Labor Complexity in Relation to Aggregate Marxian Value — Peter Cooper

Classical economics, including Marx, focused on economic value in real terms, i.e., a non-monetary ground for economic value expressed in markets in nominal terms as prices. That recognized that value is based on some "good" that is actual rather than nominal.

One way to do this is through a numéraire, such as gold or silver. A problem here is that monetary metals don't have actual economic value in real terms that isa determinative in production. Rather, their nominal value is depending on the cost of production. 

Marx choose labor time, following Smith and Ricardo. He expanded on their ideas, which he regarded as inadequate to the task. This is now called "the labor theory of value" (LTV), although Marx never labeled it that way. This is a bit confusing now, since "the labor theory of value" is almost automatically associated with Marx's version of it, even though it was a concept of classical economics, to which Marx was a late comer. Incidentally, while Smith and Ricardo are credited with it in the West, an LTV was first proposed by Tunisian Ibn Khaldun in the 14 century.

Neoclassical economics explains economic value in terms of marginal utility and price theory.  "Utility" purported to account for the good at the basis of value. Economic  value is determined based on opportunity cost, what has to be sacrificed in an environment where scarcity prevails to access a particular good. In nominal terms, the economic value of a good is not the market price, but rather the maximum that one is willing to pay to obtain it rather than choosing something else.

Both the labor theory of value and the marginal theory have been criticized for various reasons. And there are some other theories of economic value as well. See also Theories of Value.

The major issue now is modeling and formalization. The neoclassical theory of value based on marginalism can be formalized, although not without issues. The classical economists did not go this route, which is somewhat surprising in that Newton's work had become the paradigm of doing science. So they are not considered to be doing "economic science."

So a challenge for the labor theory of value is "doing the math."

Since value is so fundamental to economics, getting the theory right is a big deal. So far there is no universal agreement on this issue.

heteconomist

Labor Complexity in Relation to Aggregate Marxian Value
Peter Cooper

Magpie — Getting all Tied Up (2)

Magpie critiques Paul Mason's criticism of MMT from the POV of a Marxist.

Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare
Getting all Tied Up (2)

Magpie

Peter Cooper — Developments in Value Theory

Previously I have discussed how Marx’s well known aggregate equalities have been shown to hold under single-system interpretations of his theory of value. In the July 2018 edition of the Cambridge Journal of Economics, there is a noteworthy paper by Ian Wright that reconciles the classical labor theory of value with Marx’s prices of production within a dual-system framework. As with single-system interpretations, Marx’s equalities also hold under Wright’s approach. However, they do so in a different way. Here, I want to offer some thoughts on the difference.

Why is this important now other than as a matter of historical interest? British classical economists Smith and Ricardo raise the issue of economics rent and rent extraction, which would have been obvious to all in a recently post-feudal society and nascent capitalism. Marx noticed the similarity and attempted to show how in a capitalist system, economic rent is extracted chiefly from labor rather than land rent as it had been in feudalism, although the basis of rent under feudalism was also the making of land productive through labor. The factory became the new manor or landed estate.

A major thrust in the development of neoclassical economics was discrediting this idea based on marginalism, which purported to show that both capital and labor received their marginal productivity in terms of "just deserts" based on contribution. This is key because economic rent is unearned and simply a privilege of ownership.

Almost entire economic issue being debated now, which is of course constituted of many related issues, inequality in particular, reduces to economic rent and the many ways it is extracted as a privilege of ownership and control, control resulting in market power. The entire rationale for capitalism is assuming that free markets, free trade, and free flow of capital are based on symmetric power as long as government does not influence the market, together with assuming that ownership of the means of production is financially and economically neutral (no privilege involved if the state stays out of the picture). Thus, the attempt on the right to drown the state in the bathtub (Grover Norquist).

This is the basis of economic liberalism that is really bourgeois liberalism, the "bourgeoisie" being the owners of the means of production under capitalism, comparable to the aristocracy and landed gentry under feudalism.

Marx argued that just as land ownership as ownership of the means of production conveyed privilege under feudalism; so too, ownership of the means of production under capitalism also conveys privilege. There is therefore no "naturally" free market under capitalism, and this is especially evident in the labor market, as Marx sought to show. Thus, replacement of the labor theory of value with the neoclassical theory of marginalism became a high priority. Marx and his followers were excluded and supporters of marginalism were supported by directing a (small) portion of the economic rent extracted to them, along with social benefits for their political contributions.

We need to stop arguing over whether Marx was "right," or "wrong," and instead look at his work (along with his close collaborator Engels) in terms of useful contributions for the present impasse humanity faces. Nor should this be limited to Marx and Engels, but also should include subsequent Marxists and Marxians. It is rich field and needs to be mined intellectually. To dismiss it out of hand is simply bias based on propaganda.

This post requires some previous knowledge of the debate. Peter Cooper has quite a few posts on Marxism, and Marxism and MMT.

heteconomist
Developments in Value Theory
Peter Cooper

Peter Cooper — Significance of MMT’s Definition of ‘Value of the Currency’

It was suggested in the previous post that the notion of ‘value of the currency’ adopted in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) seems compatible with Marx’s theoretical framework, provided it is acceptable in that framework to consider a state currency, and not only gold or some other commodity, as “true” money. As was explained in the post, currency value in MMT can be defined as the amount of labor time a worker must perform in order to obtain a unit of the currency. An advantage of this definition, if applied in Marx’s framework, is that it offers an explanation for the value of fiat currency that can be expressed in terms of socially necessary labor time.

heteconomist
Significance of MMT’s Definition of ‘Value of the Currency’

Peter Cooper

Peter Cooper — Melting Some Marx Into MMT

I have been meaning for a while now to explore potential connections between Marx’s theory of value and Keynes or Kalecki-influenced approaches to macro. This is a tentative testing of the waters. It may be the first in an indefinite series of posts, sprinkled throughout the future, on correspondence between the two theoretical traditions. Then, again, it might not be. At this stage it is not clear to me how far the exercise can be taken, or how useful it might be. I know that there has been some exploration of the connections between Keynesian and Marxian approaches in the academic literature. Massimo De Angelis (here is a sample paper) and Andrew Trigg are two names that come to mind. Any posts I do here will be more exploratory and elementary by comparison. The emphasis will be on connections of a macro nature between MMT and Marx’s value categories. One point of entry appears to be the ‘monetary expression of labor time’ (MELT), introduced by Alejandro Ramos Martinez (see chapter 5 of this link), and its connection with the Modern Monetary Theorists’ ‘value of the currency’.

heteconomist.com
Melting Some Marx Into MMT
Peter Cooper