Re: Labor theory of cost

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:32:35 +0000, Edmund Esterbauer wrote:

Your statement is unclear and adds nothing to your initial point but merely
restates it as an assertion and is also unhelpful in understanding the real
nature of wealth creation. It takes an entrepreneur to transform a natural
resource into a usable good and to trade that good at a profit/loss.

Well, it would be sort of rational to put your ASSERTION or PROCLAMATION
or RELIGIOUS FIXATION below the "statement" to which you are attempting to
respond. Of course you aren't reponding, are you? You are invoking the
holy divinity of "the entreprenuer creates all value". I will not move
from my discussion of cost. I can't help but notice the immediate
invocation of the word "value" as you slide the "entrepreneur" into the
tambourine performance.

Labour it is true is used by the entrepreneur to produce this good and it is
a cost of production.

(snicker) Yep, just like a tissue or a condom.

However, the value of the good is not determined by
the cost of the labour used to make it but is determined by the market for
that good.

Well NO ***!!!!

The value of the good is subjective because those in the market
for the good make subjective valuations during the trade.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMM!!! AH DINT NO THAUT!!!!!

Further off topic Austrian/Neoclassical beating deleted for brevity.

As a
result the statistics you refer to do not provide an objective measure of
either labour or the value of the good.

You have obviously misunderstood the intent of what I have put forth and
totally missed the point. I am not exponding a value theory as yet,
though that may happen. I am attempting to develop some metrics that will
actually measure the effects of political and economic decisions on the
vast majority of the people. The labor theory of cost and the accurate
definition of economic rent are essential to that undertaking. The desire
is to measure the effects of advancing technology, free trade, open
markets, and all the rest on the QUALITY OF LIFE. I have only just begun
and others will outpace me I am sure. Others KNOW what they are doing and
I have to stumble and bumble around to get ahead. But maybe there are a
few folks that can come along for the ride and actually develop an
understanding as I plod along.


"Michael L. Coburn" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.26.15.08.01.470440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

"Michael L. Coburn" <mikcob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.24.22.19.45.497276@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org

.