Labor Theory of Value

changing units is not changing a standard. I still don't think you understand something, you have no standards in econ to talk about changing in the first place. The Geneva Conference on Weights and Measures has defined the meter as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds with time measured by a cesium-133 atomic clock which emits pulses of radiation at very rapid, regular intervals. The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. One cannot measure speed without these standards. There are no such standards of anything in econ, including currency, there is no metrology in economics, period.

There is no metrology in econ, there is also no relativity. Relativity requires a fixed mathematical definition of variable transformation between reference frames. There is no fixed mathematical transformation system in econ between anything. Stop with the pjysics analogies, they are not valid.

I explained it, read it again.

. Communism does not have free markets, yet Marx thought he could calculate value. He believed as you do that there is some property fixed within a economic good which he could use as a useful concept.

 

the trouble is, I don't want to write a friggen manuscript here, I am asking you to try and follow....

Markets 'consistently existing' away from the textbook equilibrium was my contention, then you want to 'prove' my own contention as if you are revealing something to me? WTF? ok I agree

ok, markets are at disequilibrium, let's move on from this pointless exercise. Supply consistently over demand is how most of the world works, I already knew that. There is however another kind of disequilibrium even if supply=demand, price equilibrium. All buyers and sellers almost never agree on price even if supply = demand, textbooks ignore that. There is always a bid/ask spread and depth of market.

Enough already

I asked you repeatedly to produce the empirical definition of useful, you wont. You made up some hand wave equation for intrinsic value: "I = E + (S - D)x; where "x" is a positive non-zero value representing the rate at which an excess of demand or supply affects market price" which is not a full ab initio calculation. In fact I can show it is nonsense: As supply S goes to infinity, your I also goes to infinity. Value should not go to infinity with supply, that's nonsense.

I got tired of your nonanswer, so I went and got one for you.

all pointless, we need to start over

no, you did not give me a mathematical model. Why don't you do it right now? seems like a good time. Let's have the mathematical definition of utility.

fantastic, let's start again with the mathematical definition of those physical properties

 

I can lead a man to knowledge, but I cannot make him think....

I will clarify 2 concepts with example before I make a full reply. If you cannot understand these 2, then you are hopelessly incompetent. The 3rd item is something you keep claiming but will not back up. If you cannot provide your evidence here then I am just going assume that this thread is some sort of troll game you like.

1. A change of units (e.g. Celsius to Fahrenheit) is not a change of measurement standard. For example the standard of time is that the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. Changing the units to minutes, days, years, or nanoseconds does not change the standard, as every unit can be mathematically related to seconds which are fixed with respect to the cesium atoms. For temperature the triple point of water can be used, at which the thermometer should read 273.16 Kelvin (0.01 degrees Celsius, 32.018 degrees Fahrenheit). Using any of the three temperature scales does not change the standard because temperature units are related by a mathematical equation. A meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299 792 458 of a second. Standards are fixed definitions that are used to calibrate measurement. There is no fixed definition in finance like a cesium atom or triple point, therefore there is no analogy to physics. Despite your link, there is no standard of value for the dollar, or of value, in analogy to physics. There is no 'cesium atom' in economics to measure value against.


2. Standards are necessary for measurement, and they must be fixed. Changing frames of reference does not change the standard nor method of measurement, it only affects the outcome of measurement. If I am on a moving ship, the standards of length and time used to measure speed are unaffected and they are fixed (see above). The value of speed obtained is frame of reference dependent, but the standards of length and time used to measure speed are not frame of reference dependent in Galilean relativity. A 'fixed status' independent of reference frame is necessary for all fundamental quantities such as the second or meter, so all can agree on how measurements are made and the results are universally meaningful. We do not have time changing, or frame of reference changing, standards in physics, to claim such is simple bald ignorance. In finance you want claim that using a changing standard is ok, if a standard changes in time then it is no longer a standard

3. You say utility has physical properties, provide the them and the mathematical definition. Your dishonesty about this is getting tiresome, time to put up or shut up.

 

Citation on the number that don't pay back please.

Do people apply for these loans? How are the predatory then? Who should be getting turned down out of compassion?

 

Food doesn't have intrinsic value, it is subjective. How much is meat worth to a vegan? Ever try to sell corn to a farmer? Would he pay the same price?

 

Foods intrinsic value is based on on caloric, protein and nutrient levels. Subjective values based on flavor, texture etc. of can add to or remove from that intrinsic value in determining exchange value. Canola oil can be burned in place of diesel in diesel engines so the price of diesel acts as a floor on the intrinsic value of Canola oil. If the market price of Canola oil dips below the price of diesel (which happened a few years back) then the market is misjudging Canola oils intrinsic value and you have an opportunity to profit from the markets mistake.

 

Give a homeless man a jug of canola oil and let me know how much it is worth.

My guess is it what he can get from a willing consumer when he sells it.

 

It's not a law of nature that people will always want to use canola oil that way. Intrinsic value is only in the mind of the human. Absent humans, there is no property of canola oil we can call intrinsic value.

 

Absent a pan or pot or something to fry it is worth nothing. Hence, no intrinsic value.

 

I have stocks, mutual funds, ect, since if you don't you're a fool, but I still work. If I could stop working because I could buy so much stock in other companies and pay someone else to manage it, I would do it in a heartbeat, since I WORKED my way to get to that place. And I love doing what I do, so giving it up would hurt. Non-producer?? Guess what. People you call non-producers had to worked really hard to become what you loath or do you think ALL OF THEM were just born that way? Give me a break. If you think people who can get rich by simply moving money around are useless, you should have studied how to do it, you could become rich too=) By the way, there are probably a lot more losers than winners in that arena.

 

Food is the single most thing of value among humans. It is only cheapened by supply. In ANY food shortage, any food product increases in value, as it is the most valuable, necessary commodity to man. If said farmer is hungry, he will buy that corn. The same it true for the vegan. If he's hungry, he'll waive his ideology for something to eat. The very basis of all value goes down to the basics for human existence.. sustenance, shelter/protection. EVERYTHING else are luxuries for an affluent society. You can't eat gold or crude oil. It only has value as it relates to exchanging it for necessities.

Western humans take the basics for granted, & don't see value as being the root of how it provides for sustenance or protection. But you can take away all the frivolous toys & amusements from modern man, & he will survive. But take away his sustenance & protection, & he will die.

Therefore, the ONLY thing of 'intrinsic' value to humans is sustenance or protection related. Everything else is frills.

From a universal standpoint, there is NOTHING of intrinsic value. The universe does not care if a volcanic eruption destroys a city or a forest, or merely flows into the ocean. 'Value' is meaningless to the cosmos. From a human standpoint, it is subjective. But like i said above, if a starving vegan can get a hamburger, he will trade his beads or new age crystals for it. A fat farmer, with beef in the freezer & a field full of grain, will trade those for a cruise. You won't find many starving somalians who would pick a pair of designer shoes over a bowl of rice. But a hollywood starlet would sneer at the bowl of rice while slobbering over the shoes. So 'value' is a relative & subjective thing.

 

I think that if one takes relativism far enough, they are just a nihilist. If we determine that life has inherent value, at least to the living, then it should follow that things which extend or facilitate life have a form of inherent value.

Things only get confused because we as a species are easily distracted by flashing lights, artificial colors and flavors, cars whose headlights and vents are deliberately shaped to look like faces, and plain old lies.

Also, I really like Kant.

 

The value isn't intrinsic then if it is relative like that.

 

Yeah, you hate the truth of what you have become, a nonproducing robber of the common worker, stealing the food off the poor man's table that he struggles to earn. You produce nothing and spread your misery onto others for capital gain. You working hard has nothing to do with this robbery from those who do produce to survive. Don't try yo justify your theft of food from a child's mouth. I am well off and never once had to reduce myself to stealing from my common man. Trying to intimidate me with wealth, I am worth more than you and 6 generations of your children will ever earn, even when you are stealing the food from a hard working man's refrigerator. Their are honest and honorable ways to invest that apparently you never learned about or you would be rich to. I retired at 45 in 1990, what is your excuse? Give you a break? That is what robbers ask the judge to do.

 

You sound like an insane person. If you think owning stocks and mutual funds for retirement, while in marketing is stealing from people, seek help and fast. Bye.

 

you said it yourself, life has value only to the living, that is value only resides within something that can value because value is nothing more than a thought or feeling. Value cannot reside in a bucket of canola oil.

 

What is your point. Canola oil is so low in nutrients that it doesn't need refrigeration, so of course as a standalone product it holds little value to a starving person. The starving person will value canola oil much more if it is combined with French-cut potatoes. The intrinsic value of canola oil is not based upon the judgment of starving people, it is based upon the need of people who sell French fries. Canola oil's intrinsic value is therefore determined by the need of people who fry potatoes, weighed against equivalent alternatives, weighed against the costs of producing canola oil. Labor is a cost of canola oil production, and there is demand for canola oil, therefore labor is a component of canola oil's intrinsic value.

 

Yeah, and absent humans there are no values at all, the color red would not exist … so what. Just admit that you are wrong and stop with these silly arguments.

 

I guess you believe yourself to be undead or something.

 

oh yes, how can I withstand the weight of your arguments....

the color red would exist, it can be defined with standards

 

What I value is uniquely part of my own mind, that is all there is to reality, anything else is just religion.