Talk:Labor theory of value

Analytical Presentation

Please refer to http://eurodos.free.fr/mime for the whole presentation.

Criticism - Great Contradiction

The Criticism section mentions a "Great Contradiction". However, this not mentioned in the Criticism page it links to.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to deal with the first paragraph of the Criticism section - it reads like original research, and is uncited. "The labor theory of value appears to predict that profits will be higher in labor-intensive industries than in capital-intensive industries" is both untrue, and uncited. Items with a high value don't, for Marx or anyone else for that matter, implicitly carry a large profit margin. I'm going to see if I can cut that whole bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.116.136 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a reference to the Transformation problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Subjective value theory

"The labor theory as an explanation for value contrasts with the subjective theory of value, which says that value of a good is not determined by how much labor was put into it but by its usefulness in satisfying a want and its scarcity." There is not so much of a contrast. Marx also said that the value of a good is not determined by how much labour was put in to it, this is true only if this good has a use value. This can be interpreted as a "subjective" feature of the Labour Theory of Value. The so-called subjectivist value theorists (who saw themselves not in opposition to the LTV) saw value determined from the demand side by the subjective value and from the supply side by labour. It was (or is) a subjective labour theory of value (Michael Heinrich). --Alex1011 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how "use value" is subjective.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Use value" is an old-fashioned term for "subjective value". --Alex1011 (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Generalisation of LTV

A generalisation of the LTV has recently been added to the article. I don't see how this works. Clearly, sunlight is fundamental to the economy, and in fact all life on earth. How do we pay that bill? I don't know. I don't pay my bills, and the sun still comes on each morning. I don't think this is a generalisation of the LTV; I think it is a completely different theory, and a pretty bizarre one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The first criticism listed under 'Criticism' is not at all a good one. It's only a criticism if one has a flawed understanding of economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zesterer (talk • contribs) 10:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

LTV proponents and opponents?

Good working article. However, it could benefit from a discussion of various theorists (particularly those who identify as being 'Marxist') who favour or support the LTV. Why not list some names and provide some information about them? People like Kliman and Freeman have defended the LTV from attacks while others (i.e. Marxist) have abandoned and criticised it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.75.79 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)