Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:12:41 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:08:06 -0700, Michael L. Coburn in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 12:22:16 +0000, Edmund Esterbauer wrote:
Cost under your definition is still subjective because it is derived from
the value an individual attaches to the effort of providing that labour
whether or not you assume land is free. Or to put it slightly differently,
labour results from human action and is therefore subjectively measured by
each individual. The value of the price paid to produce the good is called
cost. Cost is equal to the value attached to the satisfaction that must be
foregone in order to produce the good.
Well.... You have launched the attack exactly as I anticipated. We will
see where we go from here. Unlike the word "value" which in its stand
alone form has all sorts of wild subjectiveness the word cost is a
little more contained. In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor
but in the aristocratic view of such value. This cost/value is well
documented in aggregates and in per capita statistics. It is not subject
to the whim and fancy of an individual laborer/worker or even an
individual neoconomist/aristocrat. Regardless of what the aristocrat or
the laborer might think about it the statistics provide an objective
measurement of the "value" of labor. And that is, in fact, an
objective view of COST from the 20K foot level where it actually matters.
Sure, if you want people just to be cogs in the wheels of
social production then we can ignore the underlying human
activitie and mental processes that produce your "COST from
20K foot level".
That's really not the level it matter at though because
that is not the level that social process is working at.
The claim that the marginal units of labor are equivalent
to the inframarginal units of labor is wrong (even if the
simplified econ 101 theory makes that assumption). Unless
the units of labor across each person who is part of that
production is indentical then you "where it actually matters"
clain fails also.
jmh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: radav
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- References:
- Labor theory of cost
- From: Michael L. Coburn
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: Edmund Esterbauer
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: Michael L. Coburn
- Labor theory of cost
- Prev by Date: Re: Labor theory of cost
- Next by Date: Re: Making less than dad did
- Previous by thread: Re: Labor theory of cost
- Next by thread: Re: Labor theory of cost
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading