Some time ago, in a Facebook argument, I encountered someone who repeated the old “exchange of unequals” argument (i.e., that people never exchange equivalents because each party values what they got more than what they traded for it). I responded that this argument confuses exchange value with use value and that, regardless of subjective valuation,...
CMV: The labor theory of value is flawed
72 votes, 407 comments. This might be an obscure topic, however, in some—largely Marxist circles— the approach seems to motivate much of the dialogue…
On the Impact of the Utility in Semivalue-based Data Valuation
Semivalue–based data valuation uses cooperative‐game theory intuitions to assign each data point a value reflecting its contribution to a downstream task. Still, those values depend on the...
value noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
Definition of value noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.
Value engineering
Value engineering (VE) is a systematic analysis of the functions of various components and materials to lower the cost of goods, products and services with a tolerable loss of performance or functionality. Value, as defined, is the ratio of function to cost. Value can therefore be manipulated by either improving the function or reducing the cost. It is a primary tenet of value engineering that basic functions be preserved and not be reduced as a consequence of pursuing value improvements. The term "value management" is sometimes used as a synonym of "value engineering", and both promote the planning and delivery of projects with improved performance.
Labor-Value Commodity Chains: The Hidden Abode of Global Production - Monthly Review
Intan Suwandi is a frequent contributor to Monthly Review. This article is adapted from her book, Value Chains: The New Economic Imperialism, winner of the 2018 Paul M. Sweezy-Paul A.... READ MORE
The Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution : A Critical History
The Marginal Productivity Theory of Distribution (MPTD) claims that in a free-market economy the demand for a factor of production will depend upon its marginal product – where "marginal product" is defined as the change in total product that is caused by, or that follows, the addition or subtraction of the marginal unit of the factor used in the production process, with all other inputs held constant. From its inception in the early nineteenth century the MPTD has been claimed by some economists to be a solution to the ethical problem of distributive justice, i.e. to be a means of determining fairness in wages, profits, interest and rent. Other economists have rejected this ethical claim, but have seen the MPTD as a valid demand-side criterion in the determination of equilibrium and efficiency. This book argues that the MPTD is valid, neither as a normative theory of social justice, nor as a positive law of economics. It suggests that economics is yet to develop a satisfactory theory of distribution that is scientific in the quantitative or mathematical sense. Through a survey of the origin and subsequent evolution of the MPTD in the writings of over 50 contributors over 150 years, John Pullen presents a critical history of the concept. The book begins by examining the conceptual tools that have been deployed to facilitate this analysis of past contributions to the MPTD and then looks at various economists and their contribution to the debate including its supporters such as Wicksteed, Marshall, Wicksell and Stigler, and its critics such as Pareto, Hobson, Edgeworth, Adriance and Cassel.
Pain of Paying? — A Metaphor Gone Literal: Evidence from Neural and Behavioral Science
How do individuals consider the price of a good when making purchase decisions? Standard economic theories assume an analytical process: Individuals consider th
Tradeoffs: The Currency of Decision Making
The disregard of tradeoffs and opportunity costs play out in the same pattern again and again in our lives. Every decision we make carries an opportunity cost. If we don’t budget wisely, we end up wasting time and energy on things that don’t matter. Here’s how to do it right.
Power: A Primer for Perplexed Economists
Let's Assume an Unfettered Marketplace of Ideas! Or Actually, Let's Not.
Store Of Value vs Payment System - AVC
One of the debates that has raged inside and outside of the Bitcoin community since I got involved back in 2012 is whether Bitcoin was a store of value vs a means of payment. When I first started buying and owning Bitcoin, I would use it as a means of payment all the time. I […]
Cognitive Capitalism - Public Seminar
There are broadly three ways of thinking historically about capitalism. One draws on Marx’s value theory and pretty much treats...Read More
Valuing What Counts: Framework to Progress Beyond Gross Domestic Product: Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 4
The marketplace of rationalizations
Recent work in economics has rediscovered the importance of belief-based utility for understanding human behaviour. Belief ‘choice’ is subject to an important constraint, however: people can only bring themselves to believe things for which they can find rationalizations. When preferences for similar beliefs are widespread, this constraint generates rationalization markets, social structures in which agents compete to produce rationalizations in exchange for money and social rewards. I explore the nature of such markets, I draw on political media to illustrate their characteristics and behaviour, and I highlight their implications for understanding motivated cognition and misinformation.
Three views on economic power
We investigate the concept of economic power in the three main paradigms of economic thinking in the 20th century: neoclassical, marxist and institutionalist. We propose a reconstruction, based on a new taxonomy, of the various forms of power conceptualized by each of them. In particular, we claim that the neoclassical paradigm contains a consistent although often implicit theory of power. We then show that many controversies between these paradigms were debates on power and that some shifts in mainstream economics in the 1970s and 1980s are a reaction to the criticisms leveled against the neoclassical conceptualization of power.