Re: Labor theory of cost

On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:04:06 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:58:00 +0000, jmh wrote:

On Sun, 27 May 2007 20:48:19 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:33:57 +0000, jmh wrote:


The conomic costs are critical to political economic analysis
because that's extact what is driving the soocial process.

Rather lumpy but essentially correct. Gald to see that we agree about
cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_.


The cost of Land still exists regardless of who's collecting
the rent.

Land has no cost. The APPARENT cost of particular locations is _labor_

Then you are not talking about economic cost.

Oh but I am. All costs are labor. That is my point.

The economic cost of Land is the foregone opportunities it
could have been used for.

The mantra repeated. You gonna count some beads, too?

That is simply neoconomic horsecrap. The entire purpose of neoclassical
econ is to exalt the preiminence and authority of the "nobles" who
decide how everything is to be allocated. In the minds and mouths of the

You're clearly delusional.

authoritarian nobility the amount of work put forth by the actual people
is irrelevant and "God and Country" are the objective of economic
activity. And they, of course, will maintain their positions of authority
based on their supposed moral and God given "rights" supported by a
virtual army of neoclassical handmaidens. It is classical econ on bad
steroids. After all, Smith's book was about "The Wealth of Nations", not
"The Wealth of the Common People". A slow and careful reading of "Progress
and Poverty" is recommended. Henry George was not an economist. Ask
yourself who pays the economist.

If you wish to continue claiming Land has no cost then you're
claiming that human are not facing any resource constrain
on land -- which would mean that Land cannot really generate
any rent.

I dealt with this in the verbiage you have so conveniently deleted.
Perhaps you'd like to resurrect it and actually address it as opposed to
crouching in the corner with your index fingers crossed in front of you,
chanting "forgone opportunity".

Feel free to repost it.

The fact that man did not create nature through his labors is
unemportant to many political economic problems. The only question
it is relevant to is the question of should man beable to claim a
share of social output based on only on the individual control of
some location. That's not the entirerty of political economy.

No, it isn't. But it is the 500 pound gorilla that will not be ignored
and the stick of dynamite that exposes other forms of economic rent
privatization. e.g. other ripoffs by the noble lords and the small time
crooks who seek to emulate them.

Labor theory of cost is a part of the expose' and a beginning for _real_
evaluations of economic policies.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... economy and of labor. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... economy and of labor. ...
    (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 ... My conclusion is essentially correct for political economy. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... That's not the entirerty of political economy. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... That's not the entirerty of political economy. ...
    (sci.econ)