Talk:Labor theory of value/Archive 4

Unbalanced
I agree that the article is unbalanced towards refutation of the theory. I once added a section on justification of the theory, but this was deleted on the basis that it was unencyclopedic! If this continues there will be no indication at all of what is being criticised!!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The criticisms article is created. And sadly still garbage, essay, and or.  But the summary adequately reflects the key criticisms levelled. And from a NPOV. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Conceptual model"
The "conceptual model" in the article is a Reductio ad absurdum. If everybody can produce everything, there is not anymore any need for exchange and concepts like value and the whole labor theory of value are superfluous.

Only from a capitalist point of view it makes sense to evaluate products in terms of labour needed to produce them. If products are not exchanged according to their labour value (or production price at a higher stage of analysis) one capitalist gets cheated to the benefit of the other one, and will sooner or later learn to exchange on an equal value basis or drop out of the market. --Alex1011 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your objection is. Your initial statement is false: "If everybody can produce everything, there is not anymore any need for exchange". This raises the scenario of what capitalist economists call "comparative advantage". I am a pig farmer, but I could grow potatoes. There is still need for exchange because, for economic reasons, I choose to concentrate on pigs. Others concentrate on potatoes. On this basis there is exchange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exchange yes, but not on the basis of labour values. As a pig farmer you need a lot of labour to produce potatoes. You will be prepared to give away pigs produced in three hours to get potatotes produced by the potato grower in two hours because you yourself would need five hours to produce these potatoes. So where is the labour theory of value? --Alex1011 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank can take about 3 hours to dig up 100lbs of spuds. John can do it in 2.4.  Old Harry does it in 5hrs.  You can do it in 3.5.  You have a rough idea of how long it takes, how much effort it would be to do it yourself, and if you buy them from Frank and he demands goods it would take you 6 hours to produce, you'd either go to someone else, or do it yourself.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Implicit in the LTV is the notion of what Marx calls "socially necessary labour", i.e., the amount of labour time generally used. If someone can produce something with less labour they make an extra profit; if they use more, they are uncompetitive. As Marx says, a lazy, incompetent, or otherwise inefficient worker does not produce more value. But even if you ignore this point, there can still be exchange based on comparative labour amounts. In order to take advantage of economies of scale, or merely based on whim or tradition, a farmer might concentrate on raising pigs, and exchange the excess for potatoes. In a traditional peasant economy, in fact, it is the surplus that is traded, not the bulk of produce. At a given time, a peasant might have an excess of pigs and a deficiency of potatoes (or turnips, to be more historically accurate). He then exchanges the excess, knowing full well the relative labour values, because he produces both products himself.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "..., or do it yourself." That is my point: If you can do it yourself, why exchange? The same is true if only the surplus is traded. Who cares much about exchange values, it it is just a give away of superfluous things? --Alex1011 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is obvious. Perhaps I need another example: you spend all day fishing, I spend all day hunting a deer. I have no wish to eat only venison for the next fortnight, so I exchange half of my venison for half of your fish. You ask why I didn't just hunt for half a deer for half a day....???--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, why not? You will say because I am better in fishing and you are better in hunting. But then the exchange ratio is not determined by labor values. You might depend more on fish than I on deer so you will give away deer which cost you six hours of labor for fish which cost me two hours. --Alex1011 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could fish for two hours, but I don't enjoy fishing, so I exchange my deer for your fish, at a fair rate. Or,  might work out that walking from the deer park to the fishing ground might cost me half an hour, so i'm better off catching a deer and exchanging it, than going to fish myself.  the principle being that if you try charging too much, I'll just go and do it myself (and hold a grudge against you for trying to rob me).--Red Deathy (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to repeat my JOKE: "You ask why I just didn't hunt for half a deer for half a day". And your response: "Exactly, why not?" Because, for anyone playing at home, YOU CANNOT HUNT FOR HALF A DEER, YOU CAN ONLY KILL WHOLE DEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous Curves
Do we really need an illustration of the ridiculous curves of marginalism to accompany this article???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have not read or understood the accompanying article. Your intervention is an act of vandalism. Eurodos (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're completely wrong. No traditional exponent of the LTV uses marginalist-style curves to illustrate the theory, and it rather undermines their argument if supply and demand curves are used.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ridiculousness is perfectly irrelevant here, and traditionality is not a necessary condition for coverage. On the other hand, “notability” and “reliable” sourcing are necessary.  The cited source fails WP:RS, and the work is not presently “notable”. —24.255.26.9 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can put it any way you like, the point is still valid.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the point (that the curves are ridiculous and untraditional) was invalid. The conclusion that you drew from it (that the curves should not appear in the article) was correct by happenstance. —70.166.80.120 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By "traditional" I merely meant the famous exponents of the LTV mentioned in the article: Smith, Ricardo, Marx. This is valid, as the chart purports to be an illustration of the article, which it isn't. The "ridiculousness" of curves is obvious if you read the article carefully. Again it isn't an accurate illustration of the LTV as presented in the article, merely an illustration of an opinion which if you like is "non-notable".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A non-traditional labor theory of value could have become notable; and it still doesn't matter whether the theory is ridiculous. If a marginal labor thoery were to become notable, and be shown only graphically, the proper fix would be to add to the text, rather than to delete the graphic. —70.166.80.120 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the illustration is a complete misrepresentation of the article. Therefore I'm deleting it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Criticism Section
Refutations in the criticism section should be presented as factual, non-argumentative elements of the descriptive part of the article. The arguments for LTV can be expressed in that section.

Refutations of criticism should not appear in the criticism section. Meansbeing (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have been saying ad nauseum.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with this. Unless someone would write the refutations of the refutations of the criticisms.


 * Which is precisely what it has degenerated into.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And now we have a criticism section which is based on one superficial encyclopedia article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Further on this. Including Marx as a source for that Marx theories are taken seriously by some economists does: 1. Have no place in the criticism section 2. Is not a proper use of sources. I can find many sources supporting that flat earth theorists believe in a flat earth. That doesn't validate it. 3. The answer to [by whom?]is then "by Marx". Which is retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visf (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Adam Smith

 * The labor theory of value, as presented by Adam Smith, however, did not require the quantification of all past labor, nor did it deal with the labor needed to create the tools (capital) that might be employed in the production of a commodity. The Smith theory of value was very similar to the later utility theories in that Smith proclaimed that a commodity was worth whatever labor it would command in others (value in trade) or whatever labor it would "save" the self (value in use), or both. But this "value" is subject to supply and demand at a particular time.


 * The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V)


 * Smith's theory of price (which for many is the same as value) has nothing to do with the past labor spent in the production of a commodity. It speaks only of the labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present. If there is no use for a buggy whip then the item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of all the labor spent in its creation.

This is a rather tortured attempt to argue that the capitalist hero, Adam Smith, did not espouse the same theory as Karl Marx. It has no sources, and is merely the argument put forward by an editor. It makes no logical sense, since a producer who uses tools, materials, etc, must accept their cost as part of the price, and therefore has quantified past labour.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream Scholarship on Adam Smith
Currently the articles states as simple fact that Adam Smith did not create the LTV (or at least did not accept its application) to modern capitalistic societies and that David Ricardo deserves the "credit". I wouldn't go as far as to describe that as a fringe view, but it is at the very least in the minority position among the academic community. The only source given for this controversial claim is a personal page of a college professor. I think it might be fair to bring up opposing viewpoints, but relative weight in the article should be balanced to the current status in scholarship. Right now the overwhelming consensus across economic schools- Mainstream Neoclassical, Marxian, Institutional etc is that Adam Smith did create the LTV. Even Murray Rothbard of the Austrian school published an article castigating Adam Smith for the LTV and pointing out that before Adam Smith subjectivist theories of values prevailed among the French and Spanish schools. http://mises.org/page/1430/The-Celebrated-Adam-Smith Again, I don't necessarily dispute the possibility of including a short disclaimer saying that specific scholars dispute the mainstream scholarship, but the balance should be towards academic consensus. A simple google books search of "adam smith" "labor theory of value" should confirm my point. --Gary123 (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, John Locke precedes even Adam Smith in developing the LTV. See Sections 40-45 of the Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. I doubt any economic historian would attribute the origin of the modern concept to Locke rather than Smith. In fact, Smith got LTV from Locke. Freshfroot (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Locke said that property was the result of labour, but that's a different thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Devils Advocate Questions
Is it true, as implied in the article, that... 1. There is a classical LTV agreed with by for example Smith and Ricardo, and an opposed Marxian theory? 2. That the marginal utility approach to value is in opposition to all versions of LTV. I think neither assertion would be correct.--Andrew Lancaster 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the earliest labor theories of value, but the gap between, for example, Marx's theory, and Proudhon's or Tandy's theories, is comparable to that between Proudhon's and the marginalists. Jacob Haller 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In what work did Proudhon write an economic theory? —Jemmytc 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are big differences in labour value theories, then why is the article written as if there is one main theory, the Marxian, and then variations? The first part of the article should surely try to define what is common to all the different types, perhaps explaining where they came from. I believe someone who has no background in this field could almost get the impression that Marx was the first! On the other hand some people in the 19th century, including some socialists, would surely have argued that Marx sent the labour value concept in the wrong direction, and that Smith was superior. Indeed, this was arguably the majority position which led to the marginal way of presenting value. --Andrew Lancaster 08:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)--


 * I have made a series of edits. Can I ask that they all be considered as a whole without knee-jerk reversions? The changes attempt to give some consistency to the article which currently still looks like an article about Marx with some bits tagged on. First, I simplified some of the opening words and also made them more general and less specifically Marxian. Second, I spent some time on the section devoted to defining terms. I think the changes bare some consideration. Third, I have tried to introduce some more discussion about LTV before Marx, especially using Smith. If anyone feels qualified to go even further back I notice that a section is already there.--Andrew Lancaster 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't compared all your changes, but so far, so good. Some concerns of my own:
 * Most of the LTVs with which I am familiar, only address long-run commodity prices. The more elastic the supply, the faster prices will approach and the closer prices will stay to equilibrium; the less elastic the supply, the slower and the farther, respectively. Tradable goods with inelastic supplies, or which are unique, are not commodities.
 * Different LTVs use the term value in different senses. Smith's looks like the best starting point. Marx's drifts towards embodied labor, while some of his opponents,' e.g. Proudhon's, drift towards price at the moment of sale.
 * Socially necessary more often refers to the amount of production than the efficiency of labor. Excess production drives the short-term market value of the last good below the production cost of the last good.
 * However, if more efficient techniques compete with less efficient techniques, the more efficient techniques will tend to drive down prices for both.
 * Menger's critiques center on non-commodities. Jacob Haller 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I really only set myself to work on the introductory stuff and therefore not much with the areas you mention. I think the article has to start with explaining what is meant by labour and what it means to say it is embodied in a good. I think a problem with the article has been that it starts with Marx and then only makes short remarks about alternative views. It is not that I want to be critical of Marx particularly, but his LTV is rather complex and specific and certainly not uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Marx is very solidly based on Smith and Ricardo's LTV. I agree that the article should not be totally about Marx, but his LTV must be considered "classical" in that it is the most fully analysed and applied.--Jack Upland 10:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the value of an article is based on the labour that went into its production, then why is the cut diamond disproportionately costly, compared with the uncut one, even though the labour cost is measly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.140.43 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cutting diamonds is a highly specialised craft which has developed over centuries. That development is itself an accumulation of labour which must be measured in the price.  At the same time many rough diamonds are not of suitable quality, so finding diamonds which can be cut requires more labour.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Origins
The Origins section now includes a list of people who might have said something vaguely similar. For example, Aristotle had a theory of the value of labour. So what???--Jack Upland (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion with labor theory of price?
Are the mainstream criticisms of LTV based on confusion between LTV and the labour theory of price? In the cost of production theory of value article, it says:

Ricardo also refutes the labor theory of value in later sections of that chapter. This refutation leads to what later became known as the transformation problem. Karl Marx later takes up that theory in the first volume of "Capital", while indicating that he is quite aware that the theory is untrue at lower levels of abstraction. This has led to all sorts of arguments over what both David Ricardo and Karl Marx "really meant". Nevertheless, it seems undeniable that all the major classical economics and Marx explicitly rejected the labor theory of price (Gordon, Donald, F. What Was the Labor Theory of Value? American Economic Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Seventy-first Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1959), pp. 462-472

154.5.39.80 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a source of endless confusion on both sides. Marx, Smith etc were quite clear that price fluctuated, but at the same time they did not claim "value" was unrelated to price - if they did what on earth is its meaning???--Jack Upland 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but they were quite clear that price and value were separate things. Hence the endless misnomer surrounding antiques and paintings in these sorts of debates - someone can pay any price for anything - there's no discernable law which will necessarilly explain all prices, but values can - I suppose the main debate is whether value determines or over-determines price.--Red Deathy 08:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the main debate is between those who put forward a straw man, those who in response refuse to put forward anything, and me.--Jack Upland 10:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the LTV explains value (the cost of production in terms of labour time) not price. The difference between price (what an item sells for at market) & value (the item's cost of production) was termed Economic Rent, income derived not from work but from privilege. If rewarding privilege was the essence of Feudalism, rewarding work was that of Capitalism. The Classical Economists were economic reformers who wanted to free Capitalism from the last vestiges of Feudalism. 24.36.14.161 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Absence of John Locke
Wasn't Locke one of the first and most important (if not THE) to espouse the labour theory of value? Could somebody put his ideas in the page please?  Wik idea  16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Locke's theory is essentially the labor theory of property (as has been discussed before).--Jack Upland 10:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is patently false. See sections 40 through 45 of John Locke's Second Treatise. John Locke makes a direct connection between the ability of labor to demarcate property and the ability of labor to increase value. The distinction between labor theory of value and labor theory of property is unnecessary. Freshfroot (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Value and property are different things. But if you have a citation that relates to the LTV, why not put it in the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

PS I think I get it now. Like Hobbes, Locke's explanation for society is based on not history, but an imaginative recreation of a "state of nature", what Marx called a Robinsonade. In this context, Locke describes the differences between haves and have-nots, between the propertied and the propertyless, as being because the people with property (or their ancestors) had worked harder. The feudal system vanishes in a puff of abstract logic. Social analysis becomes a sermon about the virtue of a hard work. Work therefore becomes the criterion for ownership of property. And this connects with the possession of the Americas etc, where the dispossession of the natives is justified by their lack of working the land. See terra nullius. I think this can be justifiably called a LTP. However, as it is designed to explain and excuse differences in wealth distribution, it necessarily follows that it is a LTV as well. I apologise for not seeing this sooner. But in my defence can I say I have never prevented someone else from mentioning Locke!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

unclear and ungainly style confuses us...
For an article that's been floating around so long and caused so much discussion, it is surprisingly badly written, with an ugly and prolix style.

This, for example, is bound to bewilder:

"Contrary to popular belief,[25] Marx does not base his LTV on what he dismisses as 'ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor', arguing in the Critique of the Gotha Program that:..."

Can someone go thru this, I am not sufficiently expert in the field.Myles325a (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tried to improve this sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
I think that any material in the article without a citation should be deleted. Any comments?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me; unsourced content is a problem - although a bigger problem would be undue weight, selective use of sources &c. bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

factors of production
"and not to other factors of production (except as those elements can be regarded as embodied labour0" Marxist theory of value includes the factors of production.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:8100:46B9:E382:4895 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's just badly worded. Any suggested improvement?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Marxist labor theory of value has been criticised on several counts..."
Shouldn't it really be "The Ricardian labor theory of value..."? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Labor theory of value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/neoric.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/utopia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123103313/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA3
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5v8wrbTrn?url=http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html to http://www.mutualist.org/id112.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202615/http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm to http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labor theory of value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315000327/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315000327/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Rainer Lippert, 10.03.2018; 19.06.2018 The usual interpretation of labor theory of value is wrong. The alleged value for a commodity is calculated with W = c + v + s, W = constant capital + variable capital + surplus value. This calculation is applied to the production side of the goods economic society. But there is no real surplus value on the production side. On the production side costs are initially incurred. The customer later pays the surplus value on the market, but only if he assesses the work results formed the commodity as sufficiently good. This means that only an 'expected surplus value' can be included in the calculation. As a result, there cannot be a real labor value on the production side, only an 'expected value' including the expectation that the customer will replace c + v can be there: W | expected = c|replacement expected + v|replacement expected + s|expected. The real labor value w = c + v + s is only formed on the market - as a social relationship between the customer and the provider, because only there the real surplus value is paid, only there the customer replaces the values for c and v, also parts of the value W. The realized surplus value the customer pays may deviates from the expected surplus value and consequently the real labor value would deviates with it. The reason why the value calculation is misplaced is based on the fact that the work is considered to be directly labor value forming. But the work does not directly create value. Work can only create conditions for possible value relationships between people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainerLiBln (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

LTV Not Normative
It is silly to say in the first sentence of the article that the LTV is normative. You could make an argument that it is in Locke and some of the Ricardian socialists. But it is certainly not normative in Ricardo, the best theoretician of the classical economists. 128.132.1.133 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, most of the article does not deal with a normative/moral concept, so this is highly misleading. I've changed the lead back to what it was in January.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This page needs some serious work
There are a lot of confusing non-idiomatic phrases ("Distinctions of economically pertinent labor", e.g.) that need cleaning up. I also have no idea what the last section is trying to say; it contains no citations from anyone who matters in Marxian economics. This page and the criticisms page both need attention from a qualified expert (I will work on this slowly over time if no one else can). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed citation claims on the Keen-Bichler/Nitzan sources, since this is what the source claims, so asking for a citation is a bit weird since the source is what is being cited for the claim - Nitzan and Bichler cite the studies in the source. To avoid confusion, I have edited the paragraph to make clear that these are the claims of the sources, not absolute, indisputable facts on Marx (I have thus also mentioned Moseley's claims on Marx as well, for the same reason). I have also removed Zusammenbruch's own edits involving Capital - with all due respect to Zusammenbruch, this looks more like an original argument composed by Zusammenbruch using Marx as a source to criticise Keen-Bichler/Nitzan, rather than an actual sourced response to Keen-Bichler/Nitzan that uses Marx as its own separate source. Zusaamenbruch has stated that they have done professional work on Marx, so if they want to cite some of their own material on this that would be excellent. Alternatively, find sources which do (I did once read a criticism of Keen that claimed Keen's argument is really about providing a proof but that doesn't matter since the LTV, and the rest of economic theory for the record, are dependent upon their relation to reality for evidence, rather than mathematical proofs like you get in maths. Asking for a proof was, in that author's view, irrelevant) but it was a blog so it can't be cited. I have left the criticism of Keen but requested a citation, if anyone has it.Sdio7 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to say "some studies" without saying who, though. Otherwise, the reader cannot easily--without tracking down the Nitzan and Bichler and finding their citations--get to know the original argument, not that I think these kinds of studies understand Marx's point adequately. I don't know what the Wikipédia rules for this are, but I don't think it is fair to include Nitzan and Bichler and not let someone cite Marx himself *anticipating and rebutting this kind of argument in advance*. I don't have the time to track down all rebuttals to them, and it surely must be worth noting that Marx anticipates and rejects this kind of criticism in advance?? Marx was criticizing precisely this kind of Ricardian understanding in the first place--do I have to actually find an article that cites Nitzan and Bichler in order to make this point? It's not original research of mine. I could add a source from, say, Michael Heinrich making this point *generally* Zusammenbruch (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2019
 * I see what you mean now and I think you have a point. The Bichler-Nitzan source does claim sources but I get your concerns and now think it should mentioned - perhaps have source or note that says something like "Bichler and Nitzan cite Paper X Paper Y Paper Z etc as examples of such studies" and citations of the studies. I'll do this myself in a bit unless you want to go ahead and just mention the studies they cite yourself of course.
 * On the subject of citing Marx - the issue is, as I understand it, Wikipedia doesn't like people to construct arguments using sources, even if well argued, but prefers people to summarise sources. So even if you're argument is completely valid (and to be clear I'm not saying it isn't) it may possibly fall afoul of this. I've seen this happen in the past. I suppose, to be fair, if it seems Bichler and Nitzan have misunderstood Marx then allowing a source to his claims isn't a bad idea (a big issue with Marx is understanding him, hence why his ideas are often so contentious) but my concern is that it would be you summarising Marx's arguments to argue against Bichler-Nitzan rather than a source, which would fall afoul of the "Do not interpret primary source material" rule. I also sympathise with your point that trying to find a different rebuttal to every single point is way too tedious. That said, plenty of pages trying to describe Marx do often just go ahead and cite Capital. In fact I would argue Wikipedia needs more of that (a lot of stuff from Capital isn't cited as such) and the only way around this would be to find some book that discusses every single bit of Capital. Now that I think about, I have just cited Capital in the past because I saw claims on Marx which I knew were true but they weren't referenced. In addition, the rules on primary sources are more forgiving, as far as I can tell, if you're just summarising what it says and avoiding trying to interpret it. This is difficult because summaries will contain your own understanding but I think you should be ok, especially if Marx was predicting criticisms (and it would be up to the reader to decide if he was right or not anyway). Maybe always provide a hyperlink to Marx's online works if possible so people can very easily check, that should help avoid running afoul of rules and just make really clear it's what Marx says, not what you're saying. So just include "Marx says" a lot I guess.
 * Tell you what - I think you've convinced me of your PoV, so I'll say that if you want to cite Marx because you think he has preempted the criticism, I won't remove them. It at least gives the reader knowledge of what Marx said and they can decide for themselves if the criticism is misplaced or not, whereas not referencing Marx could be misleading. If a moderator comes along and tells says it's breaching Wiki rules, then that'll be that, but until said so, I think I'll be ok with it. That said, if a secondary source is found that basically repeats Marx's point, it would be wise to go and swap a reference for Marx to a reference for that one just to make sure.
 * Cheers for the correction on Moseley by the way. Sdio7 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient reply. I'm sorry that I was fairly sharp in replying. I actually did find a fairly good critique of Keen in, of all places, Dave Beech's book on the critique of political economy and the fine art world. I also found a text on Marx's accounting that will allow for a cited/sourced reply to Keen (Robert Bryer's recent book has some material on this controversy. I appreciate your reply; I am an expert on several things, but Wikipedia rules are not one of them. I take it for granted that you know the rules and are simply transmitting them to me, but I'm surprised that Wikipedia works that way. Maybe it's the least of all evils, but it seems like it opens itself up to a certain amount of bad behavior that way: there are zillions of academic journals and publishing houses out there--it's not hard to find (or even yourself publish) some very sloppy critique of someone who has a big corpus and to then say "well nobody's responded to it". I know that the criticism you're putting in is much more than simply some rando finding outlandish stuff, just saying that the rules would seem to allow for that sort of thing.

Thanks for your reply and your helpful information about how to best follow Wikipedia rules. I think I have a better understanding and will be able to contribute more effectively in the future. I'll put in the two sources that I've just mentioned. Zusammenbruch (talk) 29 July 2019
 * No problem, the response was fine. As for the Wikipedia rules, they seem to be like this because the site is supposed to be an encyclopedia that just reports what sources say (someone put it to me "if all the sources said the sky was red, not blue, well Wikipedia would have to say the sky was red). This can lead to daft articles at times but that's how it is, otherwise you run the risk people will turn Wikipedia pages into their own personal arguments, which could very easily lead to the articles being biased. So as you say it's the lesser of two evils. However, this has to be weighed against the fact that one needs to cite primary sources in cases like a story where you have to provide a synopsis, so the compromise is to limit your own interpretation. As I said, provided you're just citing Marx and making clear it's what he says, you should probably be fine. I mean loads of articles reporting what Marx said don't even have citations (for some reason, I think standards were laxer years ago) or didn't for several years but they don't get taken down, so I fail to see why citing Marx should be a problem except in certain circumstances.
 * Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to be of help and I hope you your time as an editor on Wikipedia goes well.Sdio7 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding reference to current statistics
I am the creator of a website, https://worktime.live, that aims to re-introduce the public to the labor-time notion of economic value by reference to current macroeconomic metrics. I request that someone familiar with this wikipedia page consider the website for inclusion in an "External links" section or similar. Perhaps a short note near the text "empirical data inherent in quantitative analysis", that refers to this resource, is also warranted.

Obviously I should not make such an edit myself.

Jimmymath (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

cite introduction
Can we get a citation on the opening paragraph? the actual contents of the theory seem like the most important part of the page, weird that there's no citation. 35.24.208.171 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please suggest one, but the body of the article supports the opening sentence and is amply cited. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)