Talk:Surplus value/Archives/2016

Problems with article
1. This article seems to be missing a lot of citations and/or is the product of original research or synthesis. I'm going to mark the article up to indicate these deficiencies. Hydriotaphia (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reworked this article very substantially years ago, but before I had finished the job, all sorts of amateurs started messing with it, and I stopped working on it. It probably deserves a big overhaul now. A problem is that a lot of leftists feel very strongly about this concept and then they want to have their two-bits worth in the article, without really knowing much about the topic.Jurriaan (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Is the following idea right ? 'value added (when the sales revenue is less than the cost of materials used up).' What value is added when there is effectively a loss, since the sales revenue falls short of the cost of materials ? Should the wording be : 'value added (when the the cost of materials used up is less than the sales revenue)' ? If I have misunderstood, which is perfectly possible, perhaps the original wording could be clarified.

Criticism
This article is about a fringe theory rejected by most economists. Why is there no criticism section?--93.33.165.37 (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

first paragraph sucks
First paragraphs reads like someone making a presentation, not a book someone's supposed to read for high powered details. "simply?" please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCC4:2230:9C4:7B57:AD03:EE1B (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)