The Experts below are selected from a list of 570336 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gerald J. Postema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
interests universal and particular bentham s utilitarian Theory of Value
Utilitas, 2006Co-Authors: Gerald J. PostemaAbstract:The basic concept of Bentham's moral and political philosophy was public utility. He linked it directly with the concept of the universal interest, which comprises a distinctive partnership of the interests of all members of the community. The ultimate end of government and aim of all of morality is ‘the advancement of the universal interest’. This essay articulates the structure of Bentham's notion of universal interest and locates it in his Theory of Value.
Hiroshi Onishi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Proof of Labor Theory of Value based on Marginalist Principle
World Review of Political Economy, 2019Co-Authors: Hiroshi OnishiAbstract:Because anti-Marxist's criticism against Fundamental Marxian Theorem(FMT) is based on an assertion that this proof can be understood as a "sun-power exploitation,"if we assume, for example, "Sun-power Theory of Value", we should prove not only exploitation but also Labor Theory of Value itself. Therefore, this paper aims to prove Labor Theory of Value mathematically by focusing on the historically conditional proportionality between labor input and amount of products which is assumed in Labor Theory of Value. By this proof of the conditional proportionality, we show that marginalist principle does not disturb Labor Theory of Value in capitalism at all. Furthermore, marginalist principle is important to show the labor process as a subjective optimization process which is not by the sun but only by human beings. In this way, we use anti-Marxist's marginal principle to object anti-Marxist criticism against Labor Theory of Value.
Lefteris Tsoulfidis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Classical Theory of Value and Distribution
Classical Political Economics and Modern Capitalism, 2019Co-Authors: Lefteris Tsoulfidis, Persefoni TsalikiAbstract:The theories of Value and distribution of Smith, Ricardo and Marx are presented and critically assessed so that they may become operational and, therefore, useful. We explain Ricardo’s successes and failures by referring to his numerical examples, from which we try to extract the core of a realistic approach to the estimation of natural prices as the centre of gravitation for market prices. We argue that Ricardo’s Theory of Value is intertemporal in character and its fundamental premise can be tested empirically. The discussion of Marx’s labour Theory of Value follows immediately after, and we explain his notions of abstract labour time, the two senses of socially necessary labour time as well as the concept of labour power. The latter enabled Marx to show the exploitative nature of the capitalist system and the production of Value and surplus-Value, all discovered through and evaluated by labour time. We further argue that the economic theories advanced by the old classical economists and Marx along with more recent theoretical developments following Sraffa’s (Production of commodities by means of commodities: A prelude to economic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1960) book share the same set of data and may be fruitfully integrated into the classical political economics (CPE).
-
Notes on Ricardo’s Theory of Value and taxation
2005Co-Authors: Lefteris TsoulfidisAbstract:The purpose of this paper is twofold: on the one hand is to discuss Ricardo’s version of the labour Theory of Value; and on the other hand, is to analyse some crucial aspects of Ricardo’s Theory of taxation as an extension and further elaboration of his Theory of Value. This discussion is illustrated with the use of a formal model based on a generalisation of Ricardo’s numerical examples. The claim that the paper raises is that Ricardo’s analysis of taxation is a kind of a comparative statics exercise, where the real wage, the state of technology and the level of output are taken as givens. Furthermore, it is shown that Ricardo’s claim that money’s role in the presence of taxation of profits is not neutral becomes questionable, when various feedback effects are accounted for.
Fabio Petri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
On Some Modern Reformulations of the Labour Theory of Value
Contributions to Political Economy, 2015Co-Authors: Fabio PetriAbstract:This paper, which develops an unfinished joint work with P. Garegnani, discusses three reinterpretations of the labour Theory of Value: the New Interpretation of Dumenil and Foley, the approach of Wolff–Callari–Roberts, and the Temporal Single System approach. In all three, the labour Theory of Value loses the role of instrument for the determination of the rate of profit and relative prices, and is redefined as the reinterpretation of independently determined prices as ‘representing’ quantities of labour, on the basis of the postulate that only labour produces exchange Value. The paper argues that these approaches reduce the labour Theory of Value to something with no implication on how the economy works, in particular, unable to defend the thesis that profits result from labour exploitation, because this thesis must rest on what causes wages to remain below their potential maximum, an issue that these reinterpretations leave unexplained and potentially open to neoclassical explanations. There emerges an imperfect grasp of the role of the labour Theory of Value in Marx, and of the foundations in Marx of the thesis that labour is exploited, foundations better grasped by P. Garegnani and clarified here with an example. A formal analysis of the ‘reduction’ of heterogeneous labour to homogeneity confirms the arbitrariness of these approaches.
-
On recent reformulations of the labour Theory of Value
2012Co-Authors: Fabio PetriAbstract:The paper discusses three redefinitions of the labour Theory of Value: the New Interpretation of Dumenil and Foley, the approach of Wolff-Callari-Roberts, and the Temporal Single System approach. In them the labour Theory of Value loses the role of instrument for the determination of the rate of profit and becomes a gratuitous reinterpretation of independently determined prices as ‘representing’ quantities of labour Value on the basis of the undemonstrated postulate that only labour produces exchange Value. It is argued that these approaches are unable to defend the thesis that profits result from labour exploitation because such a thesis must rest on the causes of wages below their potential maximum, causes that these redefinitions leave unexplained and in fact open to neoclassical explanations. They evidence an imperfect grasp of the foundations of the thesis in Marx that labour is exploited, foundations better grasped by P. Garegnani and clarified here with an example.
Steve Keen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Misinterpretation of Marx's Theory of Value
Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1993Co-Authors: Steve KeenAbstract:The “technical” interpretation of Karl Marx's Theory of Value, which asserted that the concept of use-Value played no role in his economics, has in recent years been shown to be ill-founded. In particular, R. Rosdolsky (1977) and S. Groll (1980) have established the importance that Marx attached to the concept of use-Value in his Theory of Value, while I have shown that the use-Value is an essential component of his analysis of the commodity, and that when properly applied, that analysis invalidates the labor Theory of Value (Keen 1993). This modern re-evaluation of Marx raises the question of how the traditional view developed in the first place. R. Hilferding aside, the answer does not paint a complimentary picture of the scholarship of either friend or foe of Marx in the debate over his Theory of Value.
