/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>50178843
>certain things like food, safety/security, personal autonomy
None of these things are specific goods. These are just categories of things. No specific good (in economics) has intrinsic value. Within a category of good there are various substitutes. Furthermore, humans could theoretically become cyborgs and no longer need "food." Again, in economics there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Economics deals with means, not ends. And means are highly substitutable. Hence any given mean is only valued in comparison to other substitutable means. It in itself is not an end.

>>13643215

It actually isn't. It's a real good, not merely a measurement. Otherwise, what is the basis of measurement? Subjective utils? Retarded. See Mises economic calculation problem and the regression theorem.

Store of value -> unit of account -> medium of exchange. The progression must logically follow that order.

>>12150380
You aren't arguing the point, which is the ECP. You are just referencing irrelevancies that have confounding and complicated causalities. Were the countries that practiced central planning particular responsible with their raw materials? Kek.

Perhaps the majority of people have always and will always live in poverty? Maybe. Still would not effect the central point of whether central planning would be preferable to limited market ordering of the economy.

Labor theory of value is the basis for, and deepest flaw, in his economic theory. There was an idea kicking around academic circles of the time that there could be calculated a "natural" or true value of something. Even Adam Smith attempted to come up with a sound theory for this idea. Marx and Proudhon basically came to theorize that the true value of something was based on the expense of materials and the amount of time it took to create something. So if a poet took 30 years to write an epic society bore a collective debt to this person to the tune of the time and expense in materials it took for this person write this epic.
--
There existed also the idea that the capitalist would steal the excess value of the workers labor by taking the profits from the enterprise at hand. Say paying the laborer a wage to produce a widget and then selling the widget for more than you paid in materials and labor to produce it. Marx and the radical egalitarians that would follow figured this later profit should be considered theft. It is a dubious proposition to suggest that you, as the laborer, would have any right to the profitable sale of materials that I posses a title for and paid you to labor over with tools provided to you by me.
--
You know almost intrinsically that that the labor theory of value cannot be true because you can labor tirelessly and endlessly at something and never produce anything anyone cares to buy from you. Value is subjective and prices are ratios of goods vis a vis other goods in the market expressed in the monetary unit. Mises countered this argument thoroughly between the world wars. He also went on rebuke the so called theft of excess value produced by explaining the nature of capital investment and time preference ie the worker wants a wage now, but the capitalist is willing to wait for a return later hence interest rates.

>>8214508
Surplus value isn't real

If the working class for back the full product of their labor it would amount to virtually nothing in real physical goods.

Marxism is a cult
Kill yourself

>actually believing in marxist surplus value theory

Delusional

>>7547262
Keep sucking that corporate cock you deluded keynesian

>dude creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and giving it to wall street and the housing market has nothing to do with the recession

Fucking idiot

>>7514458
>>7514503
>>7514579

This guy fucks.