Talk:Labor theory of value/Archive 2

message: This is related to the economic calculation problem. Critics argue that the labor theory of value is useless in the real world for deciding how much of a product is "socially necessary" and for allocating resources. Indeed, they argue that this doomed the Communist states to inefficient production based on guesses of what was "socially necessary" and eventual failure. Marginalism sovles this by acceptng prices as a true measure of the value of products and for allocating resources. Also some socialists accept this and advocate market socialism.
This doesn't seem applicable, the 'average socially necessary labour time concept is simply a means of suggesting that value is derived from the whole process of production, not a particular good and that slow, inefficient workers will not add value by taking twice as long to produce a good than everyone else.  I'm loath to delete it since it would leave that section at only one sentence - could someone who knows the critique sort it?--Red Deathy 09:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The economic calculation problem is very well known. If you can state how much of a product is "socially necessary" to produce, then you have solved it.Ultramarine 12:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the economic calculation problem (you can see the changes I've made to the page recently) but it isn't applicable here, since it's taking a different meaning of socially necessary (and in fact doesn't mean you can't find out what is needed/desired, only you can't rationally decide how to produce it).  In LTV Socially Necessary labour time refers only to the principle that one hours work does not (ahem) necessarilly turn into one hours value, but that the value of goods is found through competition and production as part of a system.  For instance, it doesn't mean that we only need to take three hours to make a cricket ball (it might possible to do it in one) but that currently in the economy generally it takes three hours.  Liekwise, it does not imply that the goods are necessary, sicne it applied to fripperies as well - glow in the dark stickers for ceral boxes are not necessary, but do require socially necessary labour time to produce.  Do you see the distinction and why the calculation problem isn't relevent?  I agree that it is possible to criticise this because it is an abstraction (does Marcx, for instance, mean mode or median average?) so the section should stay but be re-written.--Red Deathy 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with "socially necessary" is that it is an ad hoc ad on principle that covers various problems with the theory. For example, labor theorists agree that only useful products should be produced. But who and how to decide what is "socially necessary" and useful? That is the heart of the economic calculation problem.Ultramarine 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Labour Theorists of Value don't agree that only necessary products should be produced, socialists argue that, and that is relevent to the economic calculation argument.  LTV is desacriptive not normative, it simply says that the value of a good is derived from the average socially necessary labour that would go into its production.  Market demand and custome decide what that social necessity is.  For example, if a trade union sucesfully resists the introduction of machinery into an industry, say, the socially necessary labour time will be the prevellent one in that industry, even if by introducing that machinery the time needed to produce goods could be radically cut.  This: The problem with "socially necessary" is that it is an ad hoc ad on principle that covers various problems with the theory is a valid criticsm that shoudl make the meat of the section, the economic calculation stuff is erroneous (and slightly erogenous).--Red Deathy 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The LTV states that only useful products have a value. But it never explains how to decide this. Marginalism explains how, useful products are those people are willing to buy. In the real world the LTV is worthless for how to organise an economy or even to decide if to make more or less of a single product.Ultramarine 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem with the LTV is that it doesn't explain the relative differences in prices of commodities. It seems like it can explain some commodities, but there are exceptions where it doesn't work. The only theory that explains all cases is the marginalist theory of value based on the subjective theory of value. It says that for a commodity to have value it must be useful in satisfying human wants and it is not in unlimited supply, and the value of it is determined by the least productive use of that commodity in satisfying a human want. Economizer 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, but that's irrelvent to the discussion at hand here about the section on criticism regarding socially necessary labour.  This is a place for discussing the LTV article, not arguing the relative merits of theories.--Red Deathy 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the merits of alternative explanations should be discussed.Ultramarine 16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this discussion section and not necessarilly in this article, if we are to maintain NPOV.  the point at hand is that the economic calculation problem has nothing to do with socially necessary labour time.  I'm about to go home, so I will go and delete that para now.--Red Deathy 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And LTV agrees with this definition of useful, there will be no price if no-one will buy it, and no one will buy it unless they consider it useful.  Much like Russell's orbiting teapot, a diamond in the floor of the seabed has no value.  As I've tried to explain, the socially necessary labour time can be utterly unnecessary but In the real world, LTV is an explanation for free market economics as seen and observed in action.  It is descriptive not prescriptive - hence why the economic calculation argument has no bearing on this page.  Firm managers are not presumed to sit down and use Marginal Theory to price their goods, likewise LTV.  To return to the article, I think the section needs to remain but to be changed.  Unless you can provide a good reason for that para I'll excise it and leave a stub thing on the section...--Red Deathy 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there are forms that are normative. They say that the price ought to correspond with the labor incurred in producing a good. Economizer 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but those are political theories based upon LTV, not predictions of the LTV itself.--Red Deathy 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Firm managers do implicitly use Marginalism when deciding if they should make more of a product or invest more in its quality, comparing this to alternative options with the help of prices. But they cannot use the LTV. How are they supposed to determine if enough of a product is socially necessary or not? Ultramarine 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And firm managers implicitly apply LTV by looking at market pries and seeing if they can produce more goods more cheaply or improve their quality - socially necessary does not mean that there is some objective necessity for a good - have you not read a word I've written this afternoon - it merely means teh average time it takes under given conditions to produce a good.  Prics are a machanism for deciding whether or not to put in the time/effort (i.e. labour) of producing a good/service.  BTW, in what way is this article not neutral?--Red Deathy 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The LTV does not consider prices to be a true measure of long-term value and advocates cannot therefore use them. That is the point with the economic calculation problem. You seem to argue for market socialism.Ultramarine 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: God - LTV does say that prices reflect or relate to value, value, in effect, emerges or becomes known through price.  Economci calculation problem applies where the means of production are not privately owned and traded, it has nothing to do with LTV.  People who advocate LTV say that capitalism, as it works now, operates according to the logic of LTV, it's not normative, some people may advocate using labour time as an economic tool, but that is a matter for the economic calculation page.  Smith, Marx & Ricardo all claimed that LTV was responsible for prices in a free market.  I am not arguing for market socialism (my position is the opposite, in fact, I beleive in the abolition of value and of the need and use of money).  According to LTV Market capitalism runs according to labour time principles--Red Deathy 16:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this (corrected): Ultramarine 17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Obivously this article should deal with all aspects of the LTV, including how it could be used under socialism. As you yourself note, socialists have argued that it should be used under socialism. Ultramarine 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socially necessary

message: Wikipedia requires verifiability, if it is not verifiable that is grounds for removal, however, just because something is verifiable does not mean that it has to stay - it might be placed in the wrong part of the article, it might not be relevent, or it might be actually incorrect.  Specifically, WP:Lead I'd suggest is not the place to put refutations of the subject under discussion, they should come at the end or during the expansion in the main body of the text.  Finally, I'd suggest that primary sourvces are to be preferred wherever possible, especially in a social science topic, otehrwise what we're getting is the verifiable opinion of someone else unless their work invovles a ground breaking discovery (a new document, etc.)--Red Deathy 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourced

message: Economizer, this page has separate references and notes. The fact that you can't be bothered to provide references separated from notes does not mean you should change the heading for "Notes" to "Notes and References". Perhaps you just didn't notice this, but given the other flagrant disregard of Wikipedia policy (including making up your own Wikipedia policies), I'm inclined to think its just more of your subtle vandalism to undo the tremendous work so many Wikipedia editors have put into creating and maintaining this article. I'm really getting disgusted with this repeated vandalism. You should really be ashamed of yourself.
And one more thing. You claim that you want to make the article about the LTV as its commonly understood, not as Marx, or Smith or Ricardo understood it. Yet most of the citations you bring here mention Smith or Ricardo or Marx by name. To me this again just shows your flagrant disregard for the Wikipedia community. --Cplot 21:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues 

message: This section is just horrible. It is self contradictory, makes no sense and is full of really bad grammar. At least rewrite it so that it is coherent, even if you want to keep the blatant POV.radek
:Give examples of the problems.--Jack Upland 22:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples?  The entire section is absolute garbage.  It's supposed to be part of a larger section detailing criticisms of the LTV.  Instead it's what was originally a pro-marginalism argument that has since been rewritten to become an anti-marginalism polemic--a fact summed up and well-exemplified by the final, completely and riduculously POV sentence fragment that "marginalism" is "empirically and logically wrong".  If it can't be cleaned up and turned into an actual criticism of LTV, rather than a running argument between LTVists and marginalists (and I for one can't see how it could be, since that appears to be what it was from the beginning), it should be removed altogether. 24.72.6.129 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and Occam's razor is itself contentious for inclusion anyway.  Do readers need to be adviosed of an occam's razor critique? - I'd suggest only if a notable critic had advanced it - otherwise occam's razor is just part of ordinary critical thought.--Red Deathy 07:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll not RV it's re-inclusion, but ask, in the first instance for a citation of the use of occam's razor by a notable critic - otherwise it just reads like the inclusion of debating points (and a highly debatable debating point at that).--Red Deathy 07:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occam's Razor 

message: Moved Locke to Birth section from Overview section, but my understanding is that he really has a theory of property, not economic value.  However, since he keeps cropping up, perhaps he needs to be mentioned.--Jack Upland 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locke 

message: I vote this be deleted. He's not a significant figure and the quotation contains no significant substance.--Jack Upland 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about Knight - Disagree about Menger, a substantive critique worth mentioning for historical value if nothing else--Red Deathy 07:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Knight not a significant figure?! Intangible 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no, just that the section citing him was really just an argument by authority: "Frank Knight didn't like it" - it didn't propose any specific detailed critique.--Red Deathy 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, again, I thought it had already been deleted, it has been now as a mere argument by authority.--Red Deathy 07:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Knight 

message: Under marx's contribution, it says that workers are exploited, and that the state preserves the inequality of power. It seems to me that there should be some qualifier here, as this was probably only true during marx's life. In the US, for example, there is nothing to prevent you from quiting your job and becoming a business owner. Dullfig 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There never was a legal barrier to a worker becoming a businessman.--Jack Upland 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State preserves the inequality of power?