Don: I've never read Marx, but based upon our discussions so far I assume that use-value is similar to SVT. That would be a BIG mistake.
The STV presumes that the INDIVIDUAL consumer decides use-value on atomized occasions. (Does one idiot willing to buy a candy bar for $100 make it worth $100?)
The LTV, on the other hand, presumes that use-values are determined by society on an AVERAGE basis. (And so are the exchange-values which are the embodiment of socially necessary [average] labor-time.)
: What I feel isn't usefull to real-world economics is the idea that labor creates value--"the underlying essence of value".
Then why are EMPLOYEES always necessary in industrialized (i.e. capitalistic) society?
Don:
In other words, TMU has no propaganda value for socialists and Marxists.
Stoller:
Although the fact that it DOES have propaganda value FOR neoliberals and other assorted capitalist vampires doesn't seem to bother you in the least...
Don: Correct. But I'm convinced it is a useful theory, while LTV isn't (except for its propaganda value).
No, you are 'convinced' only because the STV confirms what you ALREADY believe and, thus, makes no demands of you.
Stoller:
Well, Don, at least Joel explained WHY he believes what he believes---like SDF explained his beliefs, RD explained his, and I explained mine.
: : How about you explaining YOURS?
Don:
In fact, I like Joel's explanation.* I'm not an economist, and I'm new to both the LTV and the STV. The STV seems to be a nice, simple, yet powerful theory. LTV seems to have only political value. I can't see any faults with the STV, but the fact that LTV needs all these special cases suggests weakness. So I believe what I believe based on a little libertarian reading and the debates we have had on this board.
I think you're basing your decision on: (1) the STV confirms your ideology, and (2) you reject more complicated theories because they require more effort from you. The two combined = a closed mind.
* Joel's theory went splat here and here.
None.
