The value-theory, value, and its role in economics thread.

[OldManJays]

I believe this topic transcends normal political discourse and ideology, and therefore warrants its own thread apart from the political discussion thread.

I really want those who are interested to engage in a productive and good faith discussion on the ‘law of value’ (or more formally called the value-form), value itself, and the role it plays in our economy and how it shapes our daily lives. I have already put those I know won’t engage in a good faith conversation on ignore.

That being said, let’s talk about value - how it’s perceived, how it’s created, as well as the different types of value and their context - be it exchange-value vs. use-value, surplus-value (both absolute and relative surplus value), and different, conflicting theories of value (such as the labor theory of value, the subjective theory of value, etc), etc etc.

 

[TSCQ]

fairly simple if someone wants to STEAL it, tangible or non-tangible it's valuable.

 

[OldManJays]

So if I’m understanding you correctly, value only exists if it encourages theft? Is that what you’re saying? Or am I missing something?

 

[TSCQ]

So if I’m understanding you correctly, value only exists if it encourages theft? Is that what you’re saying? Or am I missing something?

I'd rather steal the land than buy it, this is how most nations were built, stealing land and killing off the inhabitants.

 

[OldManJays]

I'd rather steal the land than buy it, this is how most nations were built, stealing land and killing off the inhabitants.

Ok, but land is already a commodity that is generally bought and sold (or inherited in some cases). And even if you could steal it, what if it was an uninhabitable swampland, rife with diseases, pests, and no way for you to be able to maintain your sustenance? Does it still have value then?

 

[TSCQ]

Ok, but land is already a commodity that is generally bought and sold. And even if you could steal it, what if it was an uninhabitable swampland, rife with diseases, pests, and no way for you to be able to maintain your sustenance? Does it still have value then?

When Theft is involved that's a great indication that you'll know if it's valuable or not.

 

[OldManJays]

When Theft is involved that's a great indication that you'll know if it's valuable.

But that doesn’t answer my question. Is the land I described above valuable?

My point is, I don’t think you can use theft as a starting point for value, especially in a capitalist economy where commodity production is the law of the land.

 

[Platinum State]

Value=supply & demand. If you price something cheap enough after including the labor/transportation/packaging/r&d cost you wont be able to keep up with demand
Same in terms of services. Price something too cheap after including labor cost, you wont be able to keep up with customers

 

[OldManJays]

Value=supply & demand. If you price something cheap enough after including the labor/transportation/packaging/r&d cost you wont be able to keep up with demand
Same in terms of services. Price something too cheap after including labor cost, you wont be able to keep up with customers

Ah! Now this is an interesting proposition! This is much more what I had in mind than whether or not if theft determines if something has value, which it very clearly does not.

Supply and demand are real phenomena to be sure, but they aren’t value per se. They are closely related however. Price is an expression of the exchange-value of a given commodity at a given time, which can indeed change based on supply and demand, and other factors. However, price and value are not the same thing either (though they are closely related).

 

[TSCQ]

Ah! Now this is an interesting proposition! This is much more what I had in mind than whether or not if theft determines if something has value, which it very clearly does not.

Supply and demand are real phenomena to be sure, but they aren’t value per se. They are closely related however. Price is an expression of the exchange-value of a given commodity at a given time, which can indeed change based on supply and demand, and other factors. However, price and value are not the same thing either (though they are closely related).

that's elementary economics he's describing . once again theft is a clear indication on value-theory, you only value it once it's not in your possession.

 

[OldManJays]

that's elementary economics he's describing . once again theft is a clear indication on value-theory, you only value it once it's not in your possession.

There are lots of things, too many things to name really, not in my possession that have no value - subjectively OR objectively. Not to mention things that are already in my possession that have value - subjectively or objectively.

Using theft as a starting point for value falls on its face almost immediately due to what I said above. It’s way too simplistic.

 

[TSCQ]

There are lots of things, too many things to name really, not in my possession that have no value - subjectively OR objectively.

Using theft as a starting point for value falls on its face almost immediately due to what I said above.

wage theft? time theft? and the result of not getting your money in your possession wouldn't make you enraged or slightly annoyed?

 

[Platinum State]

Ah! Now this is an interesting proposition! This is much more what I had in mind than whether or not if theft determines if something has value, which it very clearly does not.

Supply and demand are real phenomena to be sure, but they aren’t value per se. They are closely related however. Price is an expression of the exchange-value of a given commodity at a given time, which can indeed change based on supply and demand, and other factors. However, price and value are not the same thing either (though they are closely related).

We can say value is in the eye of the beholder. One mans trash is another mans treasure. Someone can see value in a signed jersey, to someone who doesnt follow sports it doesnt have any value at all. Someone values only sport cars, others only need a reliable sedan to get by

 

[OldManJays]

wage theft? time theft? and the result of not getting your money in your possession wouldn't make you enraged or slightly annoyed?

But you are moving the goalposts and using theft in a completely different context than in your previous example of stealing land.

To be sure, wage theft and time theft (‘surplus labor time’) absolutely does occur in capitalism. In fact, capital itself CANNOT exist without this process - the extraction of ‘surplus value’ from the workday (socially necessary labor time + ‘surplus labor’ time) is totally necessary for the very premises now in existence.

However, even this isn’t the starting point for value, ie what makes something have value intrinsically. Your original starting point, that something has value because it’s not in one’s possession, doesn’t hold.

 

[OldManJays]

We can say value is in the eye of the beholder. One mans trash is another mans treasure. Someone can see value in a signed jersey, to someone who doesnt follow sports it doesnt have any value at all. Someone values only sport cars, others only need a reliable sedan to get by

In that sense, yes, value is subjective, but you are looking at it from purely a use-value standpoint. What about exchange value? Why do some commodities have much more use than others, yet command a far lower exchange-value (price) (I know why already but I’m curious what your take is).

 

[OldManJays]

BTW, even though I disagree with you guys, I appreciate the civil discussion thus far. My goal with this thread is to get people to really think critically about this stuff….

 

[TSCQ]

BTW, even though I disagree with you guys, I appreciate the civil discussion thus far. My goal with this thread is to get people to really think critically about this stuff….

A hidden agenda for your own intellectual pleasures should be discussed within the confines of your own circle sir, NT is the last place where you should discuss elementary economics imo.

 

[OldManJays]

A hidden agenda for your own intellectual pleasures should be discussed within the confines of your own circle sir, NT is the last place where you should discuss elementary economics imo.

This is just you projecting. You saying that theft is the starting point for value-theory is the very definition of elementary economics my guy. It’s quite possibly the most overly simplified take on economics I’ve read in a long time.

Hidden agenda? What hidden agenda? I’ve already made it clear in the political thread that I operate within a Marxist framework. Where have you been bruh?

 

[TSCQ]

This is just you projecting. You saying that theft is the starting point for value-theory is the very definition of elementary economics my guy. It’s quite possibly the most overly simplified take on economics I’ve read in a long time.

Hidden agenda? What hidden agenda? I’ve already made it clear in the political thread that I operate within a Marxist framework. Where have you been bruh?

created your own thread cause you couldn't handle it with the big dawgs huh?

 

[OldManJays]

created your own thread cause you couldn't handle it with the dawgs huh? typical Marixist, psssh.

You’re just mad cause you made an overly simplistic claim about value, that I absolutely deconstructed with minimal effort required, and now you want to call your wambulance that I have a hidden agenda. LOL. You’re better off just taking the L and admitting you made a dubious claim. I’d have much more respect for you if you just did that.

 

[TSCQ]

You’re just mad cause you made an overly simplistic claim about value, that I absolutely deconstructed with minimal effort required, and now you want to call your wambulance that I have a hidden agenda. LOL. You’re better off just taking the L and admitting you made a dubious claim. I’d have much more respect for you if you just did that.

no one asked for this thread though, you created this based on your over inflated ego on economics and wanted to bait your opponents/enemies from another thread, I see that as a hidden agenda on your part.

 

[OldManJays]

no one asked for this thread though, you created this based on your over inflated ego on economics and wanted to bait your opponents/enemies from another thread, I see that as a hidden agenda on your part.

No one’s forcing you to participate in it either.

I never insulted or attacked you personally. You made a claim, and I deconstructed it in a very non-combative, and respectful manner.

I’m not baiting anyone. In fact, my “opponents” or “enemies”, if you want to call them that, consists of two people that I put on ignore, because I know having a good faith discussion with them isn’t possible. Anyone else that I haven’t blocked, is more than welcome to debate me, or add on-to if they agree with me, or maybe even bring up something that I have never considered or thought much about.

Yes, I am very well versed in Marxian economics and value theory. However my goal isn’t to “one up” anyone here so much as it is get people to think about value in ways that are more critical than mainstream economics typically allows for. At the same time, if someone says something blatantly false, I’m going to say so - that’s just part of debate and discourse. In as respectful a manner as possible, ofc.

All of that being said, I actually still have much to learn. I’ve read Das Kapital Volume 1 cover to cover, and understand it fully, but I still need to read Volumes 2 and 3. I was hoping Princeton University was going to release a revised English translation of Volume 2 this year but looks like that ain’t happening. Probably gonna have to settle for the Penguin edition.

 

[rexanglorum]

I believe this topic transcends normal political discourse and ideology, and therefore warrants its own thread apart from the political discussion thread.

I really want those who are interested to engage in a productive and good faith discussion on the ‘law of value’ (or more formally called the value-form), value itself, and the role it plays in our economy and how it shapes our daily lives. I have already put those I know won’t engage in a good faith conversation on ignore.

That being said, let’s talk about value - how it’s perceived, how it’s created, as well as the different types of value and their context - be it exchange-value vs. use-value, surplus-value (both absolute and relative surplus value), and different, conflicting theories of value (such as the labor theory of value, the subjective theory of value, etc), etc etc.

IMO, the labor input aspect of value is in constant dialectic with the subject or market value of a good.

In the most immediate sense, market value drives prices. However, a person or a firm cannot have its product be less than the labor-input value. Meanwhile, some goods are sold or bartered for far more than their labor value and if that market value is far greater than the labor value for any sustained period of time, capital and self motivated entrepreneurs will direct more and more labor towards obtaining or creating the good, which has a very high market value relative to the same good's labor value.

 

[OldManJays]

IMO, the labor input aspect of value is in constant dialectic with the subject or market value of a good.

In the most immediate sense, market value drives prices. However, a person or a firm cannot have its product be less than the labor-input value. Meanwhile, some goods are sold or bartered for far more than their labor value and if that market value is far greater than the labor value for any sustained period of time, capital and self motivated entrepreneurs will direct more and more labor towards obtaining or creating the good, which has a very high market value relative to the same good's labor value.

This makes sense in modern capitalist economies. Of course, even when Marx was writing Das Kapital, he recognized that ‘value’ (socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity) very rarely was the same as ‘exchange value’ (prices).

The primary subject of this site, Nike/Jordan Sneakers are a perfect example in fact - their price commands a much higher number than the intrinsic socially necessary labor that it took to create them. This is due to what Marx called ‘commodity fetishism’, which I’m sure you are entirely aware of.

Economists tried to debunk Marx based on the above notion that he observed that value and prices are rarely the same thing, in what they called the “transformation problem “. This so-called problem isn’t much of a problem though, because:

1). Marx wasn’t concerned about prices so much as he was about what created value, how value valorizes itself, and the HISTORICAL, TOTALITY in which capital accumulates. Modern economics generally ignores this stuff, because going into an in-depth analysis of it has very negative implications for capitalism - to put it nicely.

2). The reason value is rarely equal to price is because value is created during the production process, price is determined in the realm of circulation, and includes other costs besides labor - transportation costs for example. So technically, there really is no such thing as the “transformation problem”. Bourgeois economists simply don’t understand Marx, nor do they understand economics in general.

However, as a Marxist myself, I want to say that contrary to popular perception, Marxism (nor Marx himself) is not a defense of the ‘labor theory of value’, nor even of labor itself. The labor theory of value is actually only a necessary theory in capitalist social relations, when labor and capital exist as a binary relationship.

In communism, production is re-organized along use-values only. Exchange-value (in the context of prices) in communism becomes superfluous because the value-form is no longer the central law that characterizes the production process or economy as a whole.

 

[OldManJays]

Generally speaking….Far, far too many people conflate value with price. They are not the same thing! As said above, price exists only in the realm of circulation - it is an expression of value, supply and demand at a given time, and other costs.

Which brings me to another interesting point: since the intrinsic value of a commodity can only be created in the realm of production, it’s got me to thinking about service workers - they aren’t producing value in the technical sense that someone who works directly in the production process does, yet these workers are ALSO exploited and not paid for the value they produce! But they aren’t producing commodities, you might exclaim. Indeed, they aren’t. However….Someone who works in a retail store that is selling already produced commodities is partaking in a socially necessary activity - they are selling the already produced commodities that the capitalist must sell in order to accumulate more capital/profit. Without the service worker, the capitalist will at the very least, see a delay in his/her profits and therefore in the accumulation of more capital. As we know, it’s in the best interest of the capitalist to sell as many commodities as possible, as fast as possible. Service workers are what directly makes this happen.

During Marx’s time, and for a time after, the productive forces of society were only developed enough that capitalism was still in its industrial phase. Once finance capital began to take hold, the character of capitalism as a whole began to change, and lead to where we are now: a service driven economy. Applying dialectics and Marxism to a service based economy, we see that value is indeed not only intrinsic in terms of creating something that is useful or can be exchanged, but that value also is, or has become, SOCIAL. (Marx would probably say it was always social). In this sense, can we now say that value has entered the realm of circulation while still being mutually exclusive from prices (in this case, the cost of labor or ‘variable capital’) ? I believe Marx would come to these same conclusions if he was here today, though I believe this evaluation is worthy of more attention and investigation beyond what I’ve put forth here.