Hi! Can anyone get me this please?
Expectancy-value theory of anxiety: Overview and implications. Pekrun, Reinhard Forgays, Donald G. (Ed); Sosnowski, Tytus (Ed); Wrzesniewski, Kazimierz (Ed), (1992). Anxiety: Recent developments in cognitive, psychophysiological, and health research.Series in health psychology and behavioral medicine., (pp. 23-41). Washington, DC, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp, xiv, 282 pp.
Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-98352-002
Maro has mentioned multiple times that WOTC considers the Mystical Archive a huge success and something they plan to do more often in the future. Given the timeframe (more than a year since Strixhaven--enough time to add a supplemental sheet to an in-design set), and the obvious thematic tie-in, I strongly believe that The Brothers War will have a non-standard-legal artifact supplement, in the style of the Mystical Archive.
If they did that, what cards would you expect to see lose value? Personally, I think we might see the first reprint of [[The Great Henge]], which is getting quite expensive, but difficult to reprint in a standard-legal set.
*Title. Books, videos, walls of text, everything is welcome. Eager to hear your arguments.
I had generally rejected the labor theory of value before, but in order to be intellectually honest you have to read and really understand anything you may disagree with. So recently I have been reading up on a lot of marxist works. And they got me thinking.
This is a copy of a post I made in a couple econ subs. Would like to hear what you have to say
I have a very hard time buying the idea that capital doesn't contribute surplus value. We can argue about ownership of capital generating value all the live long day (that is why i am a market socialist).
But that's a different discussion of whether or not capital itself generates value.
First, let's get the definition out of the way:
LTV - Labor Theory of value - the belief that all value comes from the SOCIALLY NECESSARY time to produce a commodity (so working less hard doesn't generate more value).
Alright, so the basic source of the argument I am getting comes from here: https://www.massline.org/PolitEcon/ScottH/Keen_LTV.htm, specifically:
Second, Keen says that the rejection of Marx’s LTV means that capitalism is not exploiting the working class after all. This is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. It is true that direct labor is not the only source of surplus; some of it does come from the machinery, the "capital", that the capitalist provides. But where did the capitalist get that capital, those machines and so forth? From the earlier exploitation of workers!
Basically, this guy is conceding that a machine may produce a surplus. What he is saying is that the machine itself was produced by a combination of labor and capital and that capital was produced by another combination and so on and so on and so on until you get to just labor. And so, labor is the source of the machine which means it is the source of capital which means it is the ultimate source of the value created by capital and so a more general form of the LTV holds.
Fine and dandy.
It's possible to find examples where a certain input is required for a greater output. Let's take a look at electronics for example.
I'm a computer science student so this example is near and dear to my heart:A transistor can act as a switch or a current amplifier. In order for current to flow, a transistor must have an applied voltage. This voltage allows for a larger current to flow. This is basically how a microphone/speaker setup works (i'm massively oversimplify
... keep reading on reddit ➡Hi,
I am relatively new to marxist theory (sorry), but I have long been fascinated by economics in general.
So anyways, I recently listened to this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwavxl-w_Z4
which interviews Australian Post-Keynesian Economics Professor Steve Keen.
I am currently trying to understand his critique of the Marxist Labor Theory of Value.
He starts to talk about it around 29:40 for those interested, and expands until about 35:00-ish.
Anyways,
This is my understanding, is this correct:
The use value of labor power is the value it can create, i.e. the value and use value of labor power are the same. This means, that the surplus value of labor is measured by taking the Exchange value and subtracting the value (use value) from it. So Surplus = Exchange - use.
The exchange value of labor is its wages, and its use-value is the value of the products it can create.
A similar logic applies to machines. Their use value is what they can produce. And the exchange value is the price of production.
Therefore they too can create a surplus value.
I asked this of a Marxist and the response I got was this:
>Machinery can't add any value because this constant capital will regulate the socially necessary labor time on a given market. Which means once every capitalist has the same technology / machine, the only thing that will regulate the profit / value creation is the abstract labor itself
But I don't feel that really touches on the argument Keen is making right? Because Marx was using the whole use-value exchange-value paradigm to prove the labor theory of value right?
I checked the wikipedia and found this part, which I really didn't understand:
>Keen further observes that while Marx insisted that the contribution of machines to production is solely their use-value and not their exchange-value, he routinely treated the use-value and exchange-value of a machine as identical, despite the fact that this would contradict his claim that the two were unrelated.[54] Marxists respond by arguing that use-value and exchange-value are incommensurable magnitudes; to claim that a machine can add "more use-value" than it is worth in value-terms is a category error. According to Marx, a machine by definition cannot be a source of human labor.[[55]](https://en.wikipedia
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I think we are all in agreement that during promos pack weight is lower.
So while you have that 0.0001% chance at Harry Kane, you are less likely to pack regular golds rated 83 and up. The net effect is you might as well open your packs whenever, the chances of catching a promo card isn't worth it.
Its feels even more true during TOTY. Pack weight is awful and fodder becomes dirt cheap, so unless you get lucky enough to get one you will have the worst packs possible
Title pretty much says it all. What does “subjective value theory” mean to you? How does it relate to other theories of value such as the Classical theories of Smith/Ricardo/Marx? Do you think it undergirds contemporary economic theory and, if so, how? If not, how does it go beyond contemporary theory?
A company is planning to announce a new product, but there a multiple steps they have to do before that announcing it.
The expected profit from the product: 42.5
Cost of launch: 2.5
Here are the steps:
| Steps | Probability of success | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| a | 70 % | 1 |
| b | 30 % | 5 |
| c | 60 % | 0.5 |
a) Should the steps be carried out in parallel or sequentially, i.e. all at once or one at a time and in such a case, in what order?
b) What is the expected value of the project?
I would really appreciate some suggestions/guidance on how I should approach this problem. Thanks!
Ok,
So I have been thinking about this specific issue a lot because to me, it just does not sit right that in theory, a capitalist owner of the MOP can sit around making money while doing nothing as the workers do all the work. However, I have long ago rejected the labor theory of value, but I certainly feel a hard day's work deserves a good day's pay.
So, to sorta rationalize and formalize my thinking, I am writing this. Feel free to critique or point out flaws.
The labor theory of value was long ago rejected by most economists for a variety of reasons. As a result (and for a lot of other reasons), I am not a Marxist. However, I am still a socialist (I am more attracted to market socialism and pre-marx socialism). Not here to debate the merits or faults of marxism. What I want to focus on is this idea:
The subjective theory of value. This theory was originally created to answer a question posed by the diamond-water problem. The idea is basically: Why are diamonds so much more valuable than water? Water is objectively more useful.
The subjective theory of value basically said this: Diamonds are rarer than water. This means that, even though the objective value of all water is greater than diamonds, the marginal value of a diamond is much higher than the marginal value of water, because there just is more water, so the marginal value is lower.
There's more to the theory than that. For example: If I have a thick wool coat on during -50 temperature, I may value that coat more than a diamond and pay more to buy it. This isn't true in summer. The marginal value of that coat is much greater than that of the diamond (though it is important to note that the marginal value falls with each additional unit).
So then, how is labor exploited in the capitalist system without the labor theory of value?
Well, there are three ways this is possible:
- Direct wage theft. Even capitalists will agree this is exploitation. The idea is basically that employers directly steal from per-negotiated contracts. (So if my agreed on salary is like $50,000, the capitalist would only pay me $40,000). This is pretty obvious theft that even capitalists would agree is theft. It is waaaaaaayyyy more common than you'd think it is.
- Improper compensation for marginal value. This is where our theory of marginalism comes in, but it can only really happen in a non-perfectly competitive market. The idea is this: capital and labor are compensated in accordance with their marginal
In one of my exercises we needed to calculate E(Y^(2)) if Y~N(0,1). In the solution it says it is 1 and the only reason they give is because Y~N(0,1) and no further explanation. I don't really see how except for calculating the integral of 1\sqrt(2pi)x^2 e^(x^2/2). But I doubt that this is what we are expected to do or else it would have been explained how to do this integral. Am I missing something obvious?
Since its based on the socially necessary amount of time needed to produce a product, I don't see the fruit in Mise's argument. What do you think?
Background on me before I explain my thoughts. Social democrat, well versed on Marx and leftist implementation ideas like anarcho-communism and antiwork. Tech startup founder as my day job. I'm aware this isn't a novel line of reasoning, but I've also not yet seen an adequate response
So my startup makes construction software for drastically speeding up project change order management and dispute resolution. I've been contemplating the ethics of my own profit versus our customers (and their workers) and my own employees. I focus on this example because I think we add value in a fairly straightforward way - use us and your margins go up. Assume for a second that there are only 3 parties in this discussion:
-
A perfectly organised workers co-operative construction company
-
Software developers employed by me
-
Me and my co-founder
The labor theory of value would hold that I'm entitled to more compensation than the others in this equation by a bit. The exact amount can be argued about, but a moderate value probably. Of the revenue the software my company develops generates, the lion's share should be distributed amongst my workers and the workers of the construction company. The question, of course, is to what degree I created that value versus my workers and the workers at the construction company. Certainly, without the labor of the construction workers, my software developers would have no process to make more efficient. Without me, my software developers would likely work on a problem that adds much less value.
To bring in my title's thesis, the labor theory of value makes a lot of sense for the construction workers. The value of construction is the guys actually on the ground throwing bricks around. The quality and value of the construction project is directly proportional to the amount of people and time spent throwing bricks around. It doesn't require much creativity to know what to do to achieve that value. If someone is stood there siphoning off most of the result, arguably it might well be theft from the workers.
For the software developers, they need a certain amount of creativity to be efficient, but efficient software developers are essentially fungible. What they're building is very very important, and an extremely proficient software developer can produce absolutely no value as the result of a lot of labor in a way that it's much harder for a construction worker to. They're entitled to some stake for sure, but the exact same small d
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Hi,
I am relatively new to marxist theory (sorry), but I have long been fascinated by economics in general.
So anyways, I recently listened to this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwavxl-w_Z4
which interviews Australian Post-Keynesian Economics Professor Steve Keen.
I am currently trying to understand his critique of the Marxist Labor Theory of Value.
He starts to talk about it around 29:40 for those interested, and expands until about 35:00-ish.
Anyways,
This is my understanding, is this correct:
The use value of labor power is the value it can create, i.e. the value and use value of labor power are the same. This means, that the surplus value of labor is measured by taking the Exchange value and subtracting the value (use value) from it. So Surplus = Exchange - use.
The exchange value of labor is its wages, and its use-value is the value of the products it can create.
A similar logic applies to machines. Their use value is what they can produce. And the exchange value is the price of production.
Therefore they too can create a surplus value.
I asked this of a Marxist and the response I got was this:
>Machinery can't add any value because this constant capital will regulate the socially necessary labor time on a given market. Which means once every capitalist has the same technology / machine, the only thing that will regulate the profit / value creation is the abstract labor itself
But I don't feel that really touches on the argument Keen is making right? Because Marx was using the whole use-value exchange-value paradigm to prove the labor theory of value right?
I checked the wikipedia and found this part, which I really didn't understand:
>Keen further observes that while Marx insisted that the contribution of machines to production is solely their use-value and not their exchange-value, he routinely treated the use-value and exchange-value of a machine as identical, despite the fact that this would contradict his claim that the two were unrelated.[54] Marxists respond by arguing that use-value and exchange-value are incommensurable magnitudes; to claim that a machine can add "more use-value" than it is worth in value-terms is a category error. According to Marx, a machine by definition cannot be a source of human labor.[[55]](https://en.wikipedia
... keep reading on reddit ➡What does "value" in the labor theory of value mean?
How does this value relate to prices and the economy and economic systems?
I'm sort of new to Marxist econ, so I'd love to hear your opinions on this. Books, videos, walls of text, everything is welcome.
Hi,
I am relatively new to marxist theory (sorry), but I have long been fascinated by economics in general.
So anyways, I recently listened to this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwavxl-w_Z4
which interviews Australian Post-Keynesian Economics Professor Steve Keen.
I am currently trying to understand his critique of the Marxist Labor Theory of Value.
He starts to talk about it around 29:40 for those interested, and expands until about 35:00-ish.
Anyways,
This is my understanding, is this correct:
The use value of labor power is the value it can create, i.e. the value and use value of labor power are the same. This means, that the surplus value of labor is measured by taking the Exchange value and subtracting the value (use value) from it. So Surplus = Exchange - use.
The exchange value of labor is its wages, and its use-value is the value of the products it can create.
A similar logic applies to machines. Their use value is what they can produce. And the exchange value is the price of production.
Therefore they too can create a surplus value.
I asked this of a Marxist and the response I got was this:
>Machinery can't add any value because this constant capital will regulate the socially necessary labor time on a given market. Which means once every capitalist has the same technology / machine, the only thing that will regulate the profit / value creation is the abstract labor itself
But I don't feel that really touches on the argument Keen is making right? Because Marx was using the whole use-value exchange-value paradigm to prove the labor theory of value right?
I checked the wikipedia and found this part, which I really didn't understand:
>Keen further observes that while Marx insisted that the contribution of machines to production is solely their use-value and not their exchange-value, he routinely treated the use-value and exchange-value of a machine as identical, despite the fact that this would contradict his claim that the two were unrelated.[54] Marxists respond by arguing that use-value and exchange-value are incommensurable magnitudes; to claim that a machine can add "more use-value" than it is worth in value-terms is a category error. According to Marx, a machine by definition cannot be a source of human labor.[[55]](https://en.wikipedia
... keep reading on reddit ➡