The only thing I have reservations about is natural resources. If a pair of shoes usually takes twice as long to produce as a pair of pants, for example, then shoes are twice as valuable as pants. In the long run, the competitive price of shoes will be twice the price of pants, regardless of the value of the physical inputs., this is the important part. It disregards the value of the natural resources, which didn't require labor to come into existence.
@DesecrateConformity Natural resources have no value until people perform labor to dig them out of the ground. Would you pay for a pile of coal under the ground if you had no plan to ever have it dug up?
ONly thing i object to is your use of the word "intrinsic value." I don't recall Marx using the term, he used just the term "value" i believe in Capital. I know what you mean when you use the term but it can confuse people and make them believe you are saying that commodities have a value contained within them, which I know is the opposite of what you said.
@ipwnorcs. I agree that people can draw the wrong conclusion from the term. But Marx does use the term "intrinsic" and it is a very important step in the argument for why the category "exchange value" is inadequate and points to a deeper, more fundamental category called "value."For there to be value in the abstract we must 1st show exchange value can only be an expression of something, of an underlying intrinsic value. But by intrinsic Marx still maintains that value is relational and social.
Did Marx foresee technology and productivity leading to high levels of unemployment and a drastic change in the oraganization of labor, or perhaps the end of capitalism? Do you think there's a model for a satisfactory mixed economy? Have you looked at the 1936 Anarchist experiment in Catalonia? I think they tried to replace money with a voucher for social labor time.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because of what happened after (the transactions of exchange), then they must have been exchanged because of some undefinable but absolute and intrinsic value. Because things have exchange value, they must have intrinsic value. THAT is YOUR assertion. And a logical fallacy.
FIRST you must demonstrate the intrinsic value, then express how those values are exchanged
Instead of demonstrating intrinsic value, you "imply" it. Any fantasy can be implied. God Done it.
@tuberesponder. No, because the social labor process is regulated by commodity exchanges. That is the fundamental starting point for the law of value. Your critique only makes sense if we abstract away from the entire field of social production and only look at an isolated act of exchange with no context.
And saying that my characterization of value is "undefinable" and "absolute" is also dishonest. I have clearly said that value is socially necessary labor time- clearly a relative category.
@brendanmcooney regulated by commodity exchanges in market exchange economies only.
Implying intrinsic value implies some of means of coordinating production and distribution on some non-exchange coordinated basis. (which would no longer provide the circular and post hoc fallacies used to imply intrinsic value itself).
You still must demonstrate "intrinsic value" before you can argue it's the basis of exchange. An intrinsic should imply the exchanges, not the other way around.
@tuberesponder. Not at all. Value, in the sense I am using the term, only exists when the labor process is coordinated by commodity exchange. It is not some timeless trait of all products of labor. It's a specific way of allocating labor when this allocation is not coordinated by any social body but by the blind forces of the market. I think you are entirely missing the crux of the argument.
@brendanmcooney Equivocal semantics. over use of the word "value" is either a trick or a trap.
Your values veil you from you to avail you of you, obfuscating reality in a cascading agenda of manufactured values. Remove the veil you wear and see, then see with real eyes, real value. Unveil you.
Exchange is an EXTENSION of use. No more antagonistic than a branch to a tree or a trunk. No more conflict than your own hand with your mind.
So it is the 'socially necesary labour time' that determines exchange value. It stands to reason that the exchange value of labour cannot logically fall below the combined exchange value of all the commodities required to sustain and reproduce the labourer - basically a subistance wage. But this exchange value is not what Marx meant by 'socially necesary labour time', he means the average use value generated by the labourer, right?
@yeahwotevaman. The SNLT that it takes to make a commodity is its value. Labor power is also a commodity. It requires a certain input of other commodities (food, housing, etc.) so there is a SNLT for the production of labor power. Does that answer your question?
@RedAntLiberationArmy. It has been taken down by YouTube, apparently under the pretense that it contained nudity (which it didn't). It was probably the victim of some coordinated flagging attack by some 15 year old libertarian (yes, the irony of libertarians reverting to censorship to win arguments does not escape me.) No worries. I will upload another version next week at some point. Right now I am away from home and unable to do anything about it.
@brendanmcooney Thanks for the info, Comrade. Yes, I, myself, have faced the hypocrisy from the Libertarian faction. Either way, thanks again. Can't wait to see the vid.
@brendanmcooney Funny, that you would ad hom libertarians, but not those supporting the current establishment, which most libertarians do not. You'd blame the liberators, instead of your captors. you think bankers and auto-employees don't youtube? You are after all, messing with their "livelihood."
Shame on any False Flaggers, ESPECIALLY libertarians.
@brendanmcooney I have seen a video with a speech by Misses claiming that the "iron law" was the base for marxism, I suggest you explain in latter videos why this is false, why the marxist theory of exploitation doesn't requires starvation wages suggested by the "iron law".
I like how you addressed Bohm-Bawerk at the beginning. Understanding why Marx focused on the social aspect of production and how it relates to economics in general is obviously where one would begin if they were wanting to change society because they saw something glaringly wrong going on.
Again, the point of Marxist economics isn't to critique capitalism, that was already being done in his time, its to change the world.
Here's how I see it: Use-value is entirely subjective - some things are more useful to me than they are to you. This is why we have exchange. Exchange value is simply the aggregation of subjective use-value across a market, expressed in terms of whatever commodity is used as money. Prices are an aggregation of subjective value. Intrinsic value only exists because something has use-value to someone. Labor is certainly a component of adding use-value to a commodity, but the value would not
@brendanmcooney Yes, I watched both parts. And I just re-watched the second part. Forgive me if I've missed some of your points, as I'm no expert on the theory aspects of Marxism. I just want to make sure I understand here - do Marxists believe that the value of commodities comes only from the amount of labor put into their production, and that subjective theory of value is false?
@BobbyW3363. Yes. It's also important to understand that value and price are not the same thing. If demand falls that will cause prices to fall below values and this triggers the reapportioning of labor in production. Once supply and demand meet again value=price. This creates the illusion that changes in consumer preferences CREATE value. But all they can do is reapportion value.
So, if these "values" can be above or below the market price, depending on whether supply=demand, then I assume the value is expressed in price terms? Who determines this "value" and how is it more useful than a market price? How do the producers decide what to produce, and how much?
@BobbyW3363. Yes value is expressed in price. It is the fluctuation of price around value that apportions labor. Nobody determines value. It is an unconscious, law-like process that goes on behind the backs of producers. Decisions about what and how much to produce are determined by the productivity of labor in a various industry and the demand for that product. Since there is no committee making this decision, but only the movement of prices, this can't happen without a value-price connection.
@brendanmcooney Also, if value is different than price, and is determined by the labor put into production (and not subjective value), then is it fair to say that the price is essentially the subjective "value" (as it is in part driven by human demand), and the LTV "value" is the objective "value"?
@BobbyW336. No price is determined ultimately by the movement of objective factors: the productivity of labor, the rate of capital accumulation, the distribution of value between wages and profit. Subjective factors may effect part of the price-value deviation, but price is still an expression of an objective thing. And these subjective factors are entirely subsumed by the objective world of capital. It's not like we have independent subjectivities that exist outside of capitalism.
i particularly like how you incorporate the supply and demand graph in this video. I feel like a lot of confused people see supply and demand as an alternative theory to LTV. Here you show how supply and demand are an essential part of LTV, but they are simply not the entire story.
The only thing I have reservations about is natural resources. If a pair of shoes usually takes twice as long to produce as a pair of pants, for example, then shoes are twice as valuable as pants. In the long run, the competitive price of shoes will be twice the price of pants, regardless of the value of the physical inputs., this is the important part. It disregards the value of the natural resources, which didn't require labor to come into existence.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity Natural resources have no value until people perform labor to dig them out of the ground. Would you pay for a pile of coal under the ground if you had no plan to ever have it dug up?
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
Why would anybody produce for use value? If that were the system everybody would starve to death!
mart83648 7 months ago
good explanation of prices x value
tvdogum 7 months ago
hahahaha, this is BS!! mises.org!!!
Coteincdr 9 months ago
@Coteincdr mises.org is indeed BS.
cogar48 8 months ago
ONly thing i object to is your use of the word "intrinsic value." I don't recall Marx using the term, he used just the term "value" i believe in Capital. I know what you mean when you use the term but it can confuse people and make them believe you are saying that commodities have a value contained within them, which I know is the opposite of what you said.
ipwnorcs 1 year ago
@ipwnorcs. I agree that people can draw the wrong conclusion from the term. But Marx does use the term "intrinsic" and it is a very important step in the argument for why the category "exchange value" is inadequate and points to a deeper, more fundamental category called "value."For there to be value in the abstract we must 1st show exchange value can only be an expression of something, of an underlying intrinsic value. But by intrinsic Marx still maintains that value is relational and social.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Did Marx foresee technology and productivity leading to high levels of unemployment and a drastic change in the oraganization of labor, or perhaps the end of capitalism? Do you think there's a model for a satisfactory mixed economy? Have you looked at the 1936 Anarchist experiment in Catalonia? I think they tried to replace money with a voucher for social labor time.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
@TheForwardGaze I just watched your crisis videos which answered my first question.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Because of what happened after (the transactions of exchange), then they must have been exchanged because of some undefinable but absolute and intrinsic value. Because things have exchange value, they must have intrinsic value. THAT is YOUR assertion. And a logical fallacy.
FIRST you must demonstrate the intrinsic value, then express how those values are exchanged
Instead of demonstrating intrinsic value, you "imply" it. Any fantasy can be implied. God Done it.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder. No, because the social labor process is regulated by commodity exchanges. That is the fundamental starting point for the law of value. Your critique only makes sense if we abstract away from the entire field of social production and only look at an isolated act of exchange with no context.
And saying that my characterization of value is "undefinable" and "absolute" is also dishonest. I have clearly said that value is socially necessary labor time- clearly a relative category.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney regulated by commodity exchanges in market exchange economies only.
Implying intrinsic value implies some of means of coordinating production and distribution on some non-exchange coordinated basis. (which would no longer provide the circular and post hoc fallacies used to imply intrinsic value itself).
You still must demonstrate "intrinsic value" before you can argue it's the basis of exchange. An intrinsic should imply the exchanges, not the other way around.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder. Not at all. Value, in the sense I am using the term, only exists when the labor process is coordinated by commodity exchange. It is not some timeless trait of all products of labor. It's a specific way of allocating labor when this allocation is not coordinated by any social body but by the blind forces of the market. I think you are entirely missing the crux of the argument.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago 2
@brendanmcooney Equivocal semantics. over use of the word "value" is either a trick or a trap.
Your values veil you from you to avail you of you, obfuscating reality in a cascading agenda of manufactured values. Remove the veil you wear and see, then see with real eyes, real value. Unveil you.
Exchange is an EXTENSION of use. No more antagonistic than a branch to a tree or a trunk. No more conflict than your own hand with your mind.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
So it is the 'socially necesary labour time' that determines exchange value. It stands to reason that the exchange value of labour cannot logically fall below the combined exchange value of all the commodities required to sustain and reproduce the labourer - basically a subistance wage. But this exchange value is not what Marx meant by 'socially necesary labour time', he means the average use value generated by the labourer, right?
yeahwotevaman 1 year ago
@yeahwotevaman. The SNLT that it takes to make a commodity is its value. Labor power is also a commodity. It requires a certain input of other commodities (food, housing, etc.) so there is a SNLT for the production of labor power. Does that answer your question?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Hey comrade, where's "Law of Value 4: 1 of 2"?
RedAntLiberationArmy 1 year ago
@RedAntLiberationArmy. It has been taken down by YouTube, apparently under the pretense that it contained nudity (which it didn't). It was probably the victim of some coordinated flagging attack by some 15 year old libertarian (yes, the irony of libertarians reverting to censorship to win arguments does not escape me.) No worries. I will upload another version next week at some point. Right now I am away from home and unable to do anything about it.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Thanks for the info, Comrade. Yes, I, myself, have faced the hypocrisy from the Libertarian faction. Either way, thanks again. Can't wait to see the vid.
Red Love & Salutes!
RedAntLiberationArmy 1 year ago
@RedAntLiberationArmy. it's back up.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Funny, that you would ad hom libertarians, but not those supporting the current establishment, which most libertarians do not. You'd blame the liberators, instead of your captors. you think bankers and auto-employees don't youtube? You are after all, messing with their "livelihood."
Shame on any False Flaggers, ESPECIALLY libertarians.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney I have seen a video with a speech by Misses claiming that the "iron law" was the base for marxism, I suggest you explain in latter videos why this is false, why the marxist theory of exploitation doesn't requires starvation wages suggested by the "iron law".
MarxistStudant 1 year ago
very well explain, plaese continue doing this videos.
cinthamo77 1 year ago
good job once again.
mauroprovatos 1 year ago 4
I like how you addressed Bohm-Bawerk at the beginning. Understanding why Marx focused on the social aspect of production and how it relates to economics in general is obviously where one would begin if they were wanting to change society because they saw something glaringly wrong going on.
Again, the point of Marxist economics isn't to critique capitalism, that was already being done in his time, its to change the world.
iremythpurr 1 year ago 2
Here's how I see it: Use-value is entirely subjective - some things are more useful to me than they are to you. This is why we have exchange. Exchange value is simply the aggregation of subjective use-value across a market, expressed in terms of whatever commodity is used as money. Prices are an aggregation of subjective value. Intrinsic value only exists because something has use-value to someone. Labor is certainly a component of adding use-value to a commodity, but the value would not
BobbyW3363 1 year ago
@BobbyW3363
Did you actually watch the video?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago 2
@brendanmcooney Yes, I watched both parts. And I just re-watched the second part. Forgive me if I've missed some of your points, as I'm no expert on the theory aspects of Marxism. I just want to make sure I understand here - do Marxists believe that the value of commodities comes only from the amount of labor put into their production, and that subjective theory of value is false?
BobbyW3363 1 year ago
@BobbyW3363. Yes. It's also important to understand that value and price are not the same thing. If demand falls that will cause prices to fall below values and this triggers the reapportioning of labor in production. Once supply and demand meet again value=price. This creates the illusion that changes in consumer preferences CREATE value. But all they can do is reapportion value.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago 8
So, if these "values" can be above or below the market price, depending on whether supply=demand, then I assume the value is expressed in price terms? Who determines this "value" and how is it more useful than a market price? How do the producers decide what to produce, and how much?
BobbyW3363 1 year ago
@BobbyW3363. Yes value is expressed in price. It is the fluctuation of price around value that apportions labor. Nobody determines value. It is an unconscious, law-like process that goes on behind the backs of producers. Decisions about what and how much to produce are determined by the productivity of labor in a various industry and the demand for that product. Since there is no committee making this decision, but only the movement of prices, this can't happen without a value-price connection.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Also, if value is different than price, and is determined by the labor put into production (and not subjective value), then is it fair to say that the price is essentially the subjective "value" (as it is in part driven by human demand), and the LTV "value" is the objective "value"?
BobbyW3363 1 year ago
@BobbyW336. No price is determined ultimately by the movement of objective factors: the productivity of labor, the rate of capital accumulation, the distribution of value between wages and profit. Subjective factors may effect part of the price-value deviation, but price is still an expression of an objective thing. And these subjective factors are entirely subsumed by the objective world of capital. It's not like we have independent subjectivities that exist outside of capitalism.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
i particularly like how you incorporate the supply and demand graph in this video. I feel like a lot of confused people see supply and demand as an alternative theory to LTV. Here you show how supply and demand are an essential part of LTV, but they are simply not the entire story.
Barmyleatherhead 1 year ago 2
nice
kingcowz 1 year ago