Mutualism

And it's stupid for you to use the "American" adjective in front of "economists".

No REAL economist believes in the labor theory of value ANYWHERE.
 
In economics, under the mainstream assumptions, the marginal utility of a good or service is the posited increase in utility obtained by consuming or using one more unit of that good or service. The concept grew out of attempts by economists to explain the determination of price. The Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser coined the term “Grenznutzen” (“border-use”).[1][2] It was translated “marginal utility” in 1889 and credited to Wieser by Alfred Marshall.[3]

It has been common among economists to describe utility as corresponding to a measure, that is to say, as being quantifiable.[4][5] This has significantly affected the development and reception of theories of marginal utility. However, not all conceptions of marginal utility entail quantification of any sort,[6][7] and those which do not are able to consider rational preferences that would otherwise be excluded.[8]

A definition that avoids any assumption of quantifiable utility is the following. First, let the ‘margin of feasible uses’ refer to the highest quantitative utilization of goods (including services), such that the total quantity of one available good is maximized for available total quantities of all but that good. Then the marginal utility for a quantity used of a good (say, the fifth unit) is the utility of that quantity at the margin of feasible uses.[9][2] From the margin of feasible uses, quantities of a good are then posited as selected for successive quantities to the point of equilibrium, beyond which no more feasible quantities would be selected. This may proceed from most-valued (urgent) quantity to successive less-valued quantities (if any). The process ensures that no less-valued quantity will be selected at equilibrium compared to quantities not selected. Marginal utility for the quantity of the good at that point corresponds to the least-valued use that would be selected compared to preceding quantities.

Under any standard conception, the same object may have different marginal utilities for different people, reflecting different “tastes” or individual circumstances. The term 'marginal change' refers as large a change as the smallest relevant division.[2] For reasons of tractability, it is often assumed in neoclassical analysis that goods and services are continuously divisible. In such context, a marginal change may be an infinitesimal change or a limit. However, strictly speaking, the smallest relevant division may be quite large.
 
Watermark said:
The labor theory of value was used by early economists as a crude way to represent value. We have more advanced schools today.

Sociologists may be using the labor theory of value, but sociology is a joke discipline anyway, an academic cover for a bunch of people who just want an excuse to put out stupid communist ideas all day and get paid for it. Now, what does the labor theory of value have to do with studying societies? Absolutely nothing. But I assure you there will be some sociologist somewhere yammering on about things he doesn't understand under the guise of this pseudoscience. They ought to keep to where their stated aim is - studying societies.
Click to expand...

Economists are paid to have opinions the fascists want them to have. Their work should be dismissed for the most part.
 
Last edited:
I find the assertion that workers should necessarily be deprived of the value of their own labor to be fairly evil.
 
Watermark said:
Labor is not the sole unit of value. That's simple-minded.
Click to expand...

Labor is labor. It can be undervalued or overvallued. It's not a unit of value. THe labor theory of value states that laborers should recompensed for the value they create, not the slave wages corporations can manipulate them into accepting. Get a clue dumbass. quit reading propaganda and think for yourself, simpleminded oaf.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Labor is labor. It can be undervalued or overvallued. It's not a unit of value. THe labor theory of value states that laborers should recompensed for the value they create, not the slave wages corporations can manipulate them into accepting. Get a clue dumbass. quit reading propaganda and think for yourself, simpleminded oaf.
Click to expand...

So managers shouldn't get any money?

No managers? No marketers? No company leadership? Good luck with that company.
 
Watermark said:
So managers shouldn't get any money?

No managers? No marketers? No company leadership? Good luck with that company.
Click to expand...





No they should. What should be rejected are the theories of scientific management which posit that workers are dishonest, lazy, and should be treated as subhuman.

All the managers I know detract from value, however. They're fucking retards.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No they should. What should be rejected are the theories of scientific management which posit that workers are dishonest, lazy, and should be treated as subhuman.

All the managers I know detract from value, however. They're fucking retards.
Click to expand...

LOL, you should've seen how hard it was to convince this new manager one time that I wasn't putting the wrong pull date's on the fucking chicken. I even opened the manual and showed her that my method was proper and she wouldn't believe me. I had to put her stupid wrong kill dates on the chicken all day until the big-manager came by the next day and showed her how stupid she was.

You still need management though. :dunno:

"Scientific management" was one of the progressive ideas that never became all that popular. Parts of it were sometimes put into practice but nobody really ever paid much attention to it.
 
Watermark said:
LOL, you should've seen how hard it was to convince this new manager one time that I wasn't putting the wrong pull date's on the fucking chicken. I even opened the manual and showed her that my method was proper and she wouldn't believe me. I had to put her stupid wrong kill dates on the chicken all day until the big-manager came by the next day and showed her how stupid she was.

You still need management though. :dunno:

"Scientific management" was one of the progressive ideas that never became all that popular. Parts of it were sometimes put into practice but nobody really ever paid much attention to it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the prevailing corporate management ethos. That's why everything sucks.

Though the originator of it, Frederick Taylor, believed A) management should work alongside workers so they know what the fuck they're doing,
and B) that workers should share in the profits of increased efficiencies, these two tenets were abandoned immediately in practice.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
There wasn't much official study in economics back then. But the labor theory of value hasn't been believed by any serious economic school since Marxism.
Click to expand...

For me at least Marxism is more a form of analysis rather than economic theory. Even Capital (no I haven't read all three volumes but I do delve into them from time to time) is about analysis rather than proscription. I know next to nothing about economics but it seemed to me when I first began to read Marx that his argument about surplus value providing profit was illuminating. No doubt it's been superseded by more sophisticated ideas which I wouldn't understand but that doesn't mean it didn't make sense to me about why things are the way they are.
 
Diuretic said:
For me at least Marxism is more a form of analysis rather than economic theory. Even Capital (no I haven't read all three volumes but I do delve into them from time to time) is about analysis rather than proscription. I know next to nothing about economics but it seemed to me when I first began to read Marx that his argument about surplus value providing profit was illuminating. No doubt it's been superseded by more sophisticated ideas which I wouldn't understand but that doesn't mean it didn't make sense to me about why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...


They're not that sophisticated. They just use alot of big words to justify our current fascist, statist system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top