disparity in the cost of production. [In] the coastal and hilly regions, whose soil is unfit for agriculture, (inhabitants) were forced to apply themselves to improving the conditions of those fields and plantations. This they did by applying valuable work and manure and other costly materials. All this raised the cost of agricultural production, which costs they took into account when fixing their price for selling. And ever since that time Andalusia has been noted for its high prices ....The position is just the reverse in the land of the Berbers. Their land is so rich and fertile that they do not have to incur any expenses in agriculture; hence in that country foodstuffs are cheap.16 ******** end of quoteihm ***** --- "fauziah swasono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sekedar ingin sharing bahwa lautan ilmu itu sangat luas dan berbagai > peradaban telah berkontribusi hingga sampailah kita pada apa yang > kita dapatkan sekarang ini. (dan terus berkembang ke masa depan). > > Kurva Laffer yang cukup terkenal dalam ilmu ekonomi publik, diakui > oleh Laffer sendiri adalah diilhami oleh pekerjaan Ibn Khaldun. > > Dan bagi saya, banyak prinsip ekonomi sebenarnya sejalan dg prinsip > Islam, seperti efisiensi, institusional (peran pemerintah), kontrak > sosial (terutama dalam game theory), property rights, dll. Under > whatever names they are, we just need to learn the principles and > use them for the sake of goodness. > > Bagi yang tidak berkenan, sila di skip/delete. > > salam, > > fau > > > The Historical Origins of the Laffer Curve > > The Laffer Curve, by the way, was not invented by me. For example, > Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work > The Muqaddimah: "It should be known that at the beginning of the > dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. > At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from > large assessments." > > > http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm > > > The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future > by Arthur B. Laffer > Backgrounder #1765 > > June 1, 2004 > > The story of how the Laffer Curve got its name begins with a 1978 > article by Jude Wanniski in The Public Interest entitled, "Taxes, > Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve.'"1 As recounted by Wanniski > (associate editor of The Wall Street Journal at the time), > in December 1974, he had dinner with me (then professor at the > University of Chicago), Donald Rumsfeld (Chief of Staff to > President Gerald Ford),and Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld's deputy and > my former classmate at Yale) at > the Two Continents Restaurant at the Washington Hotel in Washington, > D.C. While discussing President Ford's "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) > proposal for tax increases, I supposedly grabbed my napkin and a pen > and sketched a curve on the napkin illustrating the trade-off between > tax rates and tax revenues. Wanniski named the trade-off "The Laffer > Curve." > > dst.... *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. http://www.ppi-india.org *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Reading only, http://dear.to/ppi 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
