Talk:Criticisms of the labour theory of value/Archives/2020
 | 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. |
This phrasing seems circular and clumsy
"the price of a good is not simply measured by its usefulness but by its price" Price is a measure of value of a good or service, it is not a thing unto itself. The above statement is like saying "the length of a block is not simply a measure of its dimension but of its length." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.35.49 (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Microeconomics theory section has severe flaws.
"Adherents of neoclassical economics, the mainstream school of economics, employ the theory of marginalism, which holds that the value of any good or service is measured by its price."
The phrasing of the words "adherents" is too dogmatic for talking about an economic school it's not precisely wrong but the tone is questionable. Marginalism doesn't say that that value is measured by price, Marginalism says a lot of things but it isn't an aspect of it to say that price is the same as value this simply isn't correct and needs to be changed.
"While Marxian surplus value can't be measured, the utility of the "last" bought consumption good determined by its marginal utility, in satisfying a specific consumer's wants should therefore be concerned as a complete absolute essence, where politics, social constructions, ideologies and culture (such as the media, fashion, and consumerism) should be considered nonexistent."
What does it mean to say that culture and ideology should be considered non-existent this doesn't follow from marginal utility and "complete absolute essence" essence of what, this is very unclear.
"In the Pareto optimum, on the other hand, the exchange relations between commodities are not only determined by their marginal utility, but also by the marginal productivity of the factors of production available."
Pareto optimality has nothing to do with this. People seem to be using words that sound right without reference to what they actually mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.86.181 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)