from MSN
Jubak's Journal
The high cost of do-it-yourself
cost-cutting
Lower prices mask a bitter truth: The customer
still pays, but with time and frustration. A company that can cut prices without
alienating its public could be a great buy.
By Jim Jubak
I was thinking about
, this isn't really about the labor theory of
value, since the players produce a collective product
with a collective labor process in which external
benefits amongst workers imply that the effects of
individual labors can't be separated. Being paid more
for more effort is about the theory of
wage
]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on the labor theory of value
To be honest, this is just more evidence of German
overmanning. Does an orchestra really need two
trombone players, a timpanist and an oboist, each of
whom only plays
on the labor theory of value
JD wrote:
Wagner's music is better than it sounds. -- Mark Twain
(paraphrased).
Mark Twain was making a perceptive comment on contemporary
American standards of musical performance, not a philistine
denegration of one of the greatest composers ever.
Shane
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] More on the labor theory of value
JD wrote:
Wagner's music is better than it sounds. -- Mark Twain
(paraphrased).
Mark Twain was making a perceptive comment on contemporary
American standards of musical performance, not a philistine
denegration of one
In a way, the violinists' demands are not as strange as they seem.
Richard Biernacki has argued that the Germans and the British had a
different conception of labor -- the Germans historically measured labor
by something like Marx's labor power; the British, by the value produced
by labor. For
in German[y] publishers paid authors by the number
of pages they produced rather than by the sales of the books.
that would explain the verbose style of German authors?
but wasn't Dickens paid by the word?
Jim D.
I don't know about Dickens, but yes, even Marx complained about having
to make his book long for the damn German publisher.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:10:13AM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
that would explain the verbose style of German authors?
but wasn't Dickens paid by the word?
Jim D.
--
But Michael, number of pages produced is a measure of labor performed,
not labor power. And in Marxian terms, the value produced by labor is to
some extent redundant, since to Marx labor *is* the substance of value,
no? It would be more accurate to say on the basis of your example that the
Gil writes:
But Michael, number of pages produced is a measure of labor
performed, not labor power.
I was going to say something similar, but held off, since Michael doesn't seem to like
discussions of Marxian value theory. Note that number of pages produced isn't a very
good measure of
Regarding your first point, authors according to Biernacki, were paid by the page.
Goethe was upset that he was paid identically with the creator of some trash. The
only way to win an economic advantage was to produce more pages per hour. Perhaps,
this can lead to the creation of Internet
We're being fiddled, say violinists
AP, Berlin
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Violinists at a German orchestra are suing for a pay rise on the grounds
that they play many more notes per concert than their musical colleagues
- a litigation that the orchestra's director yesterday called
Isn't this being published a week too early?
We're being fiddled, say violinists
AP, Berlin
Wednesday March 24, 2004
The Guardian
Violinists at a German orchestra are suing for a pay rise on the grounds
that they play many more notes per concert than their musical colleagues
- a litigation that
of course, this isn't really about the labor theory of value, since the players
produce a collective product with a collective labor process in which external
benefits amongst workers imply that the effects of individual labors can't be
separated. Being paid more for more effort is about
Marx
didn't believe in a normative labor theory of value (i.e. that workers
_should_ be paid the value produced by their labor).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
http://www.georgetown.edu/oweiss/ibn.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 07:41PM
Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major
mistake of the
economics profession was in developing the theory of value for
commodities that
derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional
cases, instead
of focusing
ues but are not in themselves or intrinsically of any value.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:2341] the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/
I wrote:
Locke's labor theory is a theory of property, BTW. That is, it's a
(poor) theory of why some people have property and some people have more
than others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to
change the name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his &qu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 10:46PM
In a message dated 9/25/00 4:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CB: But "value" and "exchange-value" are not quite exactly the same thing
?
This has probably been answered, but no. Value is socially necessay abstract
labor time
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are sources of use-values.
Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
If an apple falls off of a tree and someone eats it, Nature was a source of that
use-value. But there is no such thing as an exchange-value falling directly off
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=
I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does
not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 05:49PM
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
labor
Actually air is a good example of a use-value from nature that does not have
exchange-value because there is no human labor producing it for exchange. It is an
example of wealth that human labor is not a source of .
It's free, for now.
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 08:35PM
Of course, the
day, September 26, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:2341] the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/26/00 12:01PM
By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=
I know that. My question was
y to convince people to change the
name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property."
His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's is more of
a critique of Locke's theory (which was accepted implicitly by the
political economists of his d
property and some people have more than
others in society. Every few years I try to convince people to change the
name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property."
His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's
is more of
a critiq
people to change the
name of Marx's "labor theory of value" to his "labor theory of property."
His theory is much better than Locke's. In fact, I think Marx's is more of
a critique of Locke's theory (which was accepted implicitly by the
political economists of his day) tha
Ian wrote:
My sense is that this would be somewhat helpful in developing Marxian
theories of enterprises [not Marxian theories of capitalist firms] which
took legal factors into account. It is alternatives not more critique that
needs to be done now. For the last ten months the critiques have
Ken Hanly wrote:
Surely it is too restrictive to distinguish only "use values" and "exchange
values". Things can be intrinsically valuable to humans i.e. the enjoyment
of a sunset, the taste of an apple,
(Preliminary: Neither Marxism nor any other ism is a TOE [theory of
everything])
Fabian, you are perfectly welcome to unsub. Just send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsub pen-l.
I would rather that you stay and try to dialogue in a more amicable fashion. Carrol
was wrong to have written the way he did. I responded earlier regarding that post,
but calling people clowns
Michael wrote:
Fabian, you are perfectly welcome to unsub. Just send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsub pen-l.
I would rather that you stay and try to dialogue in a more amicable
fashion. Carrol was wrong to have written the way he did. I responded
earlier regarding that post, but calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect
Lou loves to
Don't forget, Marx considered circus performance to be productive labor.
Louis Proyect wrote:
Now wait just a gosh-darned minute. I regarded [being called a clown] a
compliment.
3, p. 745 (International edition)
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: the labor theory of value
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Day
No, you are thinking about the passage at the start of the Critique of the Gotha
Program where Marx attacks the idea that labor creates all wealth, not value. For
MArx, value is by definition embodied labor. --jks
In a message dated Mon, 25 Sep 2000 2:57:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 02:56PM
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
(((
CB: In the terms of _Capital_ human labor is the source of all exchange-value.
Use-value comes from
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only labor
creates value. Use-values refer to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/25/00 04:01PM
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only labor
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
"Natural elements entering as agents into production, and which cost
nothing, no
matter what role they play in production, do not enter as components
of capital,
but as a free gifts of Nature to capital, that is, as a free gift of Nature's
productive power to labour."
But Marx does not explicitly equate use-values with wealth in his opening
rebuttal sentence. Value, use-value and wealth are confused and entangled in
his retort. Is the source of use-values itself a use-value, a value or
wealth? Doug's query from a while back hits the last sentence below quite
At 02:59 PM 9/25/00 -0400, you wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
for Marx, labor and nature both create use-values, whereas only
labor creates value.
But use values have exchange
Brad, read the first two pages of Ricardo's _Principles_. A major mistake of the
economics profession was in developing the theory of value for commodities that
derive their value from scarcity, in other words, for exceptional cases, instead
of focusing on the general case, *reproducible
What Brad writes is perfectly consistent with Marx's labor theory of value [with
one exception], although numerous comentators pretend to have discovered some
glaring defect. The exception is that things can have exchange value even if they
are not scarce -- I will leave out all the asterisks
Doug Henwood wrote:
Wasn't Marx himself critical of the notion that only labor creates
value? I recall something about nature being a partner in the
enterprise.
Probably someone else has already responded to this more accurately
than I can -- I'm still struggling with nearly a thousand
Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor
nor surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are
_accidental_ (a disequilibrium phenomenon).
They are not a disequilibrium phenomenon. Scarce resource-based
products *continue* to have prices in excess of
Of course, the cost of reproduction must be the least cost option. Oxygen
is a by product of growing plants. The technology Brad proposes is not
very cost-efficient.
If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one
Brad, I think that there is some similarity between Hayek (Don't tell Justin)
and this part of Marx's theory. Hayek, you suggest, came to the right
conclusion without the labor theory of value. So what? I might propose a
biblical explanation for why a rock falls to the ground. Would
If a reproducible commodity ain't scarce, it has no value. We can
make oxygen out of water and electricity, but no one would say that
the cost of air is determined by its cost of reproduction...
Brad DeLong
===
So math has no value?
Ian
In a message dated 9/25/00 4:11:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CB: But "value" and "exchange-value" are not quite exactly the same thing
?
This has probably been answered, but no. Value is socially necessay abstract
labor time embodied in the commodity. Exchange
I wrote:
Under simple commodity production (where there is neither wage-labor nor
surplus-value), the deviations between prices and values are _accidental_
(a disequilibrium phenomenon).
Brad opines:
They are not a disequilibrium phenomenon. Scarce resource-based products
*continue* to have
At 04:16 PM 09/25/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Sounds a lot like Hayek's vision of the business cycle. But Hayek managed
to do fine without the LToV. So what's its role in this Hayekian mechanism?
The Austrian edifice, including Hayek, is based on Marx and his immediate
followers (though they tried
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:11:03 Jim Devine wrote:
BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
an e-mail discussion
In a message dated 9/23/00 8:44:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
One other relevant question concerns the "value of value"
Fabian Balardini wrote:
I put this thread on a bad track? How, by saying that after reviewing the
debate on value theory at OPE-L and studying the TSS propositions for almost two
years I have reached the conclusion that TSS opponents are irrational and dishonest?
yes, but the above
I wrote:
BTW, you should know that (at least in e-mails), your style of writing
conveys a heavy air of dogmatism. (That's why, I would guess, that Louis
Proyect's response to you was so flippant.) It's not a good idea to enter
an e-mail discussion with people you don't know and haven't
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:32:08 Michael Perelman wrote:
The algebraic theories of the transformation problem don't make sense
because they cannot account for the flow values from fixed durable
capital goods.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my impression that so far (100+ years) the
Louis wrote:
I doubt if this "transformation problem" will ever go away if it is posed
in terms of a correct mathematical paradigm.
Right. Most of the literature wallows around in math that conceals more
than it reveals. Many authors actively eschew philosophical reflection
about what they're
only interpretation of Marx's value theory which is able so far to reproduce most of
Marx's value theory results and propositions. Their work shows that the famous "labor
theory of value" of Marxist economists can not duplicate Marx's main proposition
because it adopts in its method
Fabian:
I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
authors.
LP:
Correct.
Fabian:
I see their main point as saying that the Marxist orthodoxy has adopted a
concept of value different from Marx's starting with Bortkiewicks first
formalization of the transformation
At 11:48 AM 09/23/2000 -0400, you wrote:
I don't think you understand the critique by Kliman,McGlone and other TSS
authors. Their work is not a defense of "orthodox Marxist value theory"
but a radical break with it. In fact, I see their critique to be so
destructive of what we know as
I wrote that instead of the TSS being rejected because (d) its opponents
don't understand it or (e) its opponents were ideological, as Fabian
asserted, the TSS could be (a) logically wrong; (b) spinning models that
don't fit empirical reality; or (c) leaving out important components of
Justin wrote:
The only other relevant question is whether labor creates value. For those
who think not, they do not belong on PEN-L, but that's just my opinion.
Louis Proyect
Fabian put this thread on a bad track. The labor theory of value does seem to
raise passions. I thought
The labor theory of value does not have to be very mysterious. In a
sense, at least one part of Marx's theory can be read something like
this: in order for a market economy to function "properly," prices must
bear some relationship to the underlying values. Prices don't eq
Berman, Dennis. 1999. What's a Worker Worth? Business Week (11
October): p. F 4.
What's the true measure of Man? Before you wax philosophical, glean
some practical wisdom from Jac Fitz-enz. His company, Saratoga
Institute, devises systems for measuring human capital -- in other
words, how
of an unjust distribution of assets. Reiman calls his theory
the 'labor theory of moral value'.
Again, I don't care much what Kant's motives were, as long as the concepts he
left me can be useful for *my* purposes. In the case of what I called the
"nonexploitation principle", it is e
On Wednesday, July 7, 1999 at 11:44:29 (-0700) Peter Dorman writes:
My own view is that reward for
contribution may be pragmatically justified but is difficult to defend
as a principal basis for deciding what is "fair". This is because most
of the determinants of
fend the
traditional Marxist interpretation of exploitation - that expoitation
occurs during production through the *forced* extraction of surplus
labor - against the Roemerian definition which says that exploitation
is a result of an unjust distribution of assets. Reiman calls his theory
the 'labor theory of moral value'.
Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:03:48 -0400 (EDT)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane Mage)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: "labor theory of value"
What discussion? You have yet to saying anything in response to
my
Shane says:
Use-value is
measured as a quantity of *dated* socially necessary labor time. The
change in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity
of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year
y divided by the quantity of use-value produced
At 11:57 AM 10/21/97 -0400, Jim Devine wrote, inter alia:
"But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends
less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the
power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor
time. The powerful
Date sent: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:31:08 -0400 (EDT)
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane Mage)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: "labor theory of value"
James and Ricardo seem to share the same vulgar-economics
Date sent: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:08:15 -0700
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:"labor theory of value"
I think we can leave aside the biblical question as to whether Marx
use
in labor productivity from year x to year y is measured as quantity
of use-value produced by t hours of socially necessary labor time in year
y divided by the quantity of use-value produced by t hours of socially
necessary labor time in year x. Clear?
Shane
Ricardo writes: The labor theory of value
No explanation is required for a passage from a rough draft ("Rohentwurf")
which its author chose not to use in the published version, which alone can
be taken to represent his considered formulation. In any case, this
passage is no evidence that, when he was writing his rough draft for
Kapital,
Ricardo writes: The labor theory of value in its classical form is
untenable.
BTW, I'm always puzzled by this phrase. What do _you_ mean by it? As far as
I can remember, Marx never used this phrase except to refer to other
people's theory (e.g., that of David Ricardo). He never defined
Rick Holt is posting my labor theory of value paper from Rethinking
Marxism on the CSF computer. In this paper, I show that Marx saw that
we must go beyond the simple "adding up" approach to the labor theory of
value.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State Univer
Michael Perelman writes:
This citation from Sen might be interesting:
March 24, 1994Sen, Amartya. 1978. "On the Labour Theory of Value: Some
Methodological Issues." Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2 pp. 175-90.
He compares labor theory of value to statement that "Mi
Rick Holt is posting my labor theory of value paper from Rethinking
Marxism on the CSF computer. In this paper, I show that Marx saw that
we must go beyond the simple "adding up" approach to the labor theory of
value.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State Univer
This citation from Sen might be interesting:
March 24, 1994Sen, Amartya. 1978. "On the Labour Theory of Value: Some
Methodological Issues." Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2 pp. 175-90.
He compares labor theory of value to statement that "Michelangelo made the
statue of David&quo
This citation from Sen might be interesting:
March 24, 1994Sen, Amartya. 1978. "On the Labour Theory of Value: Some
Methodological Issues." Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2 pp. 175-90.
He compares labor theory of value to statement that "Michelangelo made the
statue of David&quo
We may be making some progress on the labor theory of value. I did a piece
last year in Rethinking Marxism in which I maintained that the labor theory
of value had a subjective as well as an objective side.
Mike Lebowitz is absolutely correct that the simple minded labor theory of
value that we
82 matches
Mail list logo
