On Mar 24, 2012, at 7:50 PM, nathan tankus wrote:
> "Okay. What difference does that make? Economic processes determine
> the amount of labour in them and the amount of labour in them
> determines their value, right? And their value determines their worth
> in the marketplace. Okay. Great.
>
> But I claim that this isn't true. Mike Jordan wearing the Nikes
> determines the amount of value attributed to them in the marketplace.
> Not the amount of sweatshop labour that economic processes had
> dictated go into the shoes.
>
> Naturally, the manufacturer, through his PR people, pay Jordan
> handsomely for adding market value to the product.."
>
> I think this argument is bad. still, I'm interested in what others
> would have to say about it.
If you consider that "value", and hence "surplus value" are social relationships and not attributes of physical or economic commodities, you will necessarily agree with the Theory of Imperfect Competition that the higher prices of Nikes etc. express monopoly rents and not labor values (even granting that competitive-market prices have some determinate relationship to labor=time expended, which they do not!).
Shane Mage
"All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90