Thanks a lot On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 8:40 am Billy Rojas, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello again, Karthik Navayan. > > I am gratified that you want to post my essay in your blog. > > No concerns at all, you know what you are doing and > > from what I can tell your motivation is all for the good. > > > Billy R. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > on behalf of Dr.B. Karthik Navayan <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 6:05 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [RC] [ RC ] Why do Marxists and others obsess over > secondary matters? > > Hello again, Billy Rojas, > I am finding your views on economics important and would like to post it > to my blog. Let me know if you have any concerns. > Regards, Karthik Navayan > > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 5:53 am Billy Rojas, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> *Ernie:* >> >> Marx stood Hegel on his head*; *it is only fair that we stand Marx on * >> his* head. >> >> >> What determines value in an economy? Whatever labor and goods that are >> >> required to win the favors of the opposite sex. Since this will vary from >> >> one man to the next, one woman to the next, the economic system will >> >> always be structurally irrational. Not totally crazy, but not at all >> >> wholly rational, indeed, far from it even if anyone can detect >> >> some modicum or order -which is dictated by the logic >> >> of production and exchange. Yet all the fuss is ever and always >> >> the result of desire for the services of the opposite sex. >> >> >> Each sex has need of the other, like it or not, and love makes the >> economy go 'round. >> >> >> To say the same thing, this also means taking into account the needs of >> families, >> >> of the kids involved, of any pets, of gardens that may be grown to >> cultivate >> >> veggies for the household, and so forth even if, in our world, "gardening" >> >> is by proxy, in Iowa or the San Joaquin Valley or Mexico. >> >> >> Throughout all of history wars have been fought for access to women >> >> and women have played the economic game to procure decent homes >> >> for themselves in which to raise children. >> >> >> A man by himself, is satisfied with simple things, hell, next-to-nothing >> will do just fine it it includes what he considers necessities, whether >> >> enough beer or enough smokes or enough gas money to run his jalopy. >> >> Add a woman to the equation and you get a man possessed. His needs >> >> now become gargantuan: A fine house that costs $350,000, a new car >> >> that costs $29,995, clothes for everyone concerned, only quality garments >> >> will do, not worn out jeans that had been good enough in an earlier time, >> >> and so forth, for computers, TV entertainment, discretionary money >> >> for restaurants or concerts, and so forth. This results in a lot of >> concern >> >> about what government policies will facilitate one's new lifestyle >> >> and which political movements may threaten security or affluence. >> >> >> It also means new priorities. A single man may not give a hoot about >> >> jewelry, and why should he? Why get hung up about glittering trinkets? >> But with a woman in the picture, by God he had better buy her some >> >> diamonds or emeralds because gemstones are her insurance against >> >> his dying early, or his philandering, or his illness that ruins a family >> >> finances. And there had better be expenditures for status items >> >> more generally, so that the kiddies, when they grow up, >> >> can make their families proud and the best way to do that >> >> is to trade on status to get them admitted to a quality university >> >> or take vacations where they will meet other high-status young people, >> >> and so forth. It all hangs together. >> >> >> >> Take sex out of the equation and economics is a crap shoot >> >> with twenty different theories each making some sense but >> >> by no means are any of these theories the last word >> >> and to take any literally is to guarantee failure. >> >> The motor of economics is sex, plain and simple. >> >> Or plain and complex *s'il vous plait*, but you get the idea. >> >> >> In other words there is a reason why prostitution is called >> >> the world's oldest profession. Sex has intrinsic value; >> >> as a rule it results in the perpetuation of the species, >> >> and what could be more valuable than that? >> >> >> But it also means pride in self, hence all kinds of positive feelings >> >> that make life seem worthwhile and worth the trouble. Whether or not >> >> women value sex intrinsically you can decide for yourself, >> >> but for sure they value it for purposes of motherhood >> >> and if for no other reason it therefore has the highest >> >> possible value, worth any sacrifice. >> >> >> This is the real foundation of economics. >> >> >> >> Billy >> >> Chicago School of New Economics >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* [email protected] < >> [email protected]> on behalf of Centroids < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:22 PM >> *To:* Centroids Discussions >> *Subject:* [RC] Why Marxists obsess over labor >> >> >> *This was really helpful. I could never understand why Marxists obsessed >> so much over labor, and utterly disregarded the multiplicative power of >> capital investment* >> >> >> *The Diamond-Water Paradox and the Subjective Theory of Value* >> >> http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2018/04/03/the-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value/ >> >> <http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2018/04/03/the-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value/> >> The Diamond-Water Paradox and the Subjective Theory of Value | The >> Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog >> <http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2018/04/03/the-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value/> >> partiallyexaminedlife.com >> Why do diamonds cost more than water, when water is essential to life? >> The answer eluded both Smith and Marx before its resolution arrived in the >> form of the Marginal Revolution. >> >> (via Instapaper <http://www.instapaper.com/>) >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> In his famous work *The Wealth of Nations*, Adam Smith >> <http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2017/10/16/ep174-1-adam-smith/> >> articulated a paradox that he could not resolve: water is essential to >> life; diamonds a mere decoration. Yet for all that, we are willing to >> lavish enormous sums on pretty rocks while taking clean water for granted. >> What could explain this disconnect? >> >> Smith’s confusion stemmed from his understanding of the source of >> economic value. The eighteenth century, while an age of enlightenment and >> revolution, was still very much mired in the religious worldview of the >> Medieval era, and many great thinkers believed that God imbued the world >> with value. It must have been quite difficult to imagine any sort of value, >> let alone that of economic goods, originating from some source other than >> the Creator of all things. Indeed, Smith, like many of his contemporaries, >> ascribed to an intrinsic understanding of value, one which saw prices as a >> manifestation of some “objective” quality of the thing being sold. >> >> That quality was the amount of labor that went into the production of the >> commodity in question. “The real price of everything, what everything >> really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of >> acquiring it,” asserted Smith.[1] His view has a certain intuitive appeal >> to it. Now known as the “labor theory of value,” this perspective holds >> that the prices of goods on the market are ultimately determined by the >> effort expended in their production. >> >> This, of course, begs the question: what determines the price of labor? >> On Smith’s account, there is nothing else to turn to: >> >> Labor was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for >> all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labor, that all the >> wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who >> possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is >> precisely equal to the quantity of labor which it can enable them to >> purchase or command.[2] >> >> In this way, labor can be understood as the genesis of all value, the >> first building block upon which all economic goods rest. It is easy to see >> why this account took hold in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It >> seemed to explain the inflated prices of labor-intensive goods such as >> cotton and saffron, which demanded hours of sweat from peasants (and >> slaves) for a relatively small amount of raw material. It also entails that >> an informed expert could, with the proper information, calculate the “true >> price” of a good. Yet that’s not all: the labor theory of value instills a >> sense of justice into market transactions. >> >> According to the labor theory of value, those goods that people must work >> hard to produce are highly valued. On the other hand, those goods that are >> produced with ease do not fetch an impressive price. This characterization >> of market value has an obvious appeal, because it seems to reward human >> effort. >> >> Many great thinkers followed Smith in ascribing to this view. David >> Ricardo, the famous nineteenth-century defender of free trade, further >> refined Smith’s position, which was taken up by another famous economist, >> Karl >> Marx <http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/01/30/ep70-marx/>. Marx was >> careful to differentiate between what may be simply called “effort” and >> “labor.” For example, he believed that there is a difference between >> skilled and unskilled labor, so that one hour of skilled labor may be equal >> to two hours of unskilled labor. >> >> Yet despite this differentiation, Marx was obsessed with aggregates, and >> his formulation of *social necessity* is just one example. To a Marxist >> proper, the amount of time actually expended in the production of a good >> does not matter as much as the amount of time that it *should* take to >> produce something. As Marx put it, “that which determines the magnitude of >> the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the >> labor time socially necessary for its production.”[3] Social necessity is >> derived from the average level of productivity in a given society, >> regardless of the time spent on any item in particular. >> >> Marx wrote *Das Kapital* <https://amzn.to/2GmSvxd> nearly 100 years >> after Smith’s *The Wealth of Nations* made its debut in 1776. The >> continuity of the labor theory of value between these two otherwise >> diametrically opposed works is remarkable, and speaks to its hegemony in >> classical economics. It also gives evidence of the intractability of the >> diamond-water paradox: in 1860, there was still no explanation for the fact >> that diamonds fetch a higher price than water. Yet a few years before Marx >> published his magnum opus, a new theory arrived on the scene, proposed by >> three thinkers almost simultaneously. >> >> Three economists developed an alternative explanation of economic >> phenomena in the 1860s and 1870s. While working independently, William >> Stanley Jevons (British), Carl Menger (Austrian), and Marie-Esprit-Léon >> Walras (Swiss) all proposed that economic value comes not from any quality >> of the good in question, but from the human mind. >> >> Menger gives an unusually artistic description of this development in his >> >> If the locks between two still bodies of water at different levels are >> opened, the surface will become ruffled with waves that will gradually >> subside until the water is still once more. The waves are only symptoms of >> the operation of the forces we call gravity and friction. The prices of >> goods, which are symptoms of an economic equilibrium in the distribution of >> possessions between the economies of individuals, resemble these waves. The >> force that drives them to the surface is the ultimate and general cause of >> all economic activity, the endeavor of men to satisfy their needs as >> completely as possible, to better their economic positions. But since >> prices are the only phenomena of the process that are directly perceptible, >> since their magnitudes can be measured exactly, and since daily living >> brings them unceasingly before our eyes, it was easy to commit the error of >> regarding the magnitude of price as the essential feature of an exchange, >> and as a result of this mistake, to commit the further error of regarding >> the quantities of goods in an exchange as equivalents. The result was >> incalculable damage to our science since writers in the field of price >> theory lost themselves in attempts to solve the problem of discovering the >> causes of an alleged equality between two quantities of goods. Some found >> the cause in equal quantities of labor expended on the goods. Others found >> it in equal costs of production. And a dispute even arose as to whether the >> goods are given for each other because they are equivalents, or whether >> they are equivalents because they are exchanged. But such an equality of >> the values of two quantities of goods (an equality in the objective sense) >> nowhere has any real existence. The error on which these theories were >> based becomes immediately apparent as soon as we free ourselves from the >> one-sidedness that previously prevailed in the observation of price >> phenomena.[4] >> >> This theory of value thus focuses not on visible economic phenomena, but >> on the forces that bring them into being: “the endeavors of men to satisfy >> their needs as completely as possible.” Indeed, all three of the authors of >> what is now known as the Marginal Revolution emphasize the role that an >> individual’s mental states play in the creation of value. >> >> What explains economic value, in this new system? On Menger’s view, >> “value is the importance that individual goods or quantities of goods >> attain for us because we are conscious of being dependent on command of >> them for the satisfaction of our needs” (115). This implies that goods that >> are always and everywhere readily available do not attain an economic >> value—we are not dependent on command for them for the satisfaction of our >> needs if we already have them at hand. Only scarce goods can come into our >> consciousness in this way. It also implies that “true prices” do not exist, >> because prices are the result of subjective valuations. >> >> This focus on mental phenomena helps explain why certain goods that might >> be seen as important resources today had no monetary value hundreds of >> years ago. It is not any immutable and unchanging feature of an item that >> gives it value. Rather, value comes from human perception. >> >> Yet how does the subjective theory of value resolve the diamond-water >> paradox? Put another way, why do human subjects not recognize the greater >> importance of water in their purchases? >> >> The answer lies in the crucial focus on *individual* goods and services. >> Classical economists saw diamonds and water as aggregates, or categories. >> However, Jevons, Menger, and Walras perceived that people interact only >> with individual goods. In other words, no one chooses between “all of the >> diamonds” and “all of the water.” Rather, people select discrete units of >> water and discrete units of diamonds. Hence the “Marginal” Revolution. >> >> When people ascribe value to a good, they value each unit of each good >> according to the least urgent need that can be satisfied by that good. Or >> put another way, goods attain their value through their *marginal >> utility*. As one classic example goes, a farmer who has five sacks of >> grain may devote the first two to foodstuffs, then, one to feeding her >> animals, the fourth to distilling hard liquor, and the final sack to >> feeding birds that perch on her barn. If the farmer were to lose one sack >> of grain, she wouldn’t reduce each of these activities by one-fifth. >> Instead, she would stop the least valuable activity—that of feeding >> birds—and preserve the most valuable activities intact. Thus, the value of >> one sack of grain to the farmer is precisely the satisfaction she stands to >> lose if she is unable to feed birds. This is the marginal utility of each >> sack.[5] >> >> In normal circumstances, people intent on buying diamonds have no further >> need for any concrete quantity of drinking water. They don’t stand to lose >> any amount of satisfaction if they pass up the chance to use more water. >> Yet the same isn’t true of diamonds, which are typically scarce enough so >> that, in Menger’s words, “even the least significant satisfactions assured >> by the total quantity available still have a relatively high importance to >> economizing men.”[6] This explains the higher price of a unit of diamonds >> compared to a unit of water. It’s also worth noting that the marginal >> approach also holds true in unusual circumstances. If someone on a desert >> island must choose between a chest full of diamonds and a gallon of water, >> chances are they’ll prefer the water. >> >> Jevons, Menger, and Walras succeeded in explaining diverse economic >> phenomena, and resolved a paradox that had befuddled Adam Smith, Karl Marx, >> and all who came between and before them. Their insistence on the >> subjective nature of economic value, and the impossibility of calculating >> the “true cost” of any good, continues to challenge many notions widely >> held today. >> >> [1] Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of >> Nations* (MetaLibri, 2007), https://bit.ly/2fvwmCh (PDF). >> >> [2] Smith, *Wealth of* *Nations*, 28. >> >> [3] Karl Marx, *Capital, A Critique of Political Economy *(Marxists.org, >> 2015), https://bit.ly/1qHtn3M (PDF). >> >> [4] Carl Menger, *Principles of Economics* (Mises Institute, 2007), >> https://bit.ly/2urdKMA (PDF). >> >> [5] Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, *The Positive Theory of Capital * >> <https://amzn.to/2GUhI30>(G.E. Stechert & Co., 1930). >> >> [6] Menger, *Principles of Economics*, 40. >> >> *Adam De Gree is a freelance writer and homeschool history teacher based >> in Prague. He studied Philosophy at UC Santa Barbara and can be reached by >> email here <[email protected]>.* >> >> <http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpartiallyexaminedlife.com%2F2018%2F04%2F03%2Fthe-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value%2F&t=The%20Diamond-Water%20Paradox%20and%20the%20Subjective%20Theory%20of%20Value&s=100&p%5Burl%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fpartiallyexaminedlife.com%2F2018%2F04%2F03%2Fthe-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value%2F&p%5Bimages%5D%5B0%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fpartiallyexaminedlife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FCarl-Menger.png&p%5Btitle%5D=The%20Diamond-Water%20Paradox%20and%20the%20Subjective%20Theory%20of%20Value> >> <http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpartiallyexaminedlife.com%2F2018%2F04%2F03%2Fthe-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value%2F&title=The%20Diamond-Water%20Paradox%20and%20the%20Subjective%20Theory%20of%20Value> >> <?subject=The%20Diamond-Water%20Paradox%20and%20the%20Subjective%20Theory%20of%20Value&body=via%20PEL%20blog:%20http%3A%2F%2Fpartiallyexaminedlife.com%2F2018%2F04%2F03%2Fthe-diamond-water-paradox-and-the-subjective-theory-of-value%2F>by >> <http://synved.com/wordpress-social-media-feather/> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> -- >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < >> [email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < >> [email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
