EPTOn October 30 2012 07:31 BluePanther wrote:
Just remember. The Republic is the good guys.
Just remember. The Republic is the good guys.
How dare you! Star Wars is above politics! Jk lol.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1109
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5710 Posts
How dare you! Star Wars is above politics! Jk lol. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
If it exists in the mind of one individual you can't compare things to trade them. Value is not subjective, it's intersubjective, otherwise you wouldn't be able to trade things. Trade value is not "just an extension of subjective value," you're just being lazy and having an equivocal theory. What is an "extension" and how is it "extended"? Exchange value is what happens when use values (what you call "subjective value") are brought to market, and heterogenous use-values are compared. the point of the labor theory of value is to explain what is being compared when exchange values are being compared, because you can't compare use-values (how many sandwiches is one hammer worth?). Mainstream economics declines to provide a theory of value, instead focusing on exchange values only, but then you can't explain why exchange values equilibrate around the values they do (basically there is no theory of demand). edit: I think you might be more skeptical of labor theory for perceived ideological baggage than you really need to be... | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:31 BluePanther wrote: Just remember. The Republic is the good guys. Just remember: if you vote for the candidate from a mysterious, insular religious background, who hides his true policy goals and plans to spend big on new military projects, you're probably Jar Jar Binks.  | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
"Some Millennials Becoming More Fiscally Conservative" This generation of young Americans has been called many things, from civic-minded to "entitled." But fiscally conservative? That's a new one, and it just might have an impact on the presidential election. Listen to Caroline Winsett, a senior at DePaul University, who considers herself fairly socially liberal but says being fiscally conservative matters most right now. To be clear, polls show that President Barack Obama remains the favorite among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters, as he was in 2008. No one thinks the majority of young voters will support Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, in the Nov. 6 election. But the polls also hint at a "schism" between those who weren't old enough to vote in 2008 and their older twentysomething counterparts, says John Della Volpe, the polling director at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. In one poll, for instance, he found that 42 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds identified as "conservative," compared with just over one-third who said they were "liberal." By comparison, those proportions were nearly flipped for 22- to 24-year-olds: 39 percent said they were "liberal," and a third called themselves "conservative." It was much the same for older twentysomethings. Tina Wells, head of Buzz Marketing, an agency that tracks the attitudes of young people, has noticed this shift to the right. Her own researchers have found that the youngest adults are much more likely to label themselves "conservative," "moderate" or "independent" than older millennials, a term for young adults who've entered adulthood in the new millennium. Full article here. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:59 Jumbled wrote: Just remember: if you vote for the candidate from a mysterious, insular religious background, who hides his true policy goals and plans to spend big on new military projects, you're probably Jar Jar Binks. Well we don't really know how Palpatine came to power since all we have to go off of are the blasphemous prequels. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:42 jdseemoreglass wrote: Now prices, that's a different matter entirely. But I do not conflate prices with value. Ok, so how do you understand the relationship between them? | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:49 sam!zdat wrote: No, JD, you're still equivocating. What I wrote is not nonsense. If it exists in the mind of one individual you can't compare things to trade them. Value is not subjective, it's intersubjective, otherwise you wouldn't be able to trade things. Trade value is not "just an extension of subjective value," you're just being lazy and having an equivocal theory. What is an "extension" and how is it "extended"? Exchange value is what happens when use values (what you call "subjective value") are brought to market, and heterogenous use-values are compared. the point of the labor theory of value is to explain what is being compared when exchange values are being compared, because you can't compare use-values (how many sandwiches is one hammer worth?). Mainstream economics declines to provide a theory of value, instead focusing on exchange values only, but then you can't explain why exchange values equilibrate around the values they do (basically there is no theory of demand). Just because two people share a subjective value does not mean it isn't still simply subjective value. That's how subjective value gets extended, by two people holding value in common. Exchange value/trade value does not mean that the object has an actual value independent of the transaction. You are getting too caught up in this equilibrium idea in my opinion. The fact that two people engage in trade means, by necessity, that they regard the commodity with DIFFERING subjective value. Trade would not take place if the value was considered completely equal among subjective parties, because there would be no benefit to trade. So the fact that trade takes place proves that there is not in fact an external value to a good, that it is entirely subjective. And this is why economists reject the notion of creating a theory of value, rightly so! It is as absurd as trying to develop a scientific theory of morality, since they are both founded entirely upon subjective human values. Prices can be discussed and compared, but prices are merely a contsantly fluctuating representation, they are not a fixed equilibrium. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Just because two people share a subjective value does not mean it isn't still simply subjective value. That's how subjective value gets extended, by two people holding value in common. No, but there is no value until it is shared: before that you only have use-value. Use-value is subjective, value is intersubjective. Exchange value/trade value does not mean that the object has an actual value independent of the transaction. You are getting too caught up in this equilibrium idea in my opinion. Value is not "independent" of transactions, it is produced by the aggregate transactions of the economy. But all transactions must presuppose value in order to be sensical, in order to render commensurate the heterogenous use-values which are being traded. There must be some value which is being compared when you say "X is worth Y." What is being compared is socially necessary abstract labor time. The fact that two people engage in trade means, by necessity, that they regard the commodity with DIFFERING subjective value. Trade would not take place if the value was considered completely equal among subjective parties, because there would be no benefit to trade. So the fact that trade takes place proves that there is not in fact an external value to a good, that it is entirely subjective. Kind of. Say you have a sandwich and I want to buy it. I want the sandwich because I'm hungry - it has a use value to me. You want money, because money is more flexible in exchange (that's the use value of the money form) and the sandwich does not represent a use-value to you at the current moment (or less use-value compared to the use-value of the money you would receive from selling it). But if you charge me more than the sandwich is "worth," that is, how much socially necessary abstract labor time is embodied in it, I will feel like you ripped me off. That's why I want to have two people competing to sell me sandwiches. What differs is use-value (subjective), but not exchange value or value. (edit: If your analysis were correct here, nobody could say what the price of anything was...) And this is why economists reject the notion of creating a theory of value, rightly so! It is as absurd as trying to develop a scientific theory of morality, since they are both founded entirely upon subjective human values. Subjective (and intersubjective) phenomena can be theorized... (edit: that's the point of the "socially necessary" part of the labor theory of value. You are theorizing a social phenomenon when you talk about value.) Marx does claim to be "scientific" but that word doesn't mean the same to him as it does to us. His theory is not "scientific" in our modern sense, nor should it be, nor is mainstream economics, nor is that a problem with any of it. Economists abstain from advancing a theory of value because then they would have to think about the real world, which they prefer not to do. They assume supply and demand are enough to determine "value," but that's absurd. Supply and demand can only explain the movement of exchange values. Prices can be discussed and compared, but prices are merely a contsantly fluctuating representation, they are not a fixed equilibrium. but around what and because of what are they fluctuating? An equilibrium is not "fixed" by definition, that's the whole point of the idea of "equilibrium"... you said you distinguish between price and value... what does that mean? | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:32 sam!zdat wrote: + Show Spoiler + On October 30 2012 08:12 jdseemoreglass wrote: Just because two people share a subjective value does not mean it isn't still simply subjective value. That's how subjective value gets extended, by two people holding value in common. No, but there is no value until it is shared: before that you only have use-value. Use-value is subjective, value is intersubjective. Exchange value/trade value does not mean that the object has an actual value independent of the transaction. You are getting too caught up in this equilibrium idea in my opinion. Value is not "independent" of transactions, it is produced by the aggregate transactions of the economy. But all transactions must presuppose value in order to be sensical, in order to render commensurate the heterogenous use-values which are being traded. There must be some value which is being compared when you say "X is worth Y." What is being compared is socially necessary abstract labor time. The fact that two people engage in trade means, by necessity, that they regard the commodity with DIFFERING subjective value. Trade would not take place if the value was considered completely equal among subjective parties, because there would be no benefit to trade. So the fact that trade takes place proves that there is not in fact an external value to a good, that it is entirely subjective. Kind of. Say you have a sandwich and I want to buy it. I want the sandwich because I'm hungry - it has a use value to me. You want money, because money is more flexible in exchange (that's the use value of the money form) and the sandwich does not represent a use-value to you at the current moment (or less use-value compared to the use-value of the money you would receive from selling it). But if you charge me more than the sandwich is "worth," that is, how much socially necessary abstract labor time is embodied in it, I will feel like you ripped me off. That's why I want to have two people competing to sell me sandwiches. What differs is use-value (subjective), but not exchange value or value. (edit: If your analysis were correct here, nobody could say what the price of anything was...) And this is why economists reject the notion of creating a theory of value, rightly so! It is as absurd as trying to develop a scientific theory of morality, since they are both founded entirely upon subjective human values. Subjective (and intersubjective) phenomena can be theorized... (edit: that's the point of the "socially necessary" part of the labor theory of value. You are theorizing a social phenomenon when you talk about value.) Marx does claim to be "scientific" but that word doesn't mean the same to him as it does to us. His theory is not "scientific" in our modern sense, nor should it be, nor is mainstream economics, nor is that a problem with any of it. Economists abstain from advancing a theory of value because then they would have to think about the real world, which they prefer not to do. They assume supply and demand are enough to determine "value," but that's absurd. Supply and demand can only explain the movement of exchange values. Prices can be discussed and compared, but prices are merely a contsantly fluctuating representation, they are not a fixed equilibrium. but around what and because of what are they fluctuating? An equilibrium is not "fixed" by definition, that's the whole point of the idea of "equilibrium"... you said you distinguish between price and value... what does that mean? Just out of curiosity, what do you propose should take the place of our current system? In English, please. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:48 Souma wrote: Just out of curiosity, what do you propose should take the place of our current system? In English, please. oh idk. this is a theory of how money works under capitalism. edit: Marx didn't live to write his analysis of the credit system (it would have been in a later volume of Das Kapital. That's one of the things I'm interested in, but I'm not advancing a thesis atm) edit: one thing's for sure, you NEED to have a value theory. If you have an economics without a value theory you can never talk about the real world. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 30 2012 07:46 Zooper31 wrote: How dare you! Star Wars is above politics! Jk lol. NO! The Sith are much more moral than the Jedi! | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:51 sam!zdat wrote: oh idk. this is a theory of how money works under capitalism. edit: Marx didn't live to write his analysis of the credit system (it would have been in a later volume of Das Kapital. That's one of the things I'm interested in, but I'm not advancing a thesis atm) Well, I knew that. :p But I was wondering if you had any ideas of what should be done to replace or improve the current system. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:53 Praetorial wrote: NO! The Sith are much more moral than the Jedi! Seriously, who are these Jedi? They appropriate and indoctrinate kids to become future jedi, pretend to be "defenders of good" yet are tied directly to a political entity while acting as their soldiers and field generals, and follow an invisible entity called the Force which they claim guides and assists them in everything they do. Sounds like religious dictatorship to me. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
Imagine a room full of people. All of these people have a series of different items in front of them that they "own." Another analogy that could be used is kids' lunch items they bring to school. The room is opened to trading, and everyone begins to trade the items amongst each other. The reason they engage in trade, is because they all subjectively value the items differently. At the end of all the trades, the people in the room as a whole are richer. This is despite the fact that no new objects were introduced, nothing was created... and yet there is more total wealth in the room, because the utility and satisfaction that people have gotten as a consequence of the trades is now higher than it originally was. For a trade to take place both parties must feel they are getting a good deal, and so after the trade takes place they will simultaneously be better off, despite the fact that the objects themselves haven't changed. This is an important concept to understand. It is not some inherent value of the objects that matter, it is not their "use-value." What matters is the UTILITY that people derive from the objects. You asked me twice how I differentiate between price and value, and this is it, according to the concept of utility. Look at utility as a psychological good. Because psychological good is after all the best definition for "value" that we could come up with. There is no way to quantify something as either good or bad except as "psychologically pleasing or unpleasing." Your attempt to take the concept of value outside of the human mind is misguided. The universe does not have values, only individuals do, subjectively. "Intersubjective" value is a trying to parse reality into a convenient system, the further you get away from this quite obvious fact into invented constructs and concepts, the more loss of truth you have. You and Marx and everyone else who has attempted to do this is simply trying to force other people to subsidize their own subjective interpretation of value. Exchange value, use value, prices, are all simply external representations for the competition among individual subjective values. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:48 Souma wrote: Just out of curiosity, what do you propose should take the place of our current system? In English, please. Some Marxists would replace nothing insofar as capitalism's current place in society is concerned; instead they want for nothing more than an effective "running out" of capitalism to take place, for they are ultimately looking to what comes next. They tend to encourage the capitalist if not correct them at times. Whether or not Samz is that sort is another question  | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: Your attempt to take the concept of value outside of the human mind is misguided. The universe does not have values, only individuals do, subjectively. "Intersubjective" value is a trying to parse reality into a convenient system, the further you get away from this quite obvious fact into invented constructs and concepts, the more loss of truth you have. You and Marx and everyone else who has attempted to do this is simply trying to force other people to subsidize their own subjective interpretation of value. You're just deliberately ignoring me. The point is not to "subsidize [sic]" one's own subjective interpretation of value. The point is to theorize how a society produces an intersubjective value which allows things to be traded. MARX IS NOT PRESENTING A NORMATIVE THEORY (edit: in fact, don't you know, Marx DISLIKES this state of affairs). Under your theory nobody can trade anything, because you can't measure these subjective values against each other. You simply refuse to provide a theory of how this happens. Exchange value, use value, prices, are all simply external representations for the competition among individual subjective values. No, use value is not an "external representation," it's what you call utility. As far as the other two, yes, that claim is in accordance with Marxian theory. that's the point. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 09:01 farvacola wrote: Some Marxists would replace nothing insofar as capitalism's current place in society is concerned; instead they want for nothing more than an effective "running out" of capitalism to take place, for they are ultimately looking to what comes next. They tend to encourage the capitalist if not correct them at times. Whether or not Samz is that sort is another question I don't know what to think about strategy. Jameson says we have to defend the welfare state if only in order to lead it to its inevitable collapse. On the other hand, the neoliberals may bring things to the point of collapse much more rapidly, I feel... Either way, it all feels quite impossible, doesn't it? I rather think I would like to trick all these capitalists into "innovating" themselves out of a job. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
The point is to theorize how a society produces an intersubjective value which allows things to be traded. The problem is, when I read things like this it doesn't make sense to me. Society can't regard value, only individuals can. But I think I get what you are driving at, and the answer I would give is: Opportunity cost. The value, as you put it, of an item can be measured according to the next best alternative which can be gotten with the same given resources. And of course, when we talk about "next best alternative," this should be taken to mean, "the next most psychologically pleasing alternative for the individual." You want to consider this idea as something social, instead of something individual, which is where we disagree, I think. The competing alternatives help to establish the point at which prices are based, because they determine the amount people are willing to pay instead of the next best alternative, the next best thing they could buy with the money they have. Are we at all closer to understanding each other? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 30 2012 09:14 jdseemoreglass wrote: The problem is, when I read things like this it doesn't make sense to me. Society can't regard value, only individuals can. Well, if you continue to insist on equivocating on the term "value" I don't know how to respond. Value is a social thing, use-value is a thing for individuals. The point of the theory is to explain how something can be "worth" something in one society and "worth" something in another society - so societies do unquestionably "regard" value in some way, otherwise this wouldn't be possible. The question is how do individuals relate their subjective use-values to each other in such a way that they can have a functional economy and trade things with each other. If there weren't socially recognized values of things you couldn't trade on a commodity exchange... But I think I get what you are driving at, and the answer I would give is: Opportunity cost. The value, as you put it, of an item can be measured according to the next best alternative which can be gotten with the same given resources. And of course, when we talk about "next best alternative," this should be taken to mean, "the next most psychologically pleasing alternative for the individual." You want to consider this idea as something social, instead of something individual, which is where we disagree, I think. I don't follow your drift. The competing alternatives help to establish the point at which prices are based, because they determine the amount people are willing to pay instead of the next best alternative, the next best thing they could buy with the money they have. Are we at all closer to understanding each other? Haha no, I think we may be talking past each other. This just sounds to me like a question about which commodity somebody wants to buy with their money, and he has to compare their use-values using whatever reasoning he pleases (holding exchange-value equal for the sake of illustration). Maybe if you have more commodities total in the market, the social necessity of producing any given one goes down so the value of each goes down, and exchange-value follows? This example doesn't have a great deal to do directly with what I've been trying to talk about. | ||
| ||
