Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers
- This topic has 210 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM #657912January 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM #656807
Arraya
Participantyou are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.
Marx was much more correct on his critiques of capitalism than not but he did miss a lot that the technocrats of the 30s and 40s picked up on.
January 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM #656869Participantyou are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.
Marx was much more correct on his critiques of capitalism than not but he did miss a lot that the technocrats of the 30s and 40s picked up on.
January 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM #657468Participantyou are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.
Marx was much more correct on his critiques of capitalism than not but he did miss a lot that the technocrats of the 30s and 40s picked up on.
January 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM #657607Participantyou are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.
Marx was much more correct on his critiques of capitalism than not but he did miss a lot that the technocrats of the 30s and 40s picked up on.
January 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM #657937Participantyou are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.
Marx was much more correct on his critiques of capitalism than not but he did miss a lot that the technocrats of the 30s and 40s picked up on.
January 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM #656812Anonymous
Guest[quote=Arraya]you are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.[/quote]
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
But I agree that I’m misrepresenting many of his ideas. Everybody does. His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
January 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM #656874Guest[quote=Arraya]you are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.[/quote]
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
But I agree that I’m misrepresenting many of his ideas. Everybody does. His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
January 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM #657473Guest[quote=Arraya]you are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.[/quote]
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
But I agree that I’m misrepresenting many of his ideas. Everybody does. His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
January 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM #657612Guest[quote=Arraya]you are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.[/quote]
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
But I agree that I’m misrepresenting many of his ideas. Everybody does. His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
January 21, 2011 at 10:28 AM #657942Guest[quote=Arraya]you are also misrepresenting Marx’s labor theories of value verse marginal utility. Big time.[/quote]
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
But I agree that I’m misrepresenting many of his ideas. Everybody does. His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
January 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM #656827ParticipantLOL.
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
All it took was one
His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Logical inconsistency is a mainstay of economics and monetary ‘sciences’ in general. But thanks for proving my point on not understanding.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
Oh good grief. Not the “we are at the apex of our social evolution and anybody that suggests otherwise are tyrants” . Quite possibly we have no idea what we are doing.
Subjective theory of value was an attempt to preserve the notion of value introduced in labor theory of value form by the likes of Smith, Ricardo and Sismondi (it was not introduced by Marx), ie the classical political economists, and fully developed by Marx, while taking away its socially-determined character. It was discarded after a short bit, as for example money had to be explained as having value in terms of prices, while prices already assume money, thus creating circular reasoning(circular reasoning is inherent in economics specifically value). Economics as a field then decided to discard value as a concept, and prices were deemed to be all there was, what you see is what you get,no need for value to anchor price. The labor theory of value was no longer useful for TPTB and the theorists working for their system as it exposed the exploitation inherent in capitalism, for one thing, but even more, was not useful for business owners in terms of providing strategies as to how to set prices, channel investments,..
Here’s an interesting discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/ch01.htmIf you really want to understand “Capital”. Here is 13 video lectures by David Harvey. “Capital” is were the meat of Marx’s critique is.
http://davidharvey.org/Be careful you might become a tyrant.
January 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM #656889ParticipantLOL.
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
All it took was one
His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Logical inconsistency is a mainstay of economics and monetary ‘sciences’ in general. But thanks for proving my point on not understanding.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
Oh good grief. Not the “we are at the apex of our social evolution and anybody that suggests otherwise are tyrants” . Quite possibly we have no idea what we are doing.
Subjective theory of value was an attempt to preserve the notion of value introduced in labor theory of value form by the likes of Smith, Ricardo and Sismondi (it was not introduced by Marx), ie the classical political economists, and fully developed by Marx, while taking away its socially-determined character. It was discarded after a short bit, as for example money had to be explained as having value in terms of prices, while prices already assume money, thus creating circular reasoning(circular reasoning is inherent in economics specifically value). Economics as a field then decided to discard value as a concept, and prices were deemed to be all there was, what you see is what you get,no need for value to anchor price. The labor theory of value was no longer useful for TPTB and the theorists working for their system as it exposed the exploitation inherent in capitalism, for one thing, but even more, was not useful for business owners in terms of providing strategies as to how to set prices, channel investments,..
Here’s an interesting discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/ch01.htmIf you really want to understand “Capital”. Here is 13 video lectures by David Harvey. “Capital” is were the meat of Marx’s critique is.
http://davidharvey.org/Be careful you might become a tyrant.
January 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM #657488ParticipantLOL.
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
All it took was one
His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Logical inconsistency is a mainstay of economics and monetary ‘sciences’ in general. But thanks for proving my point on not understanding.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
Oh good grief. Not the “we are at the apex of our social evolution and anybody that suggests otherwise are tyrants” . Quite possibly we have no idea what we are doing.
Subjective theory of value was an attempt to preserve the notion of value introduced in labor theory of value form by the likes of Smith, Ricardo and Sismondi (it was not introduced by Marx), ie the classical political economists, and fully developed by Marx, while taking away its socially-determined character. It was discarded after a short bit, as for example money had to be explained as having value in terms of prices, while prices already assume money, thus creating circular reasoning(circular reasoning is inherent in economics specifically value). Economics as a field then decided to discard value as a concept, and prices were deemed to be all there was, what you see is what you get,no need for value to anchor price. The labor theory of value was no longer useful for TPTB and the theorists working for their system as it exposed the exploitation inherent in capitalism, for one thing, but even more, was not useful for business owners in terms of providing strategies as to how to set prices, channel investments,..
Here’s an interesting discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/ch01.htmIf you really want to understand “Capital”. Here is 13 video lectures by David Harvey. “Capital” is were the meat of Marx’s critique is.
http://davidharvey.org/Be careful you might become a tyrant.
January 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM #657627ParticipantLOL.
That’s quite an elaborate conclusion drawn from a single sentence.
All it took was one
His ideas are so logically inconsistent, there’s really no making sense of them.
Logical inconsistency is a mainstay of economics and monetary ‘sciences’ in general. But thanks for proving my point on not understanding.
Perfect fodder for tyrants and thugs who claim to have found a better way.
Oh good grief. Not the “we are at the apex of our social evolution and anybody that suggests otherwise are tyrants” . Quite possibly we have no idea what we are doing.
Subjective theory of value was an attempt to preserve the notion of value introduced in labor theory of value form by the likes of Smith, Ricardo and Sismondi (it was not introduced by Marx), ie the classical political economists, and fully developed by Marx, while taking away its socially-determined character. It was discarded after a short bit, as for example money had to be explained as having value in terms of prices, while prices already assume money, thus creating circular reasoning(circular reasoning is inherent in economics specifically value). Economics as a field then decided to discard value as a concept, and prices were deemed to be all there was, what you see is what you get,no need for value to anchor price. The labor theory of value was no longer useful for TPTB and the theorists working for their system as it exposed the exploitation inherent in capitalism, for one thing, but even more, was not useful for business owners in terms of providing strategies as to how to set prices, channel investments,..
Here’s an interesting discussion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1974/crisis/ch01.htmIf you really want to understand “Capital”. Here is 13 video lectures by David Harvey. “Capital” is were the meat of Marx’s critique is.
http://davidharvey.org/Be careful you might become a tyrant.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.