Econ 305, Lecture 12, Part I, The Labor Theory of Value

[@nailahfurnival39]

I just found Prof. Resnick's lectures yesterday and he has certainly illuminated Marx for me. I was sad to discover he has passed on. I love his clear and caricature-like manner of presenting.

[@MiguelHernandez-ui8cd]

I didn't know Bernie Sanders used to be a professor

[@xXxSW33TH34RTxXx]

+Miguel Hernandez ROFL

[@rithikhemanth205]

+Miguel Hernandez He actually was. Professor of Political Science at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Hamilton College.

[@axelbaker8737]

Bernie, Dr. Wolfe, this guy....... anyone seeing a pattern?

[@infinite1483]

Based

[@WilhelmDrake]

Good lecture. @10:16 My only area of contention is regarding the Business Cycle. The increasing productivity of labour is unrelated to the Business Cycle which is in reality a Credit Cycle.

[@ic8575]

Criticizing Marx, or the lecturer?

[@Unprotected1232]

You mean the compensation of profit from workers by giving them loans instead of increased wages?

[@JorgeDiaz-xo8kb]

The shirt is not consumed whole in the production of the apple.Were it to be so you would see truckloads of shirts following laborers through fields.

[@ChitranjanBaghiofficial]

hey when did bernie joined university?

[@Diamat1917]

0:49 *Polityka, ekonomia, kultura, przyroda określa społecznie niezbędny czas pracy do wyprodukowania określonego towaru* *Dialektyak*

[@HallyVee]

It'd take me an hour at least to decipher all this. Not terribly effective to just rapid fire such dense verbiage and mathematical/logical relationships. Hope there was extensive prereading.

[@cbd7575]

i’m unsure of that. but maybe that’s because i have taken intro to micro and macro economics

[@HallyVee]

@@cbd7575 yeah im not sure what I was talking about here; there clearly WAS extensive rereading and lectures. This is the first time I've disliked one of my own comments. I'll pretend I was drunk.

[@cbd7575]

Notmi Relnam LOL no worries mate. i’ll drink one for you tonight

[@meowwwww6350]

Happy victory day

[@Elterraplanista]

this is adam smiths work not marx's

[@harharharsigh]

haha its really not. smith always talks of price and never managed to find how value is added

[@andr3w-833]

harharharsigh Smith developed an idea where labour produced value. marx critiqued his conclusions. Thus Marxism.

[@artemiasalina1860]

So 1 apple requires 1 hour of labor + 1 shirt. How many apples are required to produce 1 shirt? What if 1 shirt requires 1 hour of labor + 2 apples? How much value does the apple have now?

[@simplypodly]

It was a poor example, he was trying to highlight how the value of something doesn't just come from the labour that produced it, but the labour that produced the materials needed for it too. A better example would be a steel rail. The value of the rail isn't just from the labourer who cut it and installed, but also in the labour that smelted the steel, and the labour used in transporting it etc.

[@jaketeale6464]

That would be logically inconsistent since to find the ‘value’ of the Apple you need the value of the shirt which is in turn a derivative of the Apple. The equation you proposed when simplified, with A = Apple, is: A = 1+ (1+2A) or A = 2 + 2A which cannot be solved (technically it is -2, but this is obviously not possible in reality). To simply further, you effectively said 1=2 when 2=1+1 or 1=1+1

[@artemiasalina1860]

@@jaketeale6464 >That would be logically inconsistent since to find the ‘value’ of the Apple you need the value of the shirt which is in turn a derivative of the Apple. Exactly. I believe that was my point. Having said that, it's been 3 years since I posted that and I may be misremembering the video now. It's not worth my time to rewatch it because value is subjective.

[@artemiasalina1860]

@@simplypodly How much would you pay for a steel rail if you had no use for one? When was the last time you bought a steel rail? If never, then the value of a steel rail is 0 to you.

[@simplypodly]

@@artemiasalina1860 you're missing the point. The inherent value isn't only dependant on what someone is willing to pay for it. I might only want to pay $5 for a steel rail, but this doesn't mean I get it for that price. The seller has an inherent cost they need to recuperate from the sale, and they won't always just sell at the buyers demand. These inherent costs of labour mean that certain things which require more effort to produce will intrinsically be at a higher societal cost, because even if they're selling less than it cost to produce them, the cost is still accorded for in labour time.

[@TheBigBangggggg]

Mr Reznick isn't particularly bright in math, but I like his videos.

[@ChaoticM3thod]

This is literal nonsense. Value does not come from labor and we have known this for 150 years. Marx's LTV was obsolete almost immediately after he published it, having been pushed aside in favor of marginalism.

[@scottanno8861]

Is marginalism referring to diminishing marginal utility?

[@Mark-zk3gu]

Your capitalist heroes smith and Riccardo were the ones who came up with the LTV. All of a sudden you brain-dead neoliberals flipped your position since the LTV draws unfavourable conclusions for you.

[@ChaoticM3thod]

@@Mark-zk3gu Lol, stupid. That was 250 years ago. And Smith spent ONE PARAGRAPH musing on it.

[@Mark-zk3gu]

@@ChaoticM3thod one paragraph? You realize how little of Marx 's das Kapital is about the LTV? The entire thing is about capitalism. That doesn't mean the LTV isn't important. the father of modern capitalism acknowledges the LTV lol. Get over it.

[@ChaoticM3thod]

@@Mark-zk3gu Yes, one paragraph. Oh you didn't know that? Hmm, must be spending a lot of time in socialist echo chambers... And the ENTIRE FIRST VOLUME of Kapital is about the LTV. Stop lying.

[@marcze2525]

debunked since 1871...respect to Carl Menger and the subjective value theory

[@karwoski91]

Austrian school is a joke.

[@ExPwner]

@@karwoski91 Nope, Austrians owned your moronic asses.

[@karwoski91]

@@ExPwner Uhm are you lost here?Or perhaps you're here just to shitalk my dear gentleman?

[@mikey5279]

@@ExPwner baby you do realize the subjective theory of value doesn’t debunk the law of value right? They can be synthesized, y’all ain’t do shit but just confuse the field of Econ for years.

[@ExPwner]

@@karwoski91 not at all lost.

[@davidgon98]

How come baseball players are worth millions?

[@juliant8442]

When you say worth you are referring to price, or what they are paid. Marx makes a distinction from price and value. I think you should figure those terms out first.

[@davidgon98]

@@juliant8442 The values are reflected in prices. They are all relavie according to the laws of supply and demand.

[@davidgon98]

@@juliant8442 Price is the monetary expression of value. One those not exclue the other.

[@TheHeadlets]

@@davidgon98 Marx did not reject supply and demand. Also no economist in history has said that supply and demand is a "law". As for basketball players their price is very roughly in their exchange-value that is relative to others, whereby themselves as commodities are valued relative to other players as commodities. Just to note as well: Marx was little interested in *price* as neo-classical economists today seem to be exclusively interested in, but was interested in value, as is distinct from price, that is derived from its use-value and exchange-value, both of which may, and not definitely, roughly correspond to the price of a commodity.

[@davidgon98]

@@TheHeadlets I think you have a wrong definition of the word “law”. A law is nothing more a response to a cause and effect. And yes, supply and demand laws are based on the cause and affect phenomenon.

[@abhimanyukarnawat7441]

this is nonsense,austrians all the way.

[@merops]

Go back to econ 101, since econ 305 is beyond you

[@coenijn]

I mean if you want to discredit Marxism you'll have to come up with something better than Austrian school economic, because Austrian economics is considered as a heterodox school of economic thought since the 1930s and Marxist economics has been considered heterodox for a long time as well. Under JEL B5 both are categorized as heterodox.

[@simplypodly]

Austrian economics is a fairy tale

[@FKaps16]

The only reason for Marx's "theory" to be true is that it HAS to be true, otherwise all his subsequent political ideology crumbles. It is not there to be a coherent explanation of how an economic phenomena happens, it's there to provide foundation to a political theory, if only an extremely weak one. It is the economic equivalent of geocentrism. First we take our goal (Earth center of the universe / labor = value) and then we construct a theory which will be whatever is necessary to make that point seem proved. No matter all the assumptions and mental acrobats necessary to get there. There is no way someone would believe this theory unless that person was already a socialist. In which case, you NEED this to be true. It has a huge number of limitations on goods that cannot value, it contradicts itself several times, disregards the participation of animals or automated machines in the production process, and a very long etc. Hence why Austrian marginalism is now generally accepted across all branches of economics.

[@ExPwner]

Austrians debunked this Marxist nonsense and Marxists are just coping.