资本主义不能一般均衡

很神奇的是LS无数资深坛友竟然还抱着劳动价值论。。。真的不会看一下英文的wiki条目么？

foozhencheng 发表于 2015-12-29 19:48
很神奇的是LS无数资深坛友竟然还抱着劳动价值论。。。真的不会看一下英文的wiki条目么？

俺们都是大文盲，不懂学术，不懂经济学。象你这种经济学大师，别和俺们一般见识。

1993110 发表于 2015-12-29 20:12
俺们都是大文盲，不懂学术，不懂经济学。象你这种经济学大师，别和俺们一般见识。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticisms

foozhencheng 发表于 2015-12-31 22:56
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticisms

A generalization of labor theory of value[edit]
To resolve the above mentioned contradiction of the theory with reality, some authors[52][53][54] proposed to reconsider the role of production equipment (constant capital) in production of value, following hints in Das Kapital, where Marx [8] described the functional role of machinery in production processes in Chapter XV (Machinery and Modern Industry) in the following words:

On a closer examination of the working machine proper, we find in it, as a general rule, though often, no doubt, under very altered forms, the apparatus and tools used by the handicraftsmen or manufacturing workman: with this difference that instead of being human implements, they are the implements of a mechanism, or mechanical implements (pp. 181-182). The machine proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived from man or from some other machine, makes no difference in this respect (p. 182). The implements of labour, in the form of machinery, necessitate the substitution of natural forces for human force, and the conscious application of science instead of rule of thumb (p. 188). After making allowance, both in the case of the machine and of the tool, for their average daily cost, that is, for the value they transmit to the product by their average daily wear and tear, and for their consumption of auxiliary substances such as oil, coal and so on, they each do their work gratuitously, just like the forces furnished by nature without the help of man (p. 189).

These words state that one has to account, while interpreting production of value, that the workers' efforts in production of things are substituted with work of production equipment with due effect. Really, at substitution of labourer's work by forces of the nature, that is at substitution of efforts of people by work of external forces of the nature by means of the production equipment, work operates in a complex as workers' efforts plus work of the equipment. Thus, work of machines can be appreciated only so far as this work does what people wish, replacing their efforts and, consequently, a measure of value, certainly, can be the labourers' work only. It is possible to tell also, according to Marx, that only labourers' work creates value, but Marx, unfortunately, had not completed the theory of substitution to the logical end. Taking into account the effect of substitution, one can say that the only universal and accurate measure of value is the work of labourers or other agents used for production.

So, we one has to complete the labour theory of value with the law of substitution, and a new important concept of substitutive work, as a value-creating production factor, has to be introduced and used to formulate the theory, which investigates processes of emerging, motion and disappearing of value, being hardly interested in its material carriers.

foozhencheng 发表于 2015-12-31 22:56
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticisms

了不起，不愧是经济学大师

xuguw 发表于 2015-12-31 23:08
A generalization of labor theory of value[edit]
To resolve the above mentioned contradiction of t ...

1993110 发表于 2015-12-31 23:14
了不起，不愧是经济学大师

那你这个自称是“大文盲”的有什么高见？

xuguw 发表于 2015-12-31 23:08
A generalization of labor theory of value[edit]
To resolve the above mentioned contradiction of t ...

首先，肯定您的回复，但是仔细查证原文不难发现：这里的矛盾有不少。原文的结论中提及“This extension of the labour theory of value is closely related to conventional neoclassical theory where capital and labour are the main sources of production of value. Introducing a third production factor as substitutive work or productive energy, our theory specifies the way to view the role of energy in the production of value.”
但是wiki中却说“Taking into account the effect of substitution, one can say that the only universal and accurate measure of value is the work of labourers or other agents used for production.”
这确实是矛盾之处，由此看来所谓LTV的推广，已经并非马克思的LTV（而且所谓马克思的LTV也不是他的，而是来自斯密和李嘉图）。同时文章的结论并非证明劳动是唯一普适准确的价值度量。而更多的反而是文章中argue所谓能量也是一个需要考虑的因素。这种对LTV的推广或调和（reconcile）实际上已经将LTV修改的面目全非了。

foozhencheng 发表于 2016-1-1 20:11
首先，肯定您的回复，但是仔细查证原文不难发现：这里的矛盾有不少。原文的结论中提及“This extension o ...

劳动价值论思想源泉很深厚，就资本主义角度，马克思认定是配第，斯密等。

其实，劳动价值论是讲商品生产交换历史之理论。度量等等问题，是术，非道。