Showing posts with label economic value. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic value. Show all posts

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Coronavirus — Peter Dorman


A little philosophy (value theory) today.
Personally, I think it would be madness to stick a monetary value on people’s lives and base our policy choices on whether the dollars on one side of the ledger outweigh those on the other. I wrote a book about that a while ago. The considerations that lead us to think primarily in public health terms at a time like this apply just as well to other issues, from food safety to climate change. The economists who crank out monetary values of life and believe all choices should be based on benefit-cost thinking have not yet had the integrity to step forward and make their case. This silence speaks volumes.
Econospeak
Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Coronavirus
Peter Dorman | Professor of Political Economy, The Evergreen State College

See also (dark humor)


Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Michael Roberts Blog: blogging from a marxist economist — Minsky and socialism

Minsky’s journey from socialism to stability for capitalist profitability comes about because he and the post-Keynesians deny and/or ignore Marx’s law of value, just as the ‘market socialists’, Lange and Lerner, did. The post-Keynesians and MMTers deny/ignore that profit comes from surplus value extracted by exploitation in the capitalist production process and it is this that is the driving force for investment and employment. They ignore the origin and role of profit, except as a residual of investment and consumer spending.Instead they all have a money fetish. With the money fetish, money replaces value, rather than representing it. They all see money (finance) as both causing crises and, also as solving them by creating value!
In my view, far from Minsky providing the “necessary ingredients to a to a rethinking of Marxian theory of capitalist dynamics and crises”, as Bellofiore argues, Minsky’s theory of crises, like all those emanating from the post-Keynesian think tank of the Levy Institute, falls well short of delivering a comprehensive causal explanation of regular and recurring booms and slumps in capitalist production. By limiting the searchlight of analysis to money, finance and debt, Minsky and the P-Ks ignore the exploitation of labour by capital (terms not even used). They fail to recognise that financial fragility and collapse are triggered by the recurring insufficiency of value creation in capitalist accumulation and production.
Moreover, by claiming that capitalism’s problem lies in the finance sector, the policy solutions offered are the regulation and control of that sector, rather than the replacement of the capitalist mode of production. Indeed, that is the very path that Minsky took: from his socialism and ‘’socialisation of investment’’ in the 1970s to ‘stabilising finance’ in the 1990s.
Michael Roberts Blog — blogging from a marxist economist
Minsky and socialism
Michael Roberts

Monday, August 19, 2019

Alfred Marshall in 1885: "The Present Position of Economics" —Timothy Taylor


This is a key observation of Alfred Marshall that predicts the development of post-classical economics, which came to be dominated by neoclassical economics, although it was overshadowed for a time by Keynesianism, owing to the pressures of the time (war, depression, and another war).

The key observation is this:
Marshall notes that when people think about the main intellectual contribution of Adam Smith, they often point to what we now refer to as the "invisible hand" idea--that when people act in their own self-interest--though hard work, innovation, shopping for desired goods and services–they will often benefit the social welfare. However, Marshall argues that in fact, Smith's key insight was something quite different: "His work was to indicate the manner in which value measures human motive." In other words, Smith started the process of drawing linkages between the ways that people act and the monetary incentives they face in terms of prices and wages--which is what makes human motives into something measurable. Marshall thought this idea was the true core of economic thinking:
Subsequently, this key assumption about measurable value being chiefly economic morphed into the assumption that the whole of value is reducible to economic value. The life sciences and the other social sciences, as well as the humanities, and even business, especially where demand is based on marketing and advertising, shows that this broader assumption is incorrect.

However, conventional economists used this erroneous assumption to develop the further assumption of a supposed law of supply and demand based on an "invisible hand" that guides economic behavior toward maximum efficiency in use of the factors, similar to conservation in physics.

This point of view became the basis for concluding that a market state would provide optimal social and political organization through the spontaneous arising of natural order based on the dominance of economics through free markets (inclusive of free trade and free capital flow), that is, laissez-faire. And everyone would live happily ever after.

Even though that has never been the case, those committed to theses assumptions ideologically argue that the market is not free enough from government intervention and further pruning back of government is required for social and political optimality based on economic optimality.

While Marshall was not totally on board with this point of view about value and he qualified it, subsequent economists soon took it to its extreme. Keynes famously criticized it based on radical uncertainty and irrationality ("animal spirits").

These are still the dominant trends of thought in the Anglo-American world, which the Anglo-American elite are now trying to impose on the rest of the world through neoliberal globalization and liberal interventionism. The current administration cannot make up its mind between the Jacksonianism that Donald Trump ran on and Wilsonianism as the dominant view of US foreign policy.

Conversable Economist
Alfred Marshall in 1885: "The Present Position of Economics"
Timothy Taylor | Managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, based at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota

See also

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Marginal productivity theory — a dangerous thought virus
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Why do we need a theory of value? — Matias Vernengo

The theory of value and distribution is at the heart of economics. To be clear, when I say that it is at the center, it means that discussions of almost any topic in economics, in one way or another, depend on a certain theoretical position about the theory of value and distribution. However, most economists have no clue about it, about the centrality of value. Not only they don't understand the original and now infamous labor theory of value (LTV), that dominated between Petty and Ricardo (and Adam Smith too, even though that tends to surprise and puzzle most economists),* but also they misunderstand the dominant marginalist paradigm. Some economists actually think that you don't need a theory of value at all, and some don't even understand that they use a conventional (some vulgar form of supply and demand) theory of value. Hence, the reason of this post is to try to help clarify some very basic issues related to the necessity of a theory of value for proper theorizing in economics….
Naked Keynesianism
Why do we need a theory of value?
Matias Vernengo | Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University

Friday, September 21, 2018

Peter Taaff — Parasitic capitalism exposed [Book Review]

Mariana Mazzucato’s new book is a detailed exposé of the parasitic character of modern capitalism, drawing on Karl Marx’s theory of the source of value creation. But understanding the law of value is only a first step to providing an alternative to a system that cannot overcome its inevitable tendency for periodic crises and which needs to be overthrown, argues Peter Taaffe.

Socialism Today
Parasitic capitalism exposed
Peter Taaff | general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales and member of the International Executive Committee of the Committee for a Workers' International

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Mariana Mazzucato — Capitalism's greatest weakness? It confuses price with value

In my latest book, The Value of Everything, I have argued that such critiques are important but will remain powerless – in their ability to bring about real reform of the economic system – until they become firmly grounded in a discussion about the processes by which economic value is created. It is not enough to argue for less value extraction and more value creation. First, ‘value’, a term that once lay at the heart of economic thinking, must be revived and better understood.

Value has gone from being a category at the core of economic theory, tied to the dynamics of production (the division of labour, changing costs of production), to a subjective category tied to the ‘preferences’ of economic agents. Many ills, such as stagnant real wages, are interpreted in terms of the ‘choices’ that particular agents in the system make, for example unemployment is seen as related to the choice that workers make between working and leisure. And entrepreneurship – the praised motor of capitalism – is seen as a result of such individualized choices rather than of the productive system surrounding entrepreneurs – or, to put it another way, the fruit of a collective effort. At the same time, price has become the indicator of value: as long as a good is bought and sold in the market, it must have value. So rather than a theory of value determining price, it is the theory of price that determines value...
Much more. Good article.

Mariana Mazzucato is becoming an influencer.

World Economic Forum
Capitalism's greatest weakness? It confuses price with value
Mariana Mazzucato | Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, University College London

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Brad DeLong — The extremely intelligent Martin Wolf reviews Maria Mazzucato


I would post a link to Martin Wolf's article but it is behind a paywall at the Financial Times. So this will have to do unless you have access.

Somewhat embarrassingly, Brad DeLong gets Mariana Mazzacuto's name wrong. Oh, well, I make mistakes like that, too, on occasion.

Wolf review poses a very pregnant question, "… she forces us to ask ourselves what adds value to society and how to create an economic and social order that promotes that."

WCEG
The extremely intelligent Martin Wolf reviews Maria Mazzucato.
Brad DeLong
Crossposted at Grasping Reality

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Nature — How to retool our concept of value – Mariana Mazzucato


Must-read in full. It's short and to the point.

The meaning of "value" is one of the most pertinent questions in economics and political economy. Michael Hudson has been emphasizing this for some time, as have Marxists and Marxian. Consideration of value of other than as price revealed in competitive markets is ruled out in conventional economics by methodological assumptions.
What we value and how we value it is one of the most contested, misunderstood and important ideas in economics. Economist Mariana Mazzucato’s comprehensive The Value of Everything explores how ideas about what value is, where it comes from and how it should be distributed have changed in the past 400 years, and why value matters now more than ever. Mazzucato emphasizes the need to reopen debate to make economies more productive, equitable and sustainable. The 2008 financial crisis was just a taste of looming problems — climate disruption, massive biodiversity and ecosystem-services decline, even the possible collapse of Western civilization — unless we learn to value what really matters.
Early economists focused on the production of value from land (François Quesnay and the ‘physiocrats’), labour (Adam Smith to Karl Marx) and capital. In this view, value determines price (Four decades ago, I described this in terms of embodied energy: see R. Costanza Science 210, 1219–1224; 1980). By contrast, the current mainstream ‘marginalist’ concept bases value on market exchanges: price, as revealed by the interaction of supply and demand in markets, determines value, and the only things that have value are those that fetch a price.
This has major implications for ideas about the distinction between value creation and value extraction, the nature of unearned income (‘rent’) and how value should be distributed....
Nature
How to retool our concept of value — Mariana Mazzucato
Robert Costanza

Sunday, September 10, 2017

David Harvey — The value of money [excerpt]

Value is a social relation. As such, it is ‘immaterial but objective.’ The ‘phantom-like objectivity’ of value arises because ‘not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values’. Their status as values contrasts with ‘the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects. We may twist and turn a single commodity as we wish; it remains impossible to grasp it as a thing possessing value.’ The value of commodities is, like many other features of social life – such as power, reputation, status, influence or charisma – an immaterial but objective social relation that craves a material expression. In the case of value, this need is met through what Marx calls the ‘dazzling’ form of money.
Marx is very careful with his language. He refers to money almost exclusively as the ‘form of expression’ or as the ‘representation’ of value. He scrupulously avoids the idea that money is value incarnate, or that it is an arbitrary symbol imposed by convention on exchange relations (which was a widespread view in the political economy of his time). Value cannot exist without money as its mode of expression. Conversely, however autonomous it may seem, money cannot cut the umbilical cord that ties it to what it represents. We should think of money and value as autonomous and independent of each other but dialectically intertwined. This kind of relationship has a long history....
OUPblog
The value of money [excerpt]
David Harvey | Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the City University of New York Graduate School

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Jason Smith — The pinball theory of value


I have posted a good deal of Jason Smith's take on the foundations of economics and economic modeling from a physicist's POV. Maybe that's not your thing.

This is about the value and money, which should interest just about everyone here.

Information Transfer Economics
The pinball theory of value
Jason Smith