Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

Right, like gross revenue then? Like "sale price" then? Political terms?

 

That's BS. IOW if I invest in G.E. today and wait 6 months I get a profit because I waited. LOL!!!

Surplus value is very much as legitimate and meaningful economically as is gross revenue and sale price. You just don't want to admit it because of its implications, like any good capitalist economist.

 

Gross revenue is the amount received by customers. Pretty straightforward. Any accountant can determine that. Sale price is the amount that the customer pays for a unit. Again, pretty straightforward.

Again, how does this idea of surplus value apply to the social science of economics, which is the study of how people use scarce means to achieve their ends?

 

Of course you get a return on your investment by waiting over time. That's how investing works--when it goes well. You might also lose your investment. And surplus labor value was disproven many years ago--even during Marx's lifetime. He promised his followers he would answer the challenge but died without ever being able to. Are you saying that you've discovered this secret to overthrowing over 100 years of economic thought? Please tell us the answer because you'll become famous for your economic insights.

 

I would guess it depends on who the teacher is, if a republican it probably has a right wing bias

 

No it isn't/ LOL!!!!!!! I thought you knew capitalist economics! http://moneychimp.com/glossary/gross_revenue.htm

Yeah, except that you're wrong. http://moneychimp.com/glossary/gross_revenue.htm

How can you understand it when you don't understand a simple term like gross revenue?

 

OH, a CAVEAT!!!! LOL!!!

Your whole characterization is bogus capitalist spin. Marx died. There were several works he hadn't finished. "Without being able to" is garbage spin and expected.

First you say it was disproven, and then you say you don't know what it is, ...... or did you? If you know so much about it, tell me what comprises surplus value. If you can't say, then you can't say it's incorrect either.

 

I'm starting to get the impression that you're not arguing in good faith. Both of those terms are pretty much exactly right on.

If you want to do what you're doing, go ahead and I'll leave. If you want to have an actual discussion, let me know.

 

exactly, anyone that was honest, knows we use the best of any and all systems

if we restrict ourselves to only one and refuse to use what works in another, we limit ourselves

 

You said "Gross revenue is the amount received by customers." Customers receive goods and services that they purchase. Goods and services are not "gross revenue"! And I posted a source in case you don't want to accept what I say. If you want to "leave", go ahead. There's no discussion possible with someone who insists on misrepresenting common terms.

 

Gross revenue is the amount one receives from his customers. Do you dispute this?

 

I dispute that that is what you said. It isn't. I posted what you said right above. And that is the source of our argument. Now you change your statement without announcing that you're changing it. That's dishonest. Why the change?

 

Because, as you pointed out, my language was imprecise in my initial statement. Based on your feedback, I corrected it. Do you have a problem with me restating?

 

OK, I'm probably not being very clear, so I'll try to be better. Marx's idea was that profit comes from the capitalist expropriating the "Surplus Labor Value" from the workers. The challenge to this idea was that capital-intensive industries have the same rate of profit as labor-intensive industries. If Marx's idea was correct, this shouldn't be the case. Labor-intensive industries should have a higher rate of profit since profit is just the capitalist taking the surplus labor value from the workers. Marx never answered this critique, and later communist thinkers just reformulated their ideology to avoid the subject. So the theory stands disproven by the challenge until someone overturns it, which to this day no one has. You could win a Nobel Prize if you can do so, so please tell me your answer.

 

No, but OWN it. "Imprecise" is a weasel word here since the wording was the OPPOSITE of what you apparently intended and you even doubled-down in post #283.

Now, your corrected statement, "gross revenue is the amount one receives from his customers." Yes, that is true. I already said it before you did. Add all revenue from annual sales together and you have annual gross revenue. Great. Now what?

 

Sure, I'll disprove it. Marx said surplus value is the difference between gross revenue and cost of labor.... the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor-cost. When workers fashion wood into a chair, their labor adds a value to the wood. In a labor-intensive industry like agriculture, mining, and "hospitality", the product is sold for enough to cover the cost of labor and all other expenses plus profit. Take one.... hospitality, e.g. hotel maid services. Their work makes the room worth more rent ("room rates") than if the work had not been done. The rates charged cover that cost plus all other costs plus profits. What's the mystery?

 

Now surplus value is a political term, not an economic or accounting term.

 

The mystery is, why are profit rates the same in labor intensive industries and capital intensive industries? All you did was say that workers add value, and that revenues minus costs equals profits. In no way did you show that profit comes from surplus labor value.

Regardless, let's face the truth here--none of this is about economics. What you are about is stealing money from the wealthy and divvying up the loot. You know that it's wrong, so you need moral cover, hence this notion that the wealthy "stole" their wealth from the workers, and so it's OK for you to "steal" it back.

 

That is because capitalist economics was divided into theory ("economics") and practical application ("business"). So contrary to your ideas, "surplus value" is what business schools divide into overhead and profit.

See? I'm having to explain it because you don't seem to know what surplus value is even though you posture as the "educated person."

 

If you demand a specific sequence to calculations and price-setting, you will be demanding foolishness. The capitalist in a capital-intensive industry estimates initially what his costs will be based on reliable inputs, and adds a profit. Then, in future transactions, he adjusts his calculations to match his experience and bring it in line with markets. Does the profit come from surplus value? Of course! There isn't another source! The production or labor costs money and the bottom line is comprised of the cost of that labor and the surplus value it produces. The ending profit cannot be created any other way but via the added value due to labor.

Now if you want it explained differently, you need to use a specific hypothetical case, like mining or agriculture, etc.

Oh BS. Any "stealing" that takes place is done by the capitalist and that is easily provable. And your problem is that you adhere to the capitalist division of all this into theory (economics) and business studies. I make no such division. But that is why your theory is so divorced from reality today: it has been separated for so long in order to deceive and distort and conceal reality behind an irrelevant theory that sounds great but is BS like "supply and demand".

 

You don't know what economics is apparently. The effect on human impact is social studies if that is your focus. As far as what is best for the masses, every system that starts with a socialist framework ends in abject poverty and tremendous human misery. Many countries have enacted more socialist policy, after building their society up with free market principles. Most crash and burn quickly. The few exceptions (Nordic mostly) have small populations and immense natural resources that they sell to help pay for the lavish benefits.

 

The history of capitalism's start in the 1800s is similar.

 

If the difference between gross revenue and the cost of labor was zero, the business would go bankrupt. Is Marx suggesting that gross revenue should equal to cost of labor?

 

No. Marx made no suggestions. Contrary to many anti-Marxists he didn't even offer an analysis of communism. Marx was a critic of capitalism. He analyzed and critiqued capitalism.

 

Earlier you said, "Just try to find any discussion of surplus value in economics. That is the foundation and basis of Marxian economics, and so you don't find it in capitalist economics." However, in economics and accounting, the difference between gross revenue and labor cost is discussed quite a lot. It's part of the means by which profit is calculated. Profit = gross revenue - costs (labor costs being one cost). So I don't see why you say it's never discussed.