robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ozymandias wrote:. What is so dishearteningis if these are the views of the most "enlightened" members of the working class (insofar as they have an inkling of class consciousness being trades union organisers) then what are average workers thinking? Almost fuck all by the looks of it. With their smartphones they are becoming ever more dumbed down. With a vast libaray of knowledge at their fingertips they know even less. We don't have a snowballs chance in hell of seeing Socilaism. This is the element which strikes me.
Ozy, if what you say is the case what would you make of the Flynn Effect? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31556802
Quite a good article here in support of the LTV https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/reconsidering-the-labour-theory-of-value/
ALB wrote:I think we're talking at cross purposes. Of course Marx's approach is different from that of conventional academic economists. I wasn't talking about this but about their views on how prices are calculated and realised in practice.As to whether academic economists now have a theory of value separate from a theory of price, here's what the Penguin Dictationary of Economics says (or said in its 1987 edition):Quote:Late-nineteenth-century economists like A. MARSHALL subverted theories of value to theories of price, determined by demand and supply; with each determined by MARGINAL UTILITY or MARGINAL COST. Since then, the theories of price and value have not been separated except by followers of K. MARX.They seem to have more interest in "utility" rather than "cost", maybe because if they looked into cost too much they would find that this can't be separated from labour expended.
Hi Adam, Fair point. And your re right – they do seem to have more of an interest in utility than cost notwithstanding the reference to marginal costs This means they have ultimately to fall back on a subjective theory of value with all the absurdities that that entails. The Austrian economists at least have the merit of stating clearly what the others merely imply. Von Mises put it like this: “It is ultimately always the subjective value judgments of individuals that determine the formation of prices…Market prices are entirely determined by the value judgments of men as they really act”.(Mises, L. von. 2008. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. The Scholar’s Edition. Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala, p.329–330). There are numerous reasons why this statement is demonstrably false, not least because subjective value judgements are themselves heavily influenced by objective prices as Bukharin pointed out. Also it fails to overlook how these judgements are mediated by purchasing power in capitalism. The beggar's desire for a square meal counts for nothing without the money to purchase such a meal. The problem with economic subjectivism is that it frames the approach to the problems of society in essentially atomistic and individualistic terms. After all it is only the individual who can make subjective judgements; society is not an individual. This means it is completely unable to grasp the systemic nature of these problems which it has by default to put down to individual shortcomings It cannot see the wood for the trees because all it is looking at is the individual tree
ALB wrote:I'd have thought that Marx's and academic economics's view as to how prices are fixed is more or less the same, i.e.Marx: cost of production + going rate of profit.Academic economics: cost of production, including profit as (supposed) cost of entrepreneurship.Both allow for variation up or down depending on short-term market conditions but neither bring in subjective utility. In fact, doesn't conventional academic economics claim that it can explain everything without needing the concept of "value" (as opposed to price) and so these days doesn't have anything theory of value?I suppose it depends on which academics economists you are talking about. The Neoclassical marginalist paradigm is diverse. The followers of Alfred Marshall differ from the Austrian School. And the so called Market Socialists like Lange are different again. But marginalism itself is rooted in the concept of economic subjectivism and utility even if the economists might dispense with mentioning it, let alone attempting to measure it. And economic subjectivism is underpinned by an epistemology of "methodological individualism" which sees the big problems of the day as arising from individual shortcomings rather than systemic failuresFrom that point of view I would say there is huge gulf between Marx's approach and the approach of most academic economists insofar as the latter ground themselves in a marginalist paradigm
Tim Kilgallon wrote:robbo203 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!Why Tim? I don't think its an unreasonable gneralisation. I mean there are exceptions to the law of diminishing marginal returns but by and large it holds true, I think. If you continue to eat ice cream after ice cream I guarantee your desire for ice cream will diminish to zero soon or later. Unless you have an infinite capacity to eat ice cream!
I am a very greedy man, nowadays, I am also a very fat man
You wanna get in shape for the revolution, comrade! Quit eating all those icecreams; you will be "marginally" better off for it!
ALB wrote:I thought that even followers of the view that use-value entered into economic value (the theory HM Hyndman described as "the final futility of final utility") had abandoned the view that subjective utility can be measured (as it differs from person to person, eg Tim) in favour a more "objective" approach based on averages. In other words, they think in terms of more and less (relative) than of an absolute figure. Or maybe there are still a few backwoodsmen around who think you can measure use-value?The Austrian school of economics – von Mises and co – never did believe that subjective utility could be measured and attacked those early attempts you refer to, to produce some kind of objective measure of utility or use value (i think "utils" was name of the unit of utility suggested by some economist whose name I forget). The Austrians argued that subjective judgments could only ever be ranked along an ordinal scale and could never be measured in a cardinal sense The question is how then do subjective preferences get translated into measurable prices, what is the mechanism by which this is supposed to happen? I think it is at this point that whole explanation offered by them collapses. They don't really have a plausible theory of how prices are determined by subjective values – how, for example, does the subjective value that a starving pauper places on a four square meal impinge on the price of the meal? – because they can't seem to see that subjective values are mediated by other factors like how much purchasing power you have. Subjective values can obviously influence prices but they don't in the end determine them
Young Master Smeet wrote:Marginalism treats each commodity as if it were a unique instance that can be monopolised, and so arrives at the view as per Marx above. because Marx goes into the system behind the exchange events, he derives value from a social system. basically, all exchanges are what the buyer and seller are willing to pay (the libertarian fantasy) when seen at that precise moment. The question is how we got to that moment. Nor does it account for the infinite utility of money, there is no marginal utility of money, more money can always buy more and do more.Yes this is something that Mandel pointed out. The problem centres on the difficulty of“reconciling the theory of prices resulting from supply and demand with a theory of prices resulting from the quantity of money in circulation”. According to Mandel: It can be said that the Marginalist school was never able to solve the problem of the “marginal value of money”, and that for this reason it remained dualistic, combining a subjective theory of value with an objective theory of money (e.g. the quantity theory). It is clear that an increase in the “stock of currency” does not necessarily reduce the “marginal value” of this stock, as would happen in the case of an increase in a stock of corn, since money can be used to buy, one after another, commodities which correspond to different needs of equal intensity. The dualism of the theory is seen if one imagines an increase in the stock of currency suddenly causing a rise in wages, without any change in the marginal value of the commodities concerned" https://www.marxists.org/…/marxist…/marginalists.htm) This along with Bukharin's devastating critique of Marginalism (that it is based on a circular argument) and various other criticism that can be made of the subjective theory of value means that it rather resembles a piece of cheese full of holes
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , I would dispute this statement!Why Tim? I don't think its an unreasonable gneralisation. I mean there are exceptions to the law of diminishing marginal returns but by and large it holds true, I think. If you continue to eat ice cream after ice cream I guarantee your desire for ice cream will diminish to zero soon or later. Unless you have an infinite capacity to eat ice cream! Thinking about it, the law of diminishing marginal returns bears an interesting relation to that basic dogma of bourgeois economics – that our demands are unlimited. I understand its more complicated than this and that as the utility we get from one good diminishes so we are supposed to switch our attention to another that we can lust after, but all the same…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Sorry, but i don't even understand the question….Spell it out more simply for the ignoramuses.Hi Alan, The argument is the the LTV is not a theory of prices and that the prices of goods generally sell either above or below their values even if, in the long run, they coincide. Theoretically this must be the case since the pressure of market competition constantly works to eliminate discrepancies between supply and demand thus cancelling out their effect Marx explained this rather well here: If supply equals demand, they cease to act, and for this very reason commodities are sold at their market-values. Whenever two forces operate equally in opposite directions, they balance one another, exert no outside influence, and any phenomena taking place in these circumstances must be explained by causes other than the effect of these two forces. If supply and demand balance one another, they cease to explain anything, do not affect market-values, and therefore leave us so much more in the dark about the reasons why the market-value is expressed in just this sum of money and no other” (Marx, K, Capital v3 pt 2, ch 10) The point is that supply and demand never do cancel each out and the market is in a constant state of disequilibrium. Hence the divergence of price from value at all times, This doesn't negate the law of value, it simply qualifies it and according to some, gives some scope for the subjective theory of value to come into play as an explanation for the determination of prices, For example, there is some merit in the law of diminishing marginal utility (although there are also exceptions to this law). Clearly the second ice cream you eat yields less utility or use value/pleasure than the first and third even less than the second , There comes a point – the margin – where eating more icecream yields no utility and even make for a disutility – you feel sick! That is when supply equals demand and the price starts falling thereafter What I am suggesting is that there are aspects of the subjective theory which we can accept but not the larger claims it makes about the relationship between price and value – in particular, its claim that prices are solely determined by subjective judgements of individuals which is pure bunkum. Bukharin demolished this argument by amongst other things that subjective value judgements are also influence by prices so the subjective thoery of value was in effect based on a circular argument. Marx is I think acknowledged a role for subjective factors when he pointed out that"nothing can have value, without being an object of utility” (Marx K; 1867, Capital V1 Ch 1 §1). The difference is that the subjective theory of value makes exchange value a function of use value whereas the labour theory of value sees these things as quite separate
ALB wrote:Fair enough but how come you still have the vote? Don't expats get cut off after a number of years?I think its only after 15 years or maybe 20, Can't remember but Im within limit whatever its is, The govt seems to be making quite a concerted effort to rope in the expat vote and in Spain there are about 400.000 Brits living here I believe
AHS wrote:For information, this is my union's official position: "The GMB have taken a position of ‘angry yes’. We know the EU isn't perfect, there are plenty of problems with it, but so many of the rights we've fought for over the years are guaranteed by Europe. So we'll fight to make Europe a Europe that works for working people, not big businesses, but we can only do that from within, not by leaving. There's too much at risk."AHS, I think your Union's official position is rather naive and misleading. There is no way Europe can be made to work "for working people, not big businesses". That's akin to saying that capitalism can be run in the interests of the working class, It cant given the very nature of capitalism itself. So the statement could have been better phrased in a way that would acknowledge this point – that no political arrangement can be cobbled together that would work in the interest of working people. All working people can do is strive to get the most out of a bad situation which is intrinsically biased against them and fundamentally inimical to their interests. Having said that, I agree with your basic argument that staying in the EU is (marginally) better than leaving. So I will probably be voting for the Stay campaign albeit not out of any enthusiasm and more for negative reasons . Such as that Im fed up to the back teeth with Little Englander nationalist crap that seems to emanate primarily (though not exclusively!) from the Leave campaign. I suppose being in resident in Spain is also a factor and it is no surprise that almost all expats here will be voting to Stay
imposs1904 wrote:who do you think? I'd wager it was the same SC who wrote Eddie Grant's obituary for the Socialist Standard. The clue is in the Islington Branch connection.Ah now I get it! You're as sharp as mustard. Coleman's mustard to be precise. LOL, Anyway, what is Steve doin these days?
ALB wrote:Have you looked at this section of the website as well as the one on pamphlets as such?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/educationI had overlooked that – thanks for drawing it to my attention… Yeah the stuff is good and some of it quite focussed but it is not quite what I had in mind. These seem to be mainly shortish articles but I was thinking of something a little more substantial – somehere in between an article and a pamphlet in length I dont quite know what the appropriate term would be – maybe "Discussion Paper". Also perhaps suggesting a somewhat different approach – more rigorous, systematic, modular and – dare I say it – "academic" in its treatment of the material. Does the SPGB have a Research department, or something like that, that could be responsible for putting out this kind of thing into the public domain? Actually the "Study Guides" that I now see listed under "Education" is a little closer to what I had in mind.. So perhaps what I am suggesting is to expand the list of Study Guides or Discussion papers to cover a lot more topics to make up for the dearth of pamphlets and particularly recent up to date pamphlets….
Matt wrote:You need money to start the ball rolling. I can see some obvious advantages, if one was participating in economic activity, working on the side say and wished to disguise this, by not banking cash. Kind of 'weboffshoring' smaller transactions and deals in black economic activity. I haven't a clue beyond that so sorry re. your main question.
Matt, I think the argument that the Ancaps are making is that bitcoin enables you to bypass the mainstream financial insititutions, thus depriving them of the ability to take a cut of your hard earned cash. So the argument ties in with a wider argument about debt and financialisation of the economy. The Ancaps seem to be saying that we are living in a rentier economy not a truly capitalist economy and that developments like bitcoin which they passionately support will collapse the whole bloated surperstructure of corporatism and deliver a free market utopia I think they are talking bollocks frankly and engaging in pure wishful thinking. Meanwhile back in the real economy the concentration of wealth is extreme and getting more pronounced. Impoverished workers who imagine they are stepping on to some magical escalator to significant material improvement by escaping the perils of what is called "secondary exploitation" forget that there is still primary exploitation and that the means of prpduction are still massively concentrated in the hands of the capitalists. Moving around a few bitcoins between ourselves aint gonna make a blind bit of difference to the wider picture
