its only a pre-analytic view but I like it, like it, yes I do!
guesta at econ.utah.edu
Tue Nov 1 16:20:10 MST 1994
Justin Schwartz e-orated. . .
>I would add, likewise, that a labor theory of value, even if true--I mean
>even if a proof were forthcoming that money were labor, etc.--does not
>itself have moral implications. It does not follow, for example, that
>labor deserves or is entitled to all value even if labor created all value
>and determined all prices. To get such a theory off the ground you need a
>labor theory of _property entitlements_ of the sort defended by G.A. >Cohen,
Locke, and Nozick.
"even if true" ? ? ?
How can one be a marxist without a LTV? -- like without LTV, tell me where
profit comes from? ? ?
It would be like a neo-classical minus utility trying to explain demand
>The point: the way economics is morally loaded is very tricky and subtle.
The LTV does not contain moral implications.
Do we say that utility theory contains moral implications?
The LTV and utility are what Schumpeter calls "pre-analytic" views. If you
want to be a John Bates Clark and morally load them up, then o.k., but that
in itself is a separate action.
More information about the Marxism