Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

The Marxian analysis of surplus value distinguishes between "industrial labor" and "non-industrial labor" for one thing, and neo-classical economics doesn't use "gross revenue minus labor cost" (surplus value) to analyze the distribution of surplus labor to costs as all coming from total labor value.

 

I don't particularly care about their analysis. I was merely pointing out that you WILL hear mainstream economists talking about gross revenue minus labor costs. They do it all the time. It's part of calculating net income.

 

Sure. But they don't analyze surplus value like Marxian analysis does.

In any case, you seem to be saying that Marxist analysis is really no different from the capitalist economics found in any economics course. Then what, specifically, do you oppose about Marxian economics?

 

That they commit the reification fallacy with regards to labor and value.

 

Capitalism was around long before the 1800's. The American colonies were free market capitalism from the 1600's. And we had the highest median income by 1700.

 

Again you retreat into theory and philosophy. Tell me about the actual, concrete expression of that.

 

Yeah, you're right.

 

As in "the capitalist steals the surplus value created by labor." That kind of thing.

 

Ok, he "appropriates it". Better?

 

There is no "it". Value is not a thing that exists it the physical world. There is nothing for the capitalist to steal or appropriate. Marxists commit the fallacy of reification with regard to value and labor, and that is why their analysis is fundamentally wrong.

 

That's the problem with capitalist economics! You got it! Congrats! It's all a mystical and elusive thing to those economists. A guy buys tools and materials and hires 20 people to use those tools and materials to make chairs. The chairs have a value on the open market. It's not a mystery. It's not elusive. The value is real. The value is what the work did to the materials. It added value. The workers did it. And the owner takes the proceeds of sale and uses some to pay for amortization of the tools, some for the wood and other materials, some for overhead, and gives some to the workers. But he wouldn't even have workers working if he wasn't making money off them. NO EMPLOYER will ever pay a worker what his labor actually brings in the marketplace because then there would be nothing left for the employer. Every employer only hires a worker if that employer is reasonably certain that the worker will produce more than he is paid. So every worker's labor is worth more than the worker is paid. The employer appropriates the surplus value for himself. And the employer makes all the decisions.

In time, the employer accumulates money from the workers' labor that the employer uses to buy more advanced equipment. He uses it to increase his profit and personal income even though it came from the workers' labor, and they have no say in the matter. Yes, I know the workers agreed to their wage. That doesn't change the facts and dynamics of what is happening. And what is happening is not the mystery you want to pretend it is. THAT is what capitalist economics will never discuss openly. It pretends value is not a thing that exists it the physical world and that there is nothing for the capitalist to steal or appropriate.

 

Incorrect. The profit is created by the value added by the capital. 100 workers using just their hands cannot make as many books as one guy with a printing press. The printing press is the capital, provided by the capitalist, which increases the productivity of the worker, and leads to the capitalist's profits.

Again, this is your real motivation--to moralize your desire to be a thief. The capitalist earns his returns on investment, and you wish to steal it. This is plainly obvious and easy to state. You wish to steal from the wealthy. You know this is immoral and makes you a bad person, so you are trying to come up with a cover to explain your evil.

 

Wow! What did I do wrong? I had a pile of lumber and a box of tools and I laid down a bunch of $5 bills tied together next to the lumber and tools, and 6 hours later I came back to check, hoping the capital would have added value to the lumber by constructing something of greater value, and all I found was that the money was gone.

OBVIOUSLY it is the labor that creates the added value. That's why there were slave societies.

WHOA, WHOA, BS!!! The printing press is capital. The money to purchase it had been appropriated from the workers by the employer. Employers accumulate capital from running businesses. That capital comes from the efforts of ALL involved, but the capitalist takes it for himself. But ultimately it is the workers whose labor produces the value or capital.

If you can't discuss this honestly without personal attacks, we're done. Your story here resorts to personal attack and attempts at intimidation by name-calling in order to obviate your perceived need to answer something you cannot. Stick to the facts or we're done. Try again if you dare but stick to the facts.

 

Value is not a thing that exists in the physical world. If you disagree, feel free to describe its physical properties.

The fact that Marxists commit the fallacy of reification with regards to value is the reason their whole analysis is wrong.

 

I have to wonder if Marxist support IP rights?

 

I proved you wrong and you have no real answer as evidenced by your failure to address any of my points.

 

I said that value is not a real thing in the physical world. You haven't disproven that at all. You could disprove it by describing its physical characteristics. But you can't

Marxists commit the fallacy of reification. They think value is a real thing in the physical world that can be stolen by one person from another. This wrongheaded thinking is what makes Marxism wrong.

 

Oh, I answered it, but you just didn't like my answer so you continue to claim it can't be answered. I said "The value is what the work did to the materials. It added value. The workers did it." The value is the sales price in a fair market. To say it isn't a real thing is to say pricing of merchandise and services does not exist.

I just showed you to be wrong.

 

Okay, so now the value is the sales price in a fair market. So you're saying that the capitalist appropriates the sales price? How does one appropriate a price? A price isn't tangible. Money is, but a price isn't.

Is this yet another example of Marxist reification?

 

You are juggling and manipulating WORDS in the hope of trapping me in some sort of contradiction. This is the definition of a "dishonest discussion". We can continue the discussion if you choose to deal with the ideas instead of dealing with traps and your impulse to make me wrong and you right.

 

I don't appreciate you calling me dishonest, but I can tell by your statement that you're not quite understanding my point. And your lack of comprehension leads you to conclude that I'm being dishonest. So I'll try to elaborate and present it in smaller steps.

My problem with Marxism is that its analysis is based on a fallacy, namely the fallacy of reification. The use of this fallacy is apparent when a Marxist says something like, "The capitalist steals the value produced by labor."

To steal is to take another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. So if we are to believe that the capitalist is stealing the value produced by labor, we have to accept two premises. First, that the value is the legal propery of the person doing the labor. Second, that the value is a tangible piece of property, which is to say that the value is a actual physical thing existing in the real world. For remember, people can only steal THINGS.

Their error is somewhat understandable, based on non-technical everyday use of the word value. For instance, one might say, "I provide value" or "that car has lot of value." In normal conversation, people understand the sentiment, but we need to be more precise when speaking in economic terms.

In reality, value is not a thing, and things don't HAVE value. What is really the case is that individuals have preferences. They value things. In other words, in economics value is only really ever a verb, and never a noun. People value things, but things don't have intrinsic value.

Until Marxists get over the silly notion that laborers are like fire hoses squirting out streams of "value" they will continue to be...well, Marxists.

 

I don't recall him saying that. Where does he say it? He wrote of "appropriation" as I recall.

Well right there we see the problem. Nobody, especially Marx, ever said appropriation of surplus value was not "legal". Of course it is legal under a capitalist system.

Not valid. I just dealt with that. So we can drop this claim right here and now.

Well, as shown above then, this is not valid either since no one said it was "stealing" or that it was not legal. And no one but you has ever said value is a "tangible thing". Value is real. The value of a dollar bill can be exchanged for an amount of gold or milk or nails. It has reality. You are obsessed with declaring it to be without reality so that you can then "prove" your assertion, it seems. But all along I have been reminding you that labor has value and it is its value that an employer pays a worker for (partially).

Certainly "value" is subjective. That is why value changes with conditions. And yet it is the basis of economics, GDP, inflation, rates of return, etc. So it has a "reality" even if it changes (mostly predictably).

Yes, you want us to adopt your capitalist "economics" so that we can be silenced by the vague mystery of it. LOL!!!

And yet you talk about the minimum wage and the cost of goods and the rate of inflation and the GDP.

Capitalist economics cannot and does not analyze the relationship of employee to employer because it would expose the capitalist for the parasite he is.

 

No. I believe the point that @Longshot is making is that before something can be stolen or "appropriated' it must be concrete.

 

A dollar bill is real. The fact that people value dollars (to a greater or lesser extent) is real. However, there is no concrete (thank you @TedintheShed for that term), tangible thing in the physical universe called "value". The Marxists make it up out of whole cloth and expect the rest of economists to believe them.

Labor doesn't exists as a concrete, tangible thing in the physical world. Bodies exist. And people are able to perform actions with their bodies. These actions are sometimes referred to as labor. However, in the real, physical world, there is no such thing as labor. There are only people performing actions. And of course performing a particular action doesn't intrinsically produce value. That again is another example of Marxists reification.

Yes, value is subjective, meaning that each person at any given moment has a different set of preferences. You might value a steak very highly, while a vegan would value it not at all. The fact that two different people can value a thing so differently proves that there is no concrete, tangible thing called "value" that is contained within things, such as a steak.

Equivocation and appeal to emotion by using the term parasite.

 

Nobody said value is a concrete, tangible "thing". But you think you have found a term and associated idea by which you can dismiss Marxian theory as fake or fraudulent or etc. And yet you will use the word "value" in discussing economics. It's a game for you. That's all. I've said nobody says value is a concrete, tangible "thing". But the real point of your argument is to deflect and avoid any discussion of the value of labor as it manifests in capitalist pursuit of profit. The evidence of your deflection is in the fact that while you must know what I am saying when I say "the capitalist takes some of the value created by labor for himself", rather than substituting your own favorite word for "value", you argue that value doesn't exist although you know what I'm saying. Then, to double down on your attempt to deflect, you substitute "steal" for the idea of appropriation of value, and you want me to argue legality too. Deflect, deflect, deflect. I'm not falling for it. And if we can't settle on a word acceptable to you for "value", we will not be able to make any progress in the discussion. Maybe that is what you want as it may be more satisfying than losing the debate.

And it's an example of semantics. You know what all that means while wanting to argue philosophy of what is "real" and tangible and what is not. Yet it changes nothing. Semantics and an attempt to force me into complying with the rules of capitalist economic theory so I can't argue my case. You're free to reword anything I say for clarity as long as you stay with the intended concept. If your wording presents a problem, I'll let you know. But you know damned well that workers perform labor and are paid a value for that labor. So don't obscure it.

Irrelevant. You know damned well what is meant. Put it in your own words if you like but I'm not going to engage you in bourgeois philosophy.