Friendly Tumour posted:I didn'tsay that labour had no value, I said that the value of anything, including labour, is defined by how much somebody is willing to pay for it. I mean, that's the concensus view of economics, right? Yeah, but it transparently isn't, because nobody actually acts as though value is purely subjective. In fact, even economists ignore that definition when it comes to finance, because there are clear, objective rules for valuing derivatives which everyone uses. wateroverfire posted:Alternately, Marxism uses a peculiar definition of value different from the lay definitions, and it's as useless for understanding the world as the rest of the system. I'm using value to describe the worth of something, dunno what you mean by it. Describe how a capital asset can depreciate in value when you can always cook the books to value it back up again. Describe how bubbles can happen when there's no way to objectively value assets. EDIT: Moving on to the next part of the argument, once we accept the presence of a non-subjective component to value, Marxist/classical theories of value production simply work better for evaluating things than antimaterialist views of value or commodity values, because they eliminate the middleman of figuring out how much gold a haircut is worth. Of course, there's the esoteric split that Obdicut or whoever will bring up with use-value and exchange-value, but that's jargon. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, but that management is performed post-facto, it's not related to the idea of 'investing' money to actually get something going. The shareholders who vote, almost always, respond to financials and financials alone. In fact, most places that don't muck around with arbitrage just use an algorithm. So what? Shareholders want their capital to be put to the most productive, profitable use so they can earn the highest return. Financials are often how one determines the profitability of a corporation. Effectronica posted:Companies have a variety of ways to respond to a fall or rise in stock prices (and thus the price of derivatives and so on), which can't be predicted from the rise or fall of the prices alone. The actual control this represents is pretty limited. We don't say that consumers exert any meaningful control over the operations of a company, despite the fact that they're what generates revenues and thus affect the financial status of the company. So what? Investors don't control the companies, they control their capital. They try to ensure their capital is put to the most profitable use. That's the work they do. It doesn't matter whether they do this by telling the company what to do, if they own it outright, voting in a stockholder meeting, if they can, or simply selling their shares.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yes, and it's a dumb and trivial thing to get hung up on. Small investors can't control things they give no shits about controlling because their business is managing portfolios they have complete control over. This proves that capitalists don't need to exercise control over their investments because I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't think you really understand why we're talking about it. Capitalists don't need to exercise control over their investments. They can, but they can delegate that, and they almost certainly make any decisions in concert with a bunch of advice and input from people who get paid to advise them. JeffersonClay posted:
So exactly that. Capitalists don't (have to) control their companies. They generally don't perform any sort of management role. This is literally what we've been talking about, whether capitalists do 'work' or 'labor' or whatever at a company. You're arguing something slightly different, which is that the investment in various areas channel resources into profitable stuff, which nobody has ever argued against nor ever will. Friendly Tumour posted:I didn'tsay that labour had no value, I said that the value of anything, including labour, is defined by how much somebody is willing to pay for it. I mean, that's the concensus view of economics, right? You're presupposed a bunch of stuff here, including money. Do you think that in a community where they don't use money, and don't sell things, that stuff has no value whatsoever? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah, but it transparently isn't, because nobody actually acts as though value is purely subjective. In fact, even economists ignore that definition when it comes to finance, because there are clear, objective rules for valuing derivatives which everyone uses. Aside from the fact derivitaves are a bit of strange things, they're still defined by buy/sell orders. And I didn't say value was subjective. What somebody is willing to pay for your potatoes or whatever isn't subjective. Obdicut posted:You're presupposed a bunch of stuff here, including money. Pretty sure that in any discussion grounded in reality, the presumption that there's going to be money isn't unreasonable. Well I guess there isn't anything to talk about in marxism but capitalist and money... And since those two are things that are loving guaranteed to remain as they are, what is there to marxism then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't think you really understand why we're talking about it. So what? Managing a group of advisers and deciding which one to listen to isn't work now? Then why is Obama's hair going so gray? quote:You're presupposed a bunch of stuff here, including money. It doesn't matter whether you measure the value of a product in dollars or gold or wheat or handjobs, its value is what someone else is willing to exchange for it. (Well, what someone else is willing to exchange for it establishes the lower bound of its value, at any rate) quote:So exactly that. Capitalists don't (have to) control their companies. They generally don't perform any sort of management role. This is literally what we've been talking about, whether capitalists do 'work' or 'labor' or whatever at a company. Channeling resources into profitable stuff is work! Really important work, in fact. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:33
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Aside from the fact derivitaves are a bit of strange things, they're still defined by buy/sell orders. And I didn't say value was subjective. What somebody is willing to pay for your potatoes or whatever isn't subjective. The definition that you're using argues that value is purely a subjective thing- that is, there is no way to tell someone who wants to buy potatoes for a dollar a pound that they're worth two dollars a pound and come to an agreement from external evidence. This is trivially true, in that we can't really measure the objective value of a potato, or pound of potatoes, but in practice, rotted potatoes are worth less than unrotted ones and so we know that there is some component that is very close to objective, even if it's a percentage and not an absolute.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Aside from the fact derivitaves are a bit of strange things, they're still defined by buy/sell orders. And I didn't say value was subjective. What somebody is willing to pay for your potatoes or whatever isn't subjective. Sorry, but in reality there are places that don't use money. In those places, do you think objects have no value? JeffersonClay posted:So what? Managing a group of advisers and deciding which one to listen to isn't work now? Then why is Obama's hair going so gray? They don't have to manage a group of advisers, either. They can, but they don't have to. Seriously, I own stock. I make money from it. i have exerted zero, zip, nada, no control over the companies whatsoever. quote:It doesn't matter whether you measure the value of a product in dollars or gold or wheat or handjobs, its value is what someone else is willing to exchange for it. (Well, what someone else is willing to exchange for it establishes the lower bound of its value, at any rate) You are stating this as though it's an axiom, but it's really not. That is one method of determining the value of objects. There are lots of others, both historically and in present. If you only want to talk about the value of goods in a market economy, then sure, that's it. But there's more economics than just market economics. quote:Channeling resources into profitable stuff is work! Really important work, in fact. It may or may not be productive work, and capitalists don't just channel resources into profitable stuff, obviously. They also channel resources into unprofitable stuff. you surely don't dispute that, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The definition that you're using argues that value is purely a subjective thing- that is, there is no way to tell someone who wants to buy potatoes for a dollar a pound that they're worth two dollars a pound and come to an agreement from external evidence. This is trivially true, in that we can't really measure the objective value of a potato, or pound of potatoes, but in practice, rotted potatoes are worth less than unrotted ones and so we know that there is some component that is very close to objective, even if it's a percentage and not an absolute. Sure there is. If there's a buy order out there for potatoes for two dollars a pound, then those potatoes can be sold for two dollars per pound. If there isn't, and you really want to sell those potatoes, you're going to have to settle for whatever is the highest order there is. Unless of course you're willing to put out a sell order for your potatoes for two dollars a pound and wait until somebody buys them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:42
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Sure there is. If there's a buy order out there for potatoes for two dollars a pound, then those potatoes can be sold for two dollars per pound. If there isn't, and you really want to sell those potatoes, you're going to have to settle for whatever is the highest order there is. Unless of course you're willing to put out a sell order for your potatoes for two dollars a pound and wait until somebody buys them. Hmm, you missed what I was saying entirely in favor of talking about commodities exchanges.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
I mean, this is how markets work. It's not a thesis, it's a fact. You sell for how much somebody wants to pay, or you wait untill somebody is willing to pay what you want for whatever you're selling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hmm, you missed what I was saying entirely in favor of talking about commodities exchanges. If you wanna talk about potatoes, I'm loving game. I love potatoes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:45
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:I mean, this is how markets work. It's not a thesis, it's a fact. You sell for how much somebody wants to pay, or you wait untill somebody is willing to pay what you want for whatever you're selling. Markets are not the whole of human existence. You can't actually make an eighty-year-old hydraulic press equally valuable to a new hydraulic press just by writing down that they're of the same value, and expect anyone to take it seriously.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Markets are not the whole of human existence. You can't actually make an eighty-year-old hydraulic press equally valuable to a new hydraulic press just by writing down that they're of the same value, and expect anyone to take it seriously. Didn't say you could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:47
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Didn't say you could. Why can't you, without some kind of objective value?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Guys, marxists, look... I'm sure you believe strongly in the whole marxist conception of value and that capitalists contribute nothing of value to economy, but you're not going to convince non-marxists of that. We can see that the world doesn't really work according to your principles. The value of anything isn't defined by the amount of labour put into it, but how much somebody (anybody) is willing to pay for it. Capitalists don't exploit workers, but provide work to do in the first place. Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm unfamiliar with you: It's not that "capitalists contribute nothing of value to the economy." It's close to that, but not quite. The disconnect here lies in the word "value." Most contemporary economic discourse treats the word as pertaining to personal utility — a subjective system of valuation and preference-ranking. When Marxists use it, it means the amount of socially-necessary abstract labor time embodied in a commodity — an objective system of labor accounting. If this distinction is tripping you up, and I can see that it is, your best bet is to take the training-wheels approach (no shame in it!) and drop "value." Instead, refer to the first kind as "utility" and the second as "SNLT" or something thereabouts. It makes it easy to spot where equivocation may be occurring.  Important note!! In Marxist political economy, value rarely ever equates to price! It's not designed to, either; instead, the differences between price and value are a key part of the dynamism of the system.Anyway, to say capital creates no new value is effectively true by construction, to a Marxist, but don't get it twisted: we aren't treating it as an interesting statement. It's just a facet of the accounting system, which allows one to key into things like flows of labor time between firms or industries, the tendential fall of the rate of profit, etc. Friendly Tumour posted:Is there anything else you could offer the world? I mean, assuming you for a minute accept that these thesis' of Marxism are simply incorrect, for just a moment? I spent most of my life quite content to dismiss it all as a self-evidently silly crock, so it's not hard for me to grasp where you're coming from. The game-changer, for me, was when I actually read Capital for myself, puzzled over it, interrogated it, debated it. It's a big dive, and I'm not saying you need to right now, but it's worth the investment — not just as a seminal and still-relevant (and little understood, to boot) treatise, but also as literature (it's a frequent feature on Great Books lists, and far from just dry theory, it's littered with interesting references, quotes from Shakespeare and Greek poets, and good old Acidic Marx throwing shade on his opponents) and as a document that arguably marked the birth of the modern social sciences. You can get a shorter intro from Marx's famous speech, Value, Price and Profit, which was sort of a preview of Capital. See also that glossary document I linked in my last post. Now, if you want me to assume for a moment that all of this is wrong, I certainly can. Poof. Now machines can produce, maintain, and improve other commodity-producing machines ad infinitum without the input of human labor. Hooray! But, uh, now what? Was there a question or a problem to go with this assumption, or did you just want me to enjoy a reverie for a moment? Friendly Tumour posted:I mean, this is how markets work. It's not a thesis, it's a fact. You sell for how much somebody wants to pay, or you wait untill somebody is willing to pay what you want for whatever you're selling. Yes and no. Financial markets work that way, what with market-clearing prices and such. Actual goods are mostly administered prices. But even if they weren't, recall the point above that price != value except in special cases. wateroverfire posted:Alternately, Marxism uses a peculiar definition of value different from the lay definitions, and it's as useless for understanding the world as the rest of the system. How would you even know?  "I haven't read this Darwin fella but I have read the Bible and let me tell you something about that Darwin..." Aeolius fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sure. So owners (via proxy's, mutual funds etc) are collectively responsible for choosing management right? Capitalists are the only ones who receive profit, so whatever extent other people are motived by profit it's because they're motivated by the capitalists. You seem to agree that profit does explain behavior: Obdicut posted:No, the profit motive exists for everyone inside the capitalist system. Between these two we can conclude that capitalists (collectively) are successful at securing control of their companies - controlling a company and directing it's behavior is management. When companies produce useful outputs (no one contends they don't) it's ultimately because the capitalists directed them too via management and capital allocation choices. Your major contention seems to be that capitalists "don't have to" do this work. Capitalists are not always going to be good at this, or do their "job", but as you agreed above, neither are laborers. We can both agree that some capitalists like some laborers don't earn their keep, but while collectively laborers produce "everything", capitalists collectively allocate and manage. Both have productive and necessary roles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
asdf32, do you really think that the CEO of a company is chosen by the shareholders collectively rather than a small group of professionals within the shareholders and the senior management of the company? Because your view seems inconsistent with how large businesses operate.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Why can't you, without some kind of objective value? What. I said you can't say what anything is worth without knowing what somebody wants to pay you for it. What is it so difficult to understand about this? If nobody want to pay for your lovely rear end mechanical press, then it isn't worth poo poo. The end! You know what? I don't want to continue this talk anymore. I asked if Marxism can offer anything to the world except exhausting discussions on the semantics of value, so I guess the answer is "no".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Markets are not the whole of human existence. You can't actually make an eighty-year-old hydraulic press equally valuable to a new hydraulic press just by writing down that they're of the same value, and expect anyone to take it seriously. If you have a captive market sure you can. If the dude is stuck on a desert island and can only buy your product you can charge whatever you want and whatever he can pay Like this literally something a child could understand, it's.not a hard concept
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:07
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:What. I said you can't say what anything is worth without knowing what somebody wants to pay you for it. What is it so difficult to understand about this? If nobody want to pay for your lovely rear end mechanical press, then it isn't worth poo poo. The end! icantfindaname posted:If you have a captive market sure you can. If the dude is stuck on a desert island and can only buy your product you can charge whatever you want and whatever he can pay Do you know what "depreciation of capital assets" means? Do you understand that when, say, Ford decides it's going to upgrade a production line and replace old automation and so on, they're not going to sell it except piecemeal or as scrap? Economic value exists outside of a market context.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:What. I said you can't say what anything is worth without knowing what somebody wants to pay you for it. What is it so difficult to understand about this? If nobody want to pay for your lovely rear end mechanical press, then it isn't worth poo poo. The end! No Marxist would dispute this. Friendly Tumour posted:You know what? I don't want to continue this talk anymore. I asked if Marxism can offer anything to the world except exhausting discussions on the semantics of value, so I guess the answer is "no". Why is it so fundamentally upsetting to people that a science should want to carefully define its terms? Here's an offer: the most consistent, complete, and empirically validated crisis theory in all of economics; explanations for problems like "secular stagnation" and "global divergence" and a great many monetary puzzles. Virtually all the things neoclassicals can't figure out, Marxists got down pat. (Post-Keynesians have a lot of it, too, by virtue of a lot of common ground, though they do good accounting work in general.) Don't give up! It's really pretty cool. icantfindaname posted:If you have a captive market sure you can. If the dude is stuck on a desert island and can only buy your product you can charge whatever you want and whatever he can pay that's not a competitive market you loving nitwit
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
In fact, to get even more percise whith this value talk, lets say each party to a transaction has a meausre of how much they want something. We can call that 'utility'. Now we can say the price ('value') of a good is based on the interplay of utilities of the actors. We could call those utilities 'supply' and 'demand' even
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:11
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In fact, to get even more percise whith this value talk, lets say each party to a transaction has a meausre of how much they want something. We can call that 'utility'. Now we can say the price ('value') of a good is based on the interplay of utilities of the actors. We could call those utilities 'supply' and 'demand' even Let's say that you're running a tool factory, stamping out little icantfindanames and asdf32s, and you're considering replacing some of your machinery, but unfortunately, you can't, because value only exists in market transactions.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:that's not a competitive market you loving nitwit It absolutely is. How is it not? I'm not preventing anyone else from coming to sell printing presses on this island. That's literally the definition of a competitive market. Besides, the market's competitiveness is completely irrelevant to the fact that objective value doesn't actually exist and in the context of capitalism market value is the only thing that matters The amount of incoherent rage that Econ 101 concepts, with all the simplifications explained and laid out, produce in Marxists is hilarious icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Let's say that you're running a tool factory, stamping out little icantfindanames and asdf32s, and you're considering replacing some of your machinery, but unfortunately, you can't, because value only exists in market transactions. I'm sure getting owned by the dude who posts about anime in GBS 8 hours a day
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It absolutely is. How is it not? I'm not preventing anyone else from coming to sell printing presses on this island. That's literally the definition of a competitive market. A competitive market is a market with competition, are you sleep-posting right now or something icantfindaname posted:price ('value') I've never seen someone so aggressive in their ignorance; it's like you're actually proud that even the most basic concepts are not sinking in. That's some commitment you have to imperialism, I guess. bella ciao~
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:18
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm sure getting owned by the dude who posts about anime in GBS 8 hours a day See, now you're retreating into personal attacks. But whatever, you're a self-loathing anime-liker, and someday you will realize the truth, grander than anything else- it's okay to live without fear. In any case, your financial obsessions are pretty funny to me, as someone who works in the dying realm of American manufacturing.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:A competitive market is a market with competition, are you sleep-posting right now or something icantfindaname posted:Besides, the market's competitiveness is completely irrelevant to the fact that objective value doesn't actually exist and in the context of capitalism market value is the only thing that matters I'm sorry Marxism is a dead ideology only supported by unemployed internet posters, but just saying it's true over and over again won't actually change that or make it so
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Man, you know, I remember you talking about how great social democracy was, and now you're rejecting the existence of bubbles? Holy poo poo. What the hell kind of (American) liberal are you? An unreconstructed Clintonian?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Man, you know, I remember you talking about how great social democracy was, and now you're rejecting the existence of bubbles? Holy poo poo. What the hell kind of (American) liberal are you? An unreconstructed Clintonian? Are you marking my name down in a notebook labeled "to be reeducated?" By the way, I said nothing about bubbles. If a market is experiencing a bubble, then the value is inflated from what the expected value is. Notice I didn't say "what it is" but "what it's expected to be". You can't say objectively the bubble value is 'wrong' just that it's expected to crash sometime soon. But I guess precision of language and thought is something Marxism isn't really concerned with much
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:24
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Are you marking my name down in a notebook labeled "to be reeducated?" By the way, I said nothing about bubbles. If a market is experiencing a bubble, then the value is inflated from what the expected value is. Notice I didn't say "what it is" but "what it's expected to be". You can't say objectively the bubble value is 'wrong' just that it's expected to crash sometime soon. But I guess precision of language and thought is something Marxism isn't really concerned with much This is a lot of bullshit to get around the fact that bubbles are defined by something being priced higher than its actual value, which is the definition used in like, Krugman or Chang or Quiggin or pretty much any liberal explanation of the housing crisis or the dotcom bubble. I am, in fact, marking you down for extended shoujo treatments when the revolution comes, and also in a little notebook for those whose brains have rotted from exposure to finance without a strong psychological footing. RIP.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
hahaha i just want to post at you one more time to laugh at your backpedaling about competition if the sum of your argument is "a thing's price is equal to its price" then maybe you'd be more comfortable with Mises, assuming you find time in your busy schedule of preening over Not Knowing Things to read a loving book
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is a lot of bullshit to get around the fact that bubbles are defined by something being priced higher than its actual value, which is the definition used in like, Krugman or Chang or Quiggin or pretty much any liberal explanation of the housing crisis or the dotcom bubble. I am, in fact, marking you down for extended shoujo treatments when the revolution comes, and also in a little notebook for those whose brains have rotted from exposure to finance without a strong psychological footing. RIP. No, you're not reading my posts. Bubbles aren't priced higher than their actual value. They're priced higher than the expected value. These are different things. Do you get that? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think that's what Krugman ever said, because Krugman's not a Marxist. If you want to get sources go ahead, but you'll be disappointed icantfindaname posted:I guess precision of language and thought is something Marxism isn't really concerned with much
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:29
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, you're not reading my posts. Bubbles aren't priced higher than their actual value. They're priced higher than the expected value. These are different things. Do you get that? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think that's what Krugman ever said, because Krugman's not a Marxist. If you want to get sources go ahead, but you'll be disappointed I get what you're trying to say, I'm saying that it's nonsense. Your split is something you're farting at length about because it's "precise" (you shouldn't have slept through high school chemistry if you think that's a universally good thing), but it doesn't add any meaningful information. How you can sit there with a straight face, as a liberal, and say, "This website with no income, no plan for income, and massive obligations really is worth $500/share, but it will return to the expectation value of $0/share" is beyond me. I'm saying that your model, when applied to Warren Buffett, cannot explain how his investment strategy produced better results than average
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They don't have to manage a group of advisers, either. They can, but they don't have to. But you have exerted control over your capital, and decided that it would be more productively employed by some corporation that it would sitting idle, or earning interest. When you do this, the effect is minuscule. When warren buffet does this, the effect is not. (Also if you're not investing in a mutual fund I really question your financial strategy) quote:You are stating this as though it's an axiom, but it's really not. That is one method of determining the value of objects. There are lots of others, both historically and in present. The value of objects is determined by people. A BLT will have a different value in Tehran than Toledo. When people trade, we know that the seller thinks the value, to him, of the item is less than he received in trade, and the buyer thinks that it is worth more, to her, than what she gave in trade. Nobody cares how much labor went into your BLT in Tehran because they're not eating that poo poo. quote:It may or may not be productive work, and capitalists don't just channel resources into profitable stuff, obviously. They also channel resources into unprofitable stuff. you surely don't dispute that, right? As long as they're channeling resources towards stuff that's more profitable than random assignment, they're doing work. If other methods of assigning capital to productive uses are more efficient, we should be able to prove that empirically. Effectronica posted:This is a lot of bullshit to get around the fact that bubbles are defined by something being priced higher than its actual value, which is the definition used in like, Krugman or Chang or Quiggin or pretty much any liberal explanation of the housing crisis or the dotcom bubble. Bubbles are created because of expectations of future value when people buy things they believe will appreciate. They predict that other people will be willing to pay more than they did for the item in the future. When this does not come to pass, the bubble bursts as these people sell off their investments at a loss. It is not evidence of some metaphysical value embodied in the object that was ignored. Aeolius posted:Here's an offer: the most consistent, complete, and empirically validated crisis theory in all of economics; explanations for problems like "secular stagnation" and "global divergence" and a great many monetary puzzles. Virtually all the things neoclassicals can't figure out, Marxists got down pat. (Post-Keynesians have a lot of it, too, by virtue of a lot of common ground, though they do good accounting work in general.) And just like global warming deniers, they can't publish these empirical studies which explain all the mysteries in economics in mainstream peer reviewed journals because JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
In fact, here you go, here's quotes from Krugman himself saying value is an emergent property coming from markets http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/things-that-arent-bubbles/ quote:A final thought: the notion that there must be a “fundamental” source for money’s value, although it’s a right-wing trope, bears a strong family resemblance to the Marxist labor theory of value. In each case what people are missing is that value is an emergent property, not an essence: money, and actually everything, has a market value based on the role it plays in our economy — full stop. Effectronica posted:I get what you're trying to say, I'm saying that it's nonsense. Your split is something you're farting at length about because it's "precise" (you shouldn't have slept through high school chemistry if you think that's a universally good thing), but it doesn't add any meaningful information. How you can sit there with a straight face, as a liberal, and say, "This website with no income, no plan for income, and massive obligations really is worth $500/share, but it will return to the expectation value of $0/share" is beyond me. I'm saying that your model, when applied to Warren Buffett, cannot explain how his investment strategy produced better results than average Did I ever say that? Do you think I have lots of money invested in Twitter or something? Buffet made money because he bet differently on what the expected value of stocks would be, and he was right more than other investors. See, there's no problem here. It all makes sense. I'm sorry an orthodox economist said anime was bad or diddled you as a kid or something, but orthodox economics is actually pretty much right icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:36
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In fact, here you go, here's quotes from Krugman himself saying value is an emergent property coming from markets And yet, he uses "overvalued" many, many times. Clearly, this "precision of thought and speech" is not a priority. I mean, listen to yourself for a moment. You are saying that there's no difference between a company with a strong revenue stream and plenty of assets, and one that has no revenues and no assets, and it's perfectly rational to value theirs shares of stock identically. icantfindaname posted:Did I ever say that? Do you think I have lots of money invested in Twitter or something? Buffet made money because he bet differently on what the expected value of stocks would be, and he was right more than other investors. See, there's no problem here. It all makes sense. I'm sorry an orthodox economist said anime was bad or diddled you as a kid or something, but orthodox economics is actually pretty much right No, he was lucky, because according to you, his investment strategy of studying companies and buying ones that had good reasons to continue growing is meaningless, because it relies on the assumption that there are objective components to value. Not to mention that orthodox economics is still heavily monetarist once you look at policymakers. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:And yet, he uses "overvalued" many, many times. Clearly, this "precision of thought and speech" is not a priority. I mean, listen to yourself for a moment. You are saying that there's no difference between a company with a strong revenue stream and plenty of assets, and one that has no revenues and no assets, and it's perfectly rational to value theirs shares of stock identically. Well yeah, it is perfectly rational to invest in revenueless tech companies if you think those companies will increase in stock value. That's why bubbles exist, it's a market failure. But there's no alternative definition of value that makes any sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I get what you're trying to say, I'm saying that it's nonsense. Eh, give it up. He is right. He has owned us hard with the observation that market price is not the same thing as embodied socially necessary labor time, a thing Marx most certainly never thought of or even also took great care to point out himself. And SNLT definitely could not have an analytical role outside of price determination, because reasons. This is truly a chilling day. Effectronica posted:I mean, listen to yourself for a moment. dare you challenge the void to gaze into itself...?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:44
|
|