http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/p/the-labour-theory-of-value-as-presented.html

hes an actor saying his lines

youd have to be retarded to take him seriously

Those articles you posted were highly unreliable, and I could easily counter them with articles of my own. As for Professor Wolff, he's a good economist and I enjoy his lectures. Also, not accepting the LTV is pretty primitive.

Woah💦 Woah💦 Woah💦 Hold on💦 Stick em UP🙆🙆🙆🙆 THAT'S RIGHT🔫 THIS IS A ROBBERY🔫 Hand over the CUMMIES🔫💦💦 and no DADDY😫👨😨 gets hurt 📨Send this to your naughtiest👄 little 👄partners in crime 😏🔫😏🔫 and you'll get 💰💰💰SACKS💰💰💰 OF CUMMIES🍆💦💦💦 Get 5🔳 back, you're a 💓squishy💓 little rebel without a cause💋💋💋💋💋 Get 10🔳 back, you're a 😎😎😎career cummie💦 criminal 🙆🔫🔫 bustin all the daddies👨🌽🍆 banks💰💴 Get 15🔳 back, you're a little 😼😼FAT CAT😻😻 with mad stacks💰💦 of CUMMIES💰💦 Get 20🔳 back, you're the 👑👑CUMMIE 💦💦💦 QUEEN👑👑

here's the thing about wolff

he is very good at articulating what he believes

except that was he believes is shit

You must not like mathematics and common sense, Queef.

lol WHAT

its common sense that labour has no bearing on what a buyer values

i have listened to wolff and from what i know about the free market, much of what he says makes no sense with all things considered

look even marx contridicted himself in volume 3

for example the idea of surplus value and the whole labor theory of value is, on a logical basis in the modern world, pretty nonsensical

value is subjective

perhaps it would have been better suited for back then, before the industrial revolution

before mass-production was a thing

it wasnt coined by marx, smith and ricardo used before the neoclassicals stopped using it

this was 100 years before

well it's true

even mainstream economists at the time didnt use it

Actually, it isn't. The Neo-Marxians made it pretty clear that the LTV is, in fact, a thing. And much of the criticism directed at it is based on misreadings and assumptions.

lol what

the neo marxists like in uni dont even claim it

The LTV has been elaborated on and tweaked by numerous economists since it's formulation.

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/2015/05/a-devastating-contradiction-in-marxs.html

Not accepting it is pretty stupid tbh.

It's supported by the math.

the only arguments for it are on a morality basis and not a logical basis

which in essence really isn't an argument now is it

According to Marx’s argument, we must totally abstract from a commodity’s “use value” to determine the ultimate thing that underlies the equality of exchange and what ultimately determines exchange value.

However, that is blatantly and disastrously contradicted later in the same Chapter when Marx makes this admission:

“Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.” (Marx 1906: 48).

This is exactly like having your cake and eating it too.

On the one hand, we can totally ignore use value in ultimately explaining exchange values, but on the other hand – only a few pages later – nothing without utility (by which Marx no doubt means “use value”) can create value and by implication price. This is a bad contradiction, and requires that being an object of utility is a necessary condition not only for having labour value but also an exchange value.

Morality has nothing to do with it. It's mathematics.

no its not

ok what about fiat money

the mathematics are there to justify the morals of the argument

Do you want me to hit you with some equations?

the cb can just make mopney

you justify morals through any means

why does the money have value

mathematics is one of them

you can create all these equations to prove something you think is moral