/lit/ - Literature

>>12641640
>Marx seems to disagree, and for good reason in his case. If he were not able to identify a single mechanism by which commodity values were transformed into market prices, then his selection of labor as the unifying form of value would be rendered arbitrary. Thus, he tried to formulate an equation from which a transformation factor could be determined from commodities with different "organic compositions." What follows is a sesquicentennial corpus of neoclassical, neo-ricardian, and even Marxian economics explaining precisely why you can't fucking do that.
What a misreading. Labor can only be considered arbitrary if you wish to explain value in terms of price, which again, Marx isn't doing. Feel free to point where he is doing that since you seem to think you've got an excellent handle on a theory you don't even understand the basics of.
>lel
>commodity production never includes as a component other commodities
It's like you don't even understand basic economics
>HAHAHAHAHAHA OH FUCK. Even Marx conceded that market prices have to fluctiate around some equilibrium based on labor value in his byzantine nightmare of a system. Also, it's pretty rich that you're complaining about factors of disequilibrium being unfalsifiable when Marx had to divorce market price from "exchange value."
He never "conceded" this. Why don't you actually address the points being made? Try to produce commodities without labor. It's interesting that prices both increase and decrease after labor stoppage, don't you think? Why would the market be beholden to labor if labor is just an arbitrary input?
Whataboutism won't save your dismal pseudoscience. Show how prices are stable under capitalism. Demonstrate the equilibrium. Perhaps you'd like to talk about tulips? Or bank runs? What exactly is "proof of work?" Surely these are easy enough for you to explain without circularity and unscientific appeals to unfalsifiable ideal scenarios with perfect information and rational actors, yes?