Talk:Criticisms of the labour theory of value/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Endowment / distribution concerns in marginalist theory.
- "Consequently the price of an object depends not only on its usefulness but on the amount of money different consumers have - their different effective demands. As marginal utility theory does not take account of the effect of these influences on price, it remains an abstract theory."
This is absolutely not true, and one would expect anyone who has taken a first year undergrad course in economics to know this. The basic utility maximisation problem of the consumer is constrained by the budget she has at her disposal, which affects her (Marshallian/uncompensated) demands.
The equilibrium allocation in general equlibrium theory also depends on the distribution of initial endowments, and the distribution of firm ownership in the economy.
Therefore the first sentence is correct but the second is blatantly not.
Furthermore, the way the second sentence is phrased hints at a biased criticism.
Problem
This article has been lifted holus bolus from the LTV article and contains material about Marx's opinions that really belong back there (e.g. the socially necessary bit).--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)