I would like to start out by saying it is a "false proposition" shows a bias against it. It is a "proposition", no more, no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-of-production_theory_of_value
Notice that it is not "considerd to be false" only superseded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-of-production_theory_of_value
Quote
Different labor theories of value prevailed amongst classical economists through to the mid-19th century. It is especially associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Since that time it is most often associated with Marxian economics; while among modern mainstream economists it is considered to be superseded by the marginal utility approach.
Notice that it is not "considerd to be false" only superseded.
Well, regardless of what modern mainstream economists consider, I consider it false. But maybe prejudices blind me. Here's a clue of where my prejudices may come from:
http://www.community-exchange.org/docs/Gesell/en/neo/part3/11.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
You ignored this quote in the last thread, but it points out that your silly arguments of "the sculpture cost a million to make but is considered worthless so LTV is false" does not apply.
Admittedly, labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present is really just another way of showing marginal utility, but in essence, not in formula. Marginalism is capable of showing this in formula and that is the primary reason it has superseded LTV.
Quote
Smith's theory of price (which for many is the same as value) has nothing to do with the past labor spent in the production of a commodity. It speaks only of the labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present. If there is no use for a buggy whip then the item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of the all the labor spent in its creation.
You ignored this quote in the last thread, but it points out that your silly arguments of "the sculpture cost a million to make but is considered worthless so LTV is false" does not apply.
Admittedly, labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present is really just another way of showing marginal utility, but in essence, not in formula. Marginalism is capable of showing this in formula and that is the primary reason it has superseded LTV.
I'm having troubles understanding this last thing and how it relates with our discussion. Can you make an example, please?
From the economist most associated with the LTV prior to Marx:
You continue to maintain that labor is the cost to produce and that this is equal to the value. This is not what Smith has ever said. Marx viewed it differently in proposing a communist state for his own reasons. That does not mean that the LTV = Marx's LTV.
Quote
The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V)
You continue to maintain that labor is the cost to produce and that this is equal to the value. This is not what Smith has ever said. Marx viewed it differently in proposing a communist state for his own reasons. That does not mean that the LTV = Marx's LTV.
Ok, so what's the difference between them?
Is replacing "costs of production" with "labor" the only difference?
We can focus on the one you prefer, because I'm denying both.
Quote
Many economists believe that the Marxist labor theory of value has been "discredited". The criticism revolves around the undue stress Marx put on labor, ignoring other sources of value.
Note how Smith or anyone prior to Smith is not mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value
Quote
Criticisms of the labour theory of value often arise from an economic criticism of Marxism.
Note how wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to LTV's criticisms, but comes with a warning that it is really a criticism of Marxism.
Whenever you say "that is LTV there" without someone explicitly stating they are using LTV is false. They could simply be assuming marginal utility. However, you seem to feel it is your pedantic duty to point this out, and I felt it was my pedantic duty to point out your pedanticity. Marginalism is a much more complex concept and difficult to state in a post on the internet. LTV "assumes" marginal utility rather than explicitly states it, so it may "look like" someone is using LTV to make a point when it's a pretty safe bet that they understand the concept of marginal utility. Ergo, you sound like a windbag.
Please, stop insulting me. Nobody gains anything from it.
Let's focus on our disagreement and its roots. Let's see if we can finally find them.
