As for the labor theory of value. I don't know whether it explains everything; but it explains the things that are important now.
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wojtek S" <wsoko52 at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:33:04 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)
[WS:] The same can be said about the geocentric system - why did they flushed down the loo some 14 hundred years of Greek philosophy and astronomy? The theory is only good when it explains empirical phenomena, and neither the Ptolemaic system not the theory of value seem to be doing a good job in this area.
Wojtek
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Peter Fay <peterrfay at gmail.com> wrote:
> Huh?
> The labor theory of value dubious? Did we just flush down the loo 250
> years
> of Smith, Ricardo and Marx?
>
> So the labor theory of value would be replaced by... what? Marginal
> utility, which has always seemed to me closer to a divining rod than a
> theory? Or would we just abandon any attempt to explain value, as in
> modern
> economics? Is this generally agreed here, that the labor theory of value
> is
> somehow passé?
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com
> >wrote:
>
> > So, there could be quite a bit left of left politics without concerning
> > oneself with the implications of the labor theory of value, a theory of
> > dubious validity anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Fay
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk