Labor Theory of Value- questions?

[breakloose999]

Please put the original back up, it was useful in its own right!

[seigneurvoland666]

Do you believe in the subjective theory of value but also subscribe to a basis of value? Ie LTV? If it's so obvious why do academics often reject it (the austrians). What is the knitty gritty disagreement here

[natedaug1]

I just want to know what labor theory of value is and some of the objections to it. Thanks.

[binhthanhvo]

Whatever you do, just make sure the topics are addressed in order. I know this sounds obvious, but it's really important to go through the ABCs before you get to LMNOP, so to speak, especially on a topic that can be confusing and even intimidating to people. For me, the labor theory of value starts with understanding how human labor is the source of all new value.

[tuberesponder]

Subjective theory of value

Is a cup of clean cool drinkable water more valuable to a dehydrating person in the desert, or a person drowning in the ocean?

Labor, a factor of production, a Factor and a POTENTIAL factor of valuation, is not the source of valuation. the source of "value" is the evaluator.

The Subjective evaluator uses their assessments of known information, priorities, and expectations to rank importance of goods, services, and conditions.

[MrEverpresent]

@gunsandbullhorns

You should not compare the abalone diver with the interaction in a capitalist society. The labor theory of value is only valid in the capitalist mode of production. Hence the need to understand the whole of this mode of production. You should know by now that one cannot understand the labor theory of value without the notions of a generalized exchange, the roles of buyer and seller, the exploitative relation between the roles of capitalist and worker, the money form...

[gunsandbullhorns]

Be sure and address the following criticism:

"The abalone diver dives for abalone BECAUSE it is valuable to him — the abalone does not become valuable just because the abalone diver dives for it."

[hep48]

@gunsandbullhorns There's no dispute that a given thing can have different utilities or use values to different people. That matter is fairly subjective, but reality doesn't end in subjectivity of the margins. Its in the total of social exchanges that the exchange value is derived. A closer approximation is average price index. Another better approximation is to compute the total cost to replace all past produced existing production capacity and all goods based on present, not past, capacity.

[Questfortruth86]

Hey, here's a question. How does Marx explain the value of money?

[brendanmcooney]

Maybe you should look it up on one of your conspiracy documentaries.

[Questfortruth86]

boring.

[Questfortruth86]

By the way, I did find a quote from Engles implicitly calling for the extermination of Slavs in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 223, February 16, 1849. I mean, it's extremely close to an explicit command.

The quote from Marx is supposed to come from "Hungary and Panslavia," but I couldn't find the article.

[brendanmcooney]

Well, we've already established your remarkable track-record at parroting decontextualized and adulterated quotes from complex historical debates you know nothing about and weaving them into fantastical conspiratorial scenarios... If you really wanted to understand these quotes (none of which call for mass extermination of anyone) perhaps you should read up on the history of pan-slavism and the 1848 revolution. Maybe this could be part of your quest for truth.

[Questfortruth86]

Why, will the history of plan-slavism justify their extermination?

"We reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution." -Engles

[brendanmcooney]

The historical context might, first, show you that Engels is not talking about "exterminating a race" but about fighting a specific political movement called pan-slavism that had taken a counter-revolutionary position. In wars and revolutions people take sides. Engels comments relate to a reactionary political movement not to an ethnic group. All you have to do is read the whole articles to understand that.

[Questfortruth86]

Slavs are a race, and it wasn't a war, it was a large group of terrorists murdering a small group of anti-terrorists and innocent civilians. Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror. So please. stop with the equivocation.

Anyways, how does Marx explain the value of money?

[brendanmcooney]

In your decontextualiziation and fabrication you have attempted to argue that Marx believed in racial genocide but all you can find to defend your arguments are Engels' quotes about a specific political struggle. Engels had no hatred of Slavs as race. He was talking about a pan-Slav political movement, which is obvious from the articles. So please stop with the bullshit. Your quest for truth is a quest for what you want to believe.

Re money- see my video "what is money?"

[brendanmcooney]

New Years resolution. Block trolls, losers, and rude people. Good bye. Have a good, new, ignorant year.

[Questfortruth86]

"We know where the enemies of the revolution are concentrated, viz. in Russia and the Slav regions of Austria, and no fine phrases, no allusions to an undefined democratic future for these countries can deter us from treating our enemies as enemies....we too know what we have to do."

[MrEverpresent]

I like your videos a lot but I think they miss something: Marx his method of dialectics. I think you should try to implement it in your videos. Ollman his dance of dialectics or Harvey his social justice and the city text is a good starter

[hep48]

@MrEverpresent wow how condescending. do you expect ever to be listened to? not being condescending - now there's a good place to start. If you actually understood dialectics, by the way, you'd understand that one can explain the labor theory of value which is premised upon the use of evolutionary i.e dialectical logic, also called process logic, and developed later into semiotics etc WITHOUT 'using' the word 'dialectical'. That's for the marxist religions, to use the word for the sake of it

[timberwulfzero]

Perhaps you could touch on absolute and relative surplus value?

[68generation]

Hey Brendan I am very interested in your new programme, but I think you actually explain Marx pretty well. Never mind people who are just defeatists and not constructive in criticizing.

[catgumart]

one more here,I think that time/energy expended by workers shouldn't be taken for granted,like a hotel employee making beds & cleaning & breathing in chemicals all day,or an orchard worker,this is very physical work..it burns lots of calories, its fatiguing & stressful I'm sure having to deal with people etc..why shouldn't they make as much as bank tellers or office employees,or even a diamond cutter or something that takes more precise skill, when they are using more energy throughout the day?

[catgumart]

I think this is a good way to teach...open questions from student to teacher...Id like to see a forum where teachers just stand there and answer questions...and demonstrate things for students...

[Questfortruth86]

"Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash (slavs) always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its (slavs) entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution... The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress." -Karl Marx, 1849

[catgumart]

Quest For truth...I apologize for my cognitive dissonance...but truly I don't understand what that paragraph,or what Marx meant when he said..why did you select that particular entry? Is it related to the LTV? If so, how? If not could you explain what your intention was as I'm totally in the dark. Sorry for for my density...

[brendanmcooney]

This is a fake quote. It is pieced together from isolated sentences taken out of context from a 1849 article by Marx called "The Magyar Struggle" in which he discusses the context of nationalist and counter-revolutionary violence following the 1848 revolution in Germany. Parts of the quote are made up entirely, for instance, nowhere does Marx talk about exterminating racial trash. Obviously Questfortruth is more interested in spreading misinformation than truth.

[Questfortruth86]

Uh huh. What about this one?

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way.... They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." -Karl Marx (Marx People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981)

This is also fake, right?

[brendanmcooney]

Yes it's a fake. Describing the imposition of modern capitalist technology upon older forms of work he says "The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way." ie, give way to capital's brutal assault upon traditional society.

The part of your quote about a "revolutionary holocaust" is a fake. It doesn't appear in the article you mention at all. It's clear that you haven't read the article and are just pasting it from some idiotic conspiracy website.

[Questfortruth86]

Obviously I don't have access to the article, and didn't assume mass internet conspiracy. Can you actually falsify the quotes, or am I supposed to take your word for it?

[brendanmcooney]

Don't take anyone's word for it. This is the INTERNET where any fool can say anything they want. READ THE ARTICLE YOURSELF! Anyone has access to the articles. They are on the marxist internet archive: marxistsdotorg. You are free to read them there. Next time don't believe every idiotic conspiracy you read on the internet. That's not a quest for truth. That's being a total sucker.

[Questfortruth86]

Oh please, get of your high horse. Google the quotes; there are hundreds of websites which claim they're true, and you have yet to invalidate them. But this is quite ironic, the guy who holds on to some mystical categorical measurement of value, which can't explain price formation, and still supports the ridiculous exploitation theory of interest, is calling me the sucker.

[brendanmcooney]

"there are hundreds of websites which claim they're true"

Wow. That's a great reason not to actually check the original. Rumors never spread on the internet.

Again, you form your opinion about Marx's value theory prior to understanding it: It does explain prices and the theory of exploitation is a theory about surplus value, not interest. I have formed my opinions on this subject AFTER educating myself on the topic.

[Questfortruth86]

surplus-value is interest. What businessmen call profit, economists call originary interest. You would know this if you read more than just Marx.

[brendanmcooney]

Yes, I know that austrians call it interest, but it's ignorant for you to say that Marx has a "ridiculous exploitation theory of interest" because it's not a theory of interest. You don't even know what you are critiquing.

[Questfortruth86]

Surplus value is the remuneration to the capitalist's who exploit labor, correct? Represented by production circuit: M-C....C'M', where ' represents exploitation. What am I missing here?

[brendanmcooney]

That for marx interest is a deduction from surplus value, a separate phenomenon so you can't call it an exploitation theory of interest. It's confusing terms.

[Questfortruth86]

You speak as if Marx's teachings are somehow esoteric, or purposely withheld from society. 4 of my professors this semester were Neo-Ricardians, and one was Post-Keynesian. Why is it that when they attempt to explain the labor theory of value, even the socialistically inclined students have puzzled looks on their faces? They ask questions, nod there heads like good little students, but are unable to replicate the justification with any degree of confidence. Is society just too stupid for Marx?

[Questfortruth86]

I'm sorry that your explanation of value collapses whenever you try to demonstrate its validity. Value theory doesn't require mystical explanations contingent upon wild imaginations, just logic.

[brendanmcooney]

I'd like to make 3 points:

1: you are changing the subject because you just got pwned for repeating wild internet rumors about something you admitted to not having actually read.

2: you are changing the subject by making vague and meaningless statements about a theory you don't understand.

3. you screenname is "questfortruth"

[catgumart]

Is the labor theory of value a formula devised to try to find a scientifically measurable and accurate way of compensating workers in the fairest way possible for their time and energy?..Like cleaning toilets,,is gross,dirty,tedious work and I feel janitors are way underpaid, does this try to find a fair way to pay them?

[brendanmcooney]

No. The LTV has nothing to do with how much people should be paid for things. It is a theory about what value is- where value comes from- in a market society.

[catgumart]

Thanks...that really clears up a lot. That sounds like I'm being sarcastic,but Im not..that really opens things up in my mind so I'm closer to putting the puzzle pieces of this philosophy and this particular concept together.

thanks! Ill keep watching and learning!

[nauselom]

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned 'Skilled labor' and 'Socially necessary labor time'.

These are the 2 most confuzzing questions imo. One would think these questions would be easy, but considering the amount of time Marx spends on these questions as well as the concept of relative value, they are clearly a bit more complicated.

[PolemicalCommentary]

I already sent this in a PM but i'll post it again here.

1) Why is Capital considered to be unproductive? The typical response is that if you subtract the labor component of the capital+labor equation, capital by itself will remain inert and not produce anything. However, this argument works both ways. Doesn't subtracting capital from the labor+capital equation mean that labor could not produce anything without capital?... So it's possible to make a "capital theory of value"?

[CapitalistHell]

In what sense are you using "capital" here? Capital in the sense of e.g. tools is created by labor acting on resources. If you mean capital to include resources, then it's true that labor couldn't produce without it; but so what? Suppose you did make a "capital theory of value"; it wouldn't justify the claim of the capitalist as the alleged personification of capital -- whereas the laborer is the indisputable personification of labor. Besides, capital still reduces to labor, but not vice-versa.

[PolemicalCommentary]

OK, I get that we can't conflate capital with capitalist (i.e. merely granting permission to use something productive isn't a productive act in and of itself). Of course not the case with labor where ownership is inseparable from the activities being done. But please explain how capital "reduces to labor"?

[hep48]

@PolemicalCommentary Nope, labor can produce a lot without capital. Our own bodies are our first machines, but being external to our labor nor representing labor in a congealed form, they are not 'capital'. We built our first tools. The tools didn't first start to build us.

[samsonlovesyou]

Hey Brendan, before I pose my question, I haven't watched all of your videos on LTV, so my apologies if this malapropos.

As I understand it, the LTV holds that the value of an object is relative to labour input. If I'm right about this, I have a problem in applying this to objects of rarity, say precious stones (which require little labour input) scarcity, whereby a capitalist witholds a commodity to up the demand, and just general supply-and-demand for popular commodities.

Thanks.

[CapitalistHell]

See my response to Tessaril, below.

[KagarBeardtooth]

1. Can you give a more detailed explanation of the relationship between Use Value and Exchange Value and how they form market prices?

2. What is the difference between Exchange Value and the Subjective Theory of Value?

3. How is Use Value able to be determined objectively?

4. How does human labor differentiate itself from machine labor outside of added production cost? What is is about human labor itself that adds value where machine labor doesn't?

5. Where do you get your cartoon clips?

[KagarBeardtooth]

*is it

[brendanmcooney]

Can you explain what you mean by #3?

[yadsik]

@brendanmcooney I suppose it means that one man's garbage is another man's treasure. Use value depends upon the customer. However, it wouldn't be fair to sell an item at a lower price because the customer would find it less useful than another person.

I would guess that generally the use value is an approximation of the value that the most likely customer would apply to the item.

[KagarBeardtooth]

yadsik has the gist of it.

According to Marx (unless I'm mistaken, and if so, please correct me), Use Value is objectively determinable, meaning that each commodity's utility is somehow able to be graded universally. I just wanted to know how this can be done.

[brendanmcooney]

I still don't follow you. What does it mean to universally grade the use-value of a commodity? I've never heard this anywhere before. Where did you stumble across this idea? What definition of use-value are you using?

[KagarBeardtooth]

It seems I misunderstood.

After re-reading, it seems that Use Value is really just the quality of being useful, of having utility: "A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful." - Capital: A Critique of Political Economy

Is that about right? If so, is that how Marx refutes the mudpie argument?

[brendanmcooney]

There is no mudpie argument. To think there is a mudpie argument is to admit complete ignorance as to what Marx's concept of value was all about: social labor. He was interested in the fact that labor can only become social in a market society through exchange thus taking the historically unique form of exchange value. He never claimed that any labor anywhere at anytime, divorced from this social context, had value. He never claimed that value just appeared magically inside objects due to labor.

[KagarBeardtooth]

Haha, whoa. Don't worry, I wasn't making the mudpie argument myself, I was just trying to make a point about how the mudpie argument can't stand if what I understand about Marx's Use Value is correct, that to have value, a commodity must first be useful to someone. I take it my understanding is more or less correct?

[brendanmcooney]

Yes, more or less, except that your definition needs more historical specificity. He says that value appears when labor is coordinated through market exchange. But he's not talking about value in the sense of desire or utility, but value as a social substance which coordinates production and lies behind exchange value. A commodity doesn't just need to be useful to one person. It must socially useful any sold on the market.

[KagarBeardtooth]

Alright. Well, I look forward to your new and improved video series. When do you think you might be able to have it out?

[thesmokingfrog]

that's a little bit of a misunderstanding of what marx really said.

He said that the utility is given by the commodity's materiality, that does not mean that it is to be graded universally (things do not demand to be used in certain ways), but that the use is whatever the user choses to do with it.

the use value depens on the person using it. marx does not develop much on use values as at the time, the idea that exchange value was determined by its embodied labor was mainstream. hope i helped u

[tatamtatam1]

based on my experience the question that people only superficially acquainted with the LTV most often raise is: "why is it only human labour that can create surplus value/new value? if an animal or a machine creates a surplus product, why isn't that surplus value as well?"

I think you should answer this question, pointing out that it's not some kind of magical physical property that makes human labour a "special" input (the point being that value is not a physical property at all...) etc. thanks

[decameron4]

Well, maybe it's too huge a task but it would be great if you make a series of videos on each section of the Capital starting from the two factors of commodity, then the two-fold character of labour, then the form of value and its sub-topics etc. That would be great great contribution to our mankind who in those years are too lazy to read. :)

[TheLeftLibertarian]

I agree with the points NamelessCommenter made. LTV needs to address the issues and flaws of the STV. I think the only people who will disagree with you on this subject will be Austrian economist. From what I understand, modern economist have dropped both LTV and STV from their analysis.

[TheLeftLibertarian]

Okay, my question. Does Marxism completely rely on LTV? Ive seen many Marxist dismiss it. Why? Does exploitation depend on LTV? What would happen if there were absolute proof that LTV is wrong? Would Marxism die? It would also be a great if you could cover the diversity of thought on LTV and what other think (K. Carson, Sraffa, etc.).

[thesmokingfrog]

You could also do a more detailed discussion about Marx's gattungswesen, historical materialism, and labour as a way of appropiating nature by human beings. Those are the topics that give LTV its philosophical depth

[68generation]

Well, actually I think your old videos were pretty good! Maybe you could help by defining some of Marx's concepts and it would also be helpful if you could relate Marx's theories in an historical context. Thanks for contacting me.

[SBRslacker00]

The term "value" is problematic. There is no universal "value" in terms of labor production. Various consumers value labor elements differently, either implicitly or explicitly. Also, there's always a disparity of consumptive power in terms of some consumers have more power to drive labor value, for example nations driving labor value in national defense.

There's a lot of flaws in the LTV, but the essense of value not being easily qualified or quantified universally is very problematic.

[brendanmcooney]

What do you mean by "consumers having more power to drive labor value"? and "value not being easily qualified"?

[SBRslacker00]

"consumers having more power to drive labor value"

Simply the disparity in consumptive power, thus the power to drive value. Maybe call it the "haves" versus the "have nots", but I'm thinking more in terms of institutions or whatever you want to label the biggest drivers of value influence. Be it, political (a dictator), financial (big banks & wall street) or even religious(valuing religious virtues). It really depends on how you want to drill down into the topic, but we're not all equal.

[brendanmcooney]

When you say "drive value" do you mean that effective demand changes prices? Do you think demand effects price over the long term?

[SBRslacker00]

"value not being easily qualified"

Simply that values vary so wildly from individual to individual. I think this will become even more true as society becomes less religious/nationalistic/oppres­sed and becomes more fragmented. We'll see less and less of things like "traditional values". I suppose there will always be trends, but not something that can be qualified into an abstract sense into a universal theory of labor. I could be wrong. Labor itself is even affected by these values.

[Disthron]

Oh, and find a synonym for heterogeneous. Even something like "unlike" or "not the same".

[Disthron]

First of all, pleas use less academic language. For instance at one point you say "so when I talk about exchange, and by exchange I mean..."

Academic language seems very bolted and redundant. You go over things a bunch of times and explain things that sometimes shouldn't need explaining given the subject of the video. So, I would suggest using more natural language.

Maybe make it a little more interesting by putting some pictures of what your talking about.

[hagsmunamadurinn]

I would like you to take on the total-systems approach to value estimation. Specifically the method of calculation in natura/in kind as exposited by Leonid Kantarovich- which is about taking in both resources, energy(/exergy) and labor time into the equation of how value is determined, as opposed to just make labor the (sole/decisive) determining factor in what makes value. And also take on the technocratic view that everything should be accounted in exergy including labor itself.

[tessaril]

Another question: What does marx has to say about social justice, particularly for those who can not participate on the labor force such as the elderly, disabled, children, single mothers and those most vulnerable in our society? Would marxism offer an expansion of what we today call the welfare state?

[tessaril]

Another question, in things such as housing values its often the case things like the location is far more important to its value than the worksmanship that goes into it, its this not in a way an inconsistancy with LTV or at least an indication some other forces are at play than just labor? This can also be observed in other comodities where the rarity of the materials used to construct them add far more value than the labor that goes into it.

[CapitalistHell]

You can't reproduce location or rarity, so they're not explained by the LTV but by rent and monopoly theories. Marx covers this. I agree though, Brendan should cover it in his video so we can show it to those who haven't read Marx.

[tessaril]

Hi Brendan, Im hoping that you can explain the role of property in Marx's theory which I dont think it has been elaborated in any great lenght in your previous work and its highly important. I would like to hear about the ideas of land ownership, down to housing as well as vital resources.

[DonJack1776]

I think you should emphasize the strength of the LTV in explaining value at equilibrium prices and how marginalism is weak in this regard.

You did a good job pointing this out in your transformation problem video and I think it would be a good addition to an LTV series. I actually liked your LTV videos, but a more comprehensive series of videos would be a great resource on Youtube.

[brendanmcooney]

I was actually planning on describing value as a non-equilibrium theory. How do you think marginalism is weak in explaining equilibrium value?

[DonJack1776]

Basically, I think that you should point out that MU doesn't explain natural prices very well. I worded it wrong originally.

[comradepinko]

Some mention of David Ricardo or other economists prior to Marx might be helpful for those who might be confused and think that Marx was the first to propose such a theory.

It also might prevent people who think Marx is the boogie man from immediately fleeing from the video for fear of turning red. (Although this might be good if we want to be spared reading some rather annoying comments)

[kummal]

yeah, and if you make such a statement you should point out the differences between marx and ricardo,since the dominating marx-interpretation is still the "neo-ricardian" one, i think

[comradepinko]

True. Don't give the impression that Ricardo and Marx had identical theories.

[spawk1993]

I think it would be helpful if you talked about why the theory of marginal utility is flawed.

[NamelessCommenter]

Spawk: Rather than salivating over the prospect of "debunking" Brendan's upcoming videos after they're already in the can, as it were, I think it would be helpful if you and your fellow marginalists would descend on this video and state your case now, so that he may address your preferred theory to your satisfaction and avoid being accused of attacking a straw man. That's what you would do if you were serious about exploring this subject, as opposed to advancing an agenda.

[brendanmcooney]

I'll probably save a full-scale critique of MU to a video on MU rather than a video on LTV, but I hope to bring in criticisms of MU here and there, when appropriate in articulating the strengths and originality of Marx's theory of value. What do you think the flaws of MU are? Do you think the "Cambridge capital controversy" is worth discussing? Or the "Austrian circle"?

[spawk1993]

Well, I don't know of any flaws, and haven't seen any videos attacking it, thats why I asked, lol.

[TheatetustheGreat]

I know that this is too broad to do, but just a couple of pointers on "intellectual property" in relation to the value theory - or rent in relation to the value theory... It would help a lot!

[organdva]

When dealing with exploitation or with other features of capitalism if I can't make an articulate argument I always refer people to your channel.

I agree with Nameless here, you should counter all criticism of LTV.

[Rundstedt1]

The argument that I encounter the most is the "Value is subjective" one. If you want to see a typical debate I had with a 'Free-marketer" on this subject check the extended comments at:

watch?v=5J7Vi6_Lrcg

I hope I didn't make any real major errors in my argument, at times I posted in a hurry because my opponent would try and shotgun junk out and I was trying to answer as fast as I could just to counter it.

[barrymarshall]

Stress the distinction between value and exchange value. Most people assume that Marx's LTV is simply a theory of the magnitudes of exchange value.

[brendanmcooney]

I think this is crucial. I hope to explain the value-price relation through the TSSI/ non-equilibrium approach, though I am still trying to completely wrap my head around it all...

[barrymarshall]

I'll email you on this

[somecomputergeek]

Can you put a link to the old video in the description?

[brendanmcooney]

Yes. I just did. Good idea.

[NamelessCommenter]

Strange as it may sound, I think you should join the mises . org forum (if you haven't already) & solicit their thoughts on the LTV. Not because they have any insights to offer, but because theirs are the sort of arguments we encounter most often online. I'd love to be able to point people to a nice, concise, "for dummies" video, complete with cartoons (& your always fitting, original music!), debunking the "mud pie" argument, for example. A series of such videos would be, well, invaluable!

[NamelessCommenter]

P.S. Not that ideological sectarianism has been an issue with your political economy videos thus far (in fact I can't think of a single example where you've delved into that quagmire), but please be very careful with the wording so that the series can be used by anyone who accepts Marx's LTV. For example, rather than saying "Marxists believe," it would be preferable to say "Marx believed." That way, anarchists can also refer people to the videos, without having to explain themselves.

[brendanmcooney]

Nameless, Your idea is a good one. I was hoping to find a good definitive LTV bashing page on misesorg but haven't found it yet, just scattered references. Do you know of one? Most of my understanding of the Austrian critique comes from reading Bohm-Bawerk, but many of the criticisms of Marx I see on YT are much less sophisticated which makes me wonder if the critique on misesorg is just some vulgar simplification of Bohm-Bawerk...

[organdva]

Hey Nameless, you seem to know a lot yourself.

Just use screen shots of your comments and start to make videos. I'll be first one to sub you :)

[NamelessCommenter]

Well, thanks! :-)

Honestly, I don't know a lot about anything, but I do know a little about a lot of things.

[NamelessCommenter]

Brendan, I just realized that I may have unintentionally implied that your music is fitting for dummies and cartoons! What I meant was that it always seems to fittingly "move" the message along, almost like a tour guide, if that analogy works.

[brendanmcooney]

thanks. I took it the intended way.

[Rundstedt1]

Great Idea here

[TheSeungjin]

i think ur videos are just fine now for those who meet labor theory of value for the first time. just plain explanation without getting into specific area or drawing specific examples. just a plain and obvious explanation of a priori concept?

[thesmokingfrog]

maybe doing a closer analysis about the relation of the LTV with the subjective theories of value?

starting from the internal contradiction of the commodity, value/use-value, can we say that in a socialised division of labor, there are also quantitative relations in use values (as the marginalist posit) as in labor?

many marxists just deny the usefulness of the STV, & I have never understood very well why.

maybe they don't like two theories competing for monopoly over one same word?

[Ramiiam]

Second that suggestion.

[Ramiiam]

You made an interesting statement in a video a while back about the apparent contradition between the theory of price as Marx articulates it in v1 and in v2, alluding to different levels of abstraction. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

Is the LTV really a theory of price at all?

Does Marx's idea that labor of different qualities and skill levels can be reduced conceptually to some quantity of average, unskilled labor really do justice to the problem? If not, where does the LTV stand?

[Ramiiam]

Meant to say: "v1 and v3."

[Laoch111]

Capitalism can not last as a system. It is severely flawed.