Comments on: Marxian Exploitation Theory http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/marxian-exploitation-theory.html Because everything has a reason! Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:52:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: prashanthguevara http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/marxian-exploitation-theory.html#comment-2507 prashanthguevara Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:22:03 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3615#comment-2507 Arthur, yeah cost isn't subjective. But they are, as prices, the expression of the scarcity of resources in relation to consumers' demands. Thanks for your compliments! Arthur, yeah cost isn’t subjective. But they are, as prices, the expression of the scarcity of resources in relation to consumers’ demands.

Thanks for your compliments!

]]> By: The Arthurian http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/marxian-exploitation-theory.html#comment-2504 The Arthurian Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:05:37 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3615#comment-2504 Nice article. I especially liked the Alice and Bob bit. People say beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I say value is in the eye of the beholder. Value is subjective, surely. But *cost* is not. The cost of production is the sum of all the factor costs that go into producing a thing. So the amount of labor in a thing is not to be dismissed lightly. (I get this not from Marx but from Adam Smith.) So labor and other factor costs establish a *floor* of profitability. If a product can only be sold at a price below this floor, it is not likely to long remain in production. .-= The Arthurian´s last blog ..<a href="http://newarthurianeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-money.html" rel="nofollow">On Money</a> =-. Nice article. I especially liked the Alice and Bob bit. People say beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I say value is in the eye of the beholder. Value is subjective, surely.

But *cost* is not. The cost of production is the sum of all the factor costs that go into producing a thing. So the amount of labor in a thing is not to be dismissed lightly. (I get this not from Marx but from Adam Smith.)

So labor and other factor costs establish a *floor* of profitability. If a product can only be sold at a price below this floor, it is not likely to long remain in production.
.-= The Arthurian´s last blog ..On Money =-.

]]> By: GP http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/marxian-exploitation-theory.html#comment-2506 GP Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:27:27 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3615#comment-2506 The only way trade could happen in this case is only when Alice values apples more than eggs; and Bob values eggs more than apples. Marx’s theory falls into a pit! The only way trade could happen in this case is only when Alice values apples more than eggs; and Bob values eggs more than apples. Marx’s theory falls into a pit!

]]> By: jj smith http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/marxian-exploitation-theory.html#comment-2505 jj smith Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:44:59 +0000 http://www.reasonforliberty.com/?p=3615#comment-2505 The amount of labor someone puts into something has no direct relationship to its value. One could labor a life time to make something that another might make in 5 minuets and both things would have the same market value. Two people could also labor the same amount of time on two different things only to have one item be worthless and the other worth a fortune. Marx concluded commodities with the same exchange value had the same amount (hours) of labor involved in producing them, and hence exchanged on equal terms. This conclusion is absurd. What morons could actually believe this? The value of something is determined by what you get from it. Also, some things are worthless and have no exchange value and other things are priceless and also have no exchange value. Marx and all of those who believe and believed in him are infected with the disease of envy and communism is devised to justify that envy. The amount of labor someone puts into something has no direct relationship to its value. One could labor a life time to make something that another might make in 5 minuets and both things would have the same market value. Two people could also labor the same amount of time on two different things only to have one item be worthless and the other worth a fortune.

Marx concluded commodities with the same exchange value had the same amount (hours) of labor involved in producing them, and hence exchanged on equal terms.
This conclusion is absurd. What morons could actually believe this?

The value of something is determined by what you get from it. Also, some things are worthless and have no exchange value and other things are priceless and also have no exchange value.

Marx and all of those who believe and believed in him are infected with the disease of envy and communism is devised to justify that envy.

]]>