tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post5373935551405678048..comments2024-03-28T11:04:16.315+00:00Comments on Boffy's Blog: Water and DiamondsBoffyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-45620837909004750022012-08-19T14:04:32.855+01:002012-08-19T14:04:32.855+01:00Actually, Marx didn't say he wasn't a Marx...Actually, Marx didn't say he wasn't a Marxist. What he said was in the context of his differences with Guesde and the French socialists over "revolutionary phrasemongering". Marx said caustically "If this is Marxism then I am no Marxist".Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-83677046465506817462012-08-19T02:55:21.948+01:002012-08-19T02:55:21.948+01:00Love your blog...
Marie
Ps Adam Smith didn't ...Love your blog...<br />Marie<br />Ps Adam Smith didn't mention water and diamond to explain labor theory of value...he pinpoint the absurdity of marginalist utility theory with two words... Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923273274730877029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-70211410338640383492012-08-19T02:51:41.611+01:002012-08-19T02:51:41.611+01:00Adam Smith did not mention water and diamond to ex...Adam Smith did not mention water and diamond to explain labor theory of value...he pinpoint the absurdity of marginalist utility with only two words...<br />To dwell in any explanation of utility as value is waste of brain cell right there...<br />What you doing on your blog is courageous attempt to educate people who are not under Mises umbrella...<br />Good lunch with that...<br />I wanna say something else...<br />One of Marx famous quote is " I am not a Marxist" <br />Why would he say that...<br />Don't he should have be proud that generations upon generations economic pupils will bare his name? <br />No...not really...<br />Why...<br />Cause he was political economist, same as Adam Smith and David Ricardo...cause he didn't invent new theory of value, but pick up the scientific torch where his predecessor left: DNA of Capitalistic crises...<br />That was Marx contribution...the genome, the system DNA will unavoidable lead capitalism from one to another crises and nothing, no man, no govt can stop it...<br />He discover that genome called contradiction of capitalistic accumulation, production for the sake of production...and inability to realize the profit on the saturated market...and no economist after Marx was able to disprove that fact, no matter how successful they deny it...<br />Crises are plaguing Capitalism just as Marx mathematics show they will, and all those queasy economist can hang to animal spirits or neglect, or greed, or lack of regulation, or to much regulation...never the less what excuse they use in their woodoo economics books, all they do is blame game, and due lack of logic are unable to offer exit of the predicament... <br />Marx didn't have that problem...going in crises and getting out of it was clear logical outcome of the systemic flaw... <br />Love your blog...<br />Hope you will love mine too...<br />Marie... Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923273274730877029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-76671578048131602272012-08-19T01:53:00.996+01:002012-08-19T01:53:00.996+01:00One of Marx famous quote is: I am not a Marxist......One of Marx famous quote is: I am not a Marxist...<br />Now why would he say that...clearly he should have be proud a generation upon generation of student, followers of his teaching to behold his name...<br />Cause he didn't start a new school...cause he was honest enough to acknowledge that he already belong to a school of economic though. <br />Marx was political economist and the economic foundation he believe in also known as Labor theory of value... <br />I grow up in Yugoslavia and I graduated at the University of Macedonia, Skopje...my major was economic policies and development of the country ... macroeconomics in one word... <br />We as socialist country have Marxism as philosophy since high school, but in economic study Das Capital was elaborated as well as Adam Smiths Wealth and Ricardo's Principle in the class Political Economy...literally... <br />I never ever considered myself to be Marxist...<br />I am political economist...<br />Marxism was worldview, dialectic approach to materialistic reality: things always change, even when we don't like the change cause it's not in our favor, the wheel of history always move forward...stall, derailed maybe, but never the less, it will not be stop...progress will happen, capitalism will flip into Socialism, no matter who scream otherwise ( conservatives )!<br />Of course we study critics of LTV so called market economist who one after another mud the water that Capitalism is a system that only benefit few on account of impoverishing many, most famous being Keynes, Mises & Friedman...<br />All of those apologetics schools of economics failed to find answer to Marx main observation about Capitalism, nor they could have despite his economic genome of Capitalistic DNA: the crises...all they could have come out is superstitious excuses: someone fall asleep at the switch, some animal spirit took ahold of our noble business enterprenors who become obsess with greed and spin the whole economy out of proportion...the boom and bust of business cycle...<br />Silly rabbits...tricks are for kids...<br />Marx and those of us who understand his economics we see the crises happening a mile before it hit our shore...<br />That's Marx legacy...the crises, the contradiction of capitalistic mode of production that accumulate in a hand of few the vast wealth and inability to materialize profit on the market...crises of overproduction, one and the same today as they were during Marx time...crises due to growth as we call them today...bubbles...<br />As for water and diamond paradox...<br />Adam Smith did not explain labor theory of value with his example...he point the absurdity of the marginalist utility creed...<br />Marx never waste time with thing he agree with Adam Smith...nor any of his predecessor as Ricardo...nor he waste time on any marginalist claims...<br />I love your blog...hope I will have you on mine too...<br />Marie... Mariehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923273274730877029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-26518265596720604732009-06-05T12:58:22.945+01:002009-06-05T12:58:22.945+01:00Charlie,
Thanks. I'll reciprocate in the nex...Charlie,<br /><br />Thanks. I'll reciprocate in the next few days. I understand about commitments entirely!Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-64760174968222378682009-06-04T17:13:47.193+01:002009-06-04T17:13:47.193+01:00Hi Arthur,
Many thanks for this. You've given ...Hi Arthur,<br />Many thanks for this. You've given me food for thought but various work and family commitments mean I can't devote the time to give you a considered response just now. But I will, I will, I promise. Meanwhile I have put a link to this interesting article into a posting on my site - albeit a posting about something else written in a relatively light-hearted way, but the reference is genuinely positive nonetheless.CharlieMcMenaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00942021756417667913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-77847951774091037872009-06-02T20:23:54.653+01:002009-06-02T20:23:54.653+01:00By the way feel free to point others in the direct...By the way feel free to point others in the direction of that post. I'll try to reciprocate when I have some time available.<br /><br />Also by the way, the call about the end of the recession doesn't look so unrealistic now I think you'll agree.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-3555553257341841792009-06-02T20:07:03.514+01:002009-06-02T20:07:03.514+01:00Charlie,
I assume you came to it from the link fr...Charlie,<br /><br />I assume you came to it from the link from my more recent post. Hope you liked that too. ON the LTV I'd be glad to try to deal with any questions you have for the reasons given in my more recent blog.<br /><br />I suppose my simple answer would be that the LTV is not intended to be a theory of distribution. Its a theory of production. That is the opposite to the bouyregois theory, which almost removes production completely from the equation in order to focus solely on the question of distribution i.e. exchange.<br /><br />For example, it poses the question like this. Suppose a) has 10 Mars Bars and b)has 20 fags how will they be better off by trading some of each with the other? They then answer this set up question in terms of how much each prefers fags to Mars bars? I once had a debate with an Austrian economist on this very theme, and asked the obvious question -<br /><br />"Where did the fags and Mars Bars come from, how much did they cost to produce?"<br /><br />only to be told,<br /><br />"Imagine both find them behind the barn"!!!! Again the response was fairly obvious - "What economy is this you are describing where all commodities are simply found behind barns?"<br /><br />But, bouregois economists has to make this assumption in order to limit the subjective value to just the inherent physical characteristics of the commodity for the consumer, thereby denying that most significant characteristic of the commodity, which determines its usefulness - its quality as an Exchange Value, something that can be Exchanged for other things!<br /><br />The strength of Marx's Theory is that it does not deny the role of Demand and Supply in dealing with the question you raise in relation to distribution. In fact, Marx says that Interest Rates are solely determined by the interaction of Demand and Supply. To some extent, I don't think that a fully developed Marxist theory - remember Capital was only a small portion of the work Marx had set himself to do, which would have dealt with Distribution and market theory - would bother taking too much issue with Marginal Utility if taken as being simply some vague notion of how consumers make choices, provided that it was on the basis not of using that as the starting point in determining Value.<br /><br />I think Marginal Utility theory is unneccesary and irrelevant personally. I think that prices are developed in the way I have outlined, and that consumer's chocies only determine what and how much is demanded at those prices. How and why consumers make this choice or that choice we probably can never know, and is likely to be different in each case - I certainly don't weigh up relative utilities and compare them against prices when I go to the supermarket, in fact, half the time I don't even know what the price was I'd paid for soemthing, I just knew I needed some.<br /><br />If you start from there I think you can see the basic outlines of a Marxist theory of distribution with these changes in demand causing changes in prices and a corresponding reallocation of Capital in order to restore average rates of profit.Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6263577133333272085.post-3009023529717394512009-06-02T12:38:59.099+01:002009-06-02T12:38:59.099+01:00Boffy,
I missed this when you first posted it. I d...Boffy,<br />I missed this when you first posted it. I don't think it totally resolves my doubts about the Labour Theory of Value (I still wonder at its relation to the necessary function of distributing resources for instance) but I just wanted to say it is one of the clearest explanations of the debate on the theory I have ever read. Top blogging!CharlieMcMenaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00942021756417667913noreply@blogger.com