Re: Labor theory of cost

On Sun, 27 May 2007 14:31:03 -0700, Michael L. Coburn in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:04:04 +0000, jmh wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 15:19:52 -0700, Michael L. Coburn in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
I have given up on ever actually communicating with utility
freaks about the _real_ value theory as opposed to the Marx
Communist Manifesto. So I have decided to take a different
approach to the problem:

It is axiomatic that natural resources have NO COST. The
stuff simply exists. The abbreviation for natural resource
is "land". Now then: I will define something here called
"goods" and I will say that all "goods" (as distinct from
"land") are a product of land and labor (labor of course
is human effort). If land is free, i.e. it has no cost,
then the total cost of any "good" is the labor expended in
its creation. This observation holds true for ALL goods,
whether we speak of capital goods, durable goods, or comsumable
goods, or red, green, purple, orange, tall, short, or fat
goods. So if the cost of "capital" (i.e. capital goods) is
the labor expended in the creation of same, and it certainly
seems that this would be true, then the cost of every thing
that will ever be, other than land (which we have agreed has
no cost), is therefore the sum of labor expended in
creation. And while the neoconomist may screech that value
is subjective, we find that cost isn't. Cost is anywhere and
everywhere the labor to produce that which is desired.

Your conclusion is wrong.

Cost in the economic sense is the opportunity value
forgone. Two different people preforming the exact
same level or effort to the exact same prodution
output will be facing differnt opportunity valuations.

Your assertion seems totally irrelevant as the cost observed by each
individual is still the cost of his own labor. If he chooses to measure
the VALUE of his labor based on his opportunities forgone then that is all
fine well and good. I really don't care if he wants to measure it in
whales teeth, beads, blankets are the companionship he is missing out on
because he is "stuck at the office". That has nothing to do with _COST_
in macro econ or political economy or any other field of endeavor where we
are atttempting to do something worth spit at the level of an actual
society.

My conclusion is essentially correct for political economy. It is only

Your conclusion remains incorrect for any political
economic analysis. It's only at the political economy
level that recogniztion of these differences matters.
The entire basis of the political economy is to understand
the distribution of these economic costs and benefits within
society.

Your appoach throws the baby out with the bath water.

incorrect for pin head right wing fundamentalist micro. You are focused
on individual "value" which is fine, as I said above. I am focused on
the broader canvas of what institutions of society and government can do
to improve aggregate freedom from discomfort while maintaining essential
liberty. It may well be that institutions should do less so that

Which you cannot do by ignoring the underlying difference.

individuals have more liberty. But that is not really an indivdual
decision.... is it? By installing a basis for _real_ cost (and we most

"_real_ cost" in what definition? Some economically meaninngless
hours of work or a physist's definition of "work" (force over time)?
Those simply are not economic quantities.

certainly have the statistics to do that), then we can have a objective
measure, or several different objective measures of overall economic
performance. For what is political economy but the discovery of those
political conditions that will provide for the greater good? For the

To repeate the above, those conditions cannot be discovered
by ingnoring the underlying differences the people making
up your polity have.

jmh

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... It is axiomatic that natural resources have NO COST. ... "land") are a product of land and labor (labor of course ... My conclusion is essentially correct for political economy. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... It is axiomatic that natural resources have NO COST. ... "land") are a product of land and labor (labor of course ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ... My conclusion is essentially correct for political economy. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... whether or not you assume land is free. ... Cost is equal to the value attached to the satisfaction that must be ... In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... a cost of production. ... alone form has all sorts of wild subjectiveness the word cost is a ... In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: OT Re: Repair Fraud?
    ... >> Fine as long as the options and costs are communicated to the customer ... > and $7 on an exhaust pipe, workflow thru the shop is disrupted, ... Simple because then you would have to increase your labor rate ... compare costs readily, inflating the cost there hurts the perception. ...
    (rec.autos.tech)