Misplaced Pages

Labor theory of value: Revision history

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
View logs for this page (view filter log)
Filter revisionsshowhide
External tools:

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

29 August 2019

  • curprev 13:2813:28, 29 August 2019 JesseRafe talk contribs 65,533 bytes +416 Reverted to revision 910481113 by Concus Cretus: Revert, inadequate explanation for removal of properly sourced material, please discuss on talk page, or literally "re-write" what you think it ought to say rather than delete (TW) undo Tag: Undo

28 August 2019

  • curprev 20:0820:08, 28 August 2019 2601:646:103:8f49:bc81:bb0d:b1a1:2494 talk 65,117 bytes −416 Price (ie exchange value) is distinct from a theory of value, and supply and demand still determine price under the labor theory of value. The claim is therefore not meaningful; it is essentially claiming that humans have moved on from value as a concept outside economic transactions at all. This is likely to confuse an already confusing topic with multiple types of value. I don’t really know how this editing thing works so I just removed the bad writing. If reverting please fix phrasing to... undo Tags: references removed Mobile edit Mobile web edit

12 August 2019

29 July 2019

28 July 2019

  • curprev 23:3923:39, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 64,522 bytes +762 Added some of the studies Bichler-Nitzan reference, I didn't include all of the studies they reference but I don't think that's necessary, since it gives the reader an example of some of the literature B-N are talking about. undo
  • curprev 23:2323:23, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 63,760 bytes −3 Criticisms: The Hansen cite is good but I've shifted Hansen's criticism to the end point along with Moseley, I think it would make more sense to put the counter-criticisms of Bichler-Nitzen together. In addition, Moseley is a good example of a Marxist economist who thinks B-N is wrong, so it provides an immediate example for the Hansen work.. undo
  • curprev 22:4822:48, 28 July 2019 Zusammenbruch talk contribs 63,763 bytes +642 I found a source I had offhand which made the exact point I made earlier but which directly replies to Nitzan and Bichler (BR Hansen) undo
  • curprev 22:4322:43, 28 July 2019 Zusammenbruch talk contribs 63,121 bytes −228 Clarified what Moseley says; the previous revision slightly mis-states his point and my original point could have been clearer. undo
  • curprev 21:1121:11, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 63,349 bytes +140 Criticisms: Clarified Moseley comment (since I moved it to avoid point-clashing, the meaning could be very easily confused, so I've clarified what Moseley was criticising. undo
  • curprev 20:3620:36, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 63,209 bytes +109 Criticisms: Clarified Keen statement from Zusammenbruch's edit criticsm. I used the wrong words ("wearing out" should really mean "depreciating", not completely "wearing out to uselessness", but Zusammenbruch is right that this sentence is just nonsensical when worded like that). undo
  • curprev 20:3020:30, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 63,100 bytes −370 Removed Marx claim - Marx was dead before Keen wrote this so it would appear this is an editor argument using Marx. Another author criticising Keen for this would be better. undo
  • curprev 20:2420:24, 28 July 2019 Sdio7 talk contribs 63,470 bytes −296 Criticisms: Removed citation/weasel words (this is taken from the source and wiki is supposed to report source claims and this is what the source claims). Removed Marx's responses since Marx was dead before they were written so this is an editor's response using Marx as source (if editors have a source that uses Marx, then definitely put that in). Clarified Moseley sources to explain this is Moseley's claim of Marx's arguments. If have issues, take to talk page, I will set up section. undo
  • curprev 06:1706:17, 28 July 2019 AnomieBOT talk contribs m 63,766 bytes +60 Dating maintenance tags: {{Citation needed}} {{Dubious}} undo
  • curprev 04:1604:16, 28 July 2019 Zusammenbruch talk contribs 63,706 bytes −2,028 I removed contentious language suggesting that the theory is "wrong", rather than, like all science, disputed/debated. I also don't know that this very lengthy section citing fairly obscure authors (I have written a thesis on this topic and read very widely and never encountered these authors) should be in here. I would press for full deletion, but for now, I simply removed the massive blockquote and the very informal/personalistic conclusion. undo
  • curprev 04:1104:11, 28 July 2019 Zusammenbruch talk contribs 65,734 bytes +189 Added relevant counter-arguments to Keen which were missing and deleted some unsourced claims. Fixed some awful grammar, too. Notably, I deleted this "However Keen argues that the usefulness (use-value) of the machine does not necessarily depreciate at the same rate - why a machine wearing out should mean it isn't useful is unclear". It's by definition true that if a machine wears out, it is no longer usable. That's just what the words mean. This argument is too nonsensical to have been rebutted undo
  • curprev 03:5603:56, 28 July 2019 Zusammenbruch talk contribs 65,545 bytes +1,067 "Some studies" is too vague. I tagged this with citations needed and fixed a number of grammatical mistakes. I also added material clarifying that Bichler and Nitzan accidentally stumble onto precisely Marx's point, that prices reflect cost prices plus the average rate of profit, not values. undo

27 July 2019

20 July 2019

  • curprev 17:4317:43, 20 July 2019 CrypticIndividual1000 talk contribs 60,265 bytes −94 I got rid of the part which said ", rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it (demand) and its scarcity (supply)." Whoever wrote this obviously doesn't understand the difference between a product's market price and its equilibrium price. undo

16 July 2019

15 July 2019

12 July 2019

9 July 2019

8 July 2019

  • curprev 11:5911:59, 8 July 2019 194.177.192.1 talk 58,299 bytes +114 LTV, as defined in the very first sentence of this article, contradicts the definitions given by Smith and Ricardo. Specifically, "socially necessary labor" or "abstract labor" is a purely Marxian conception. undo Tag: Visual edit

26 June 2019

25 June 2019

17 June 2019

15 June 2019

13 June 2019

  • curprev 21:0121:01, 13 June 2019 JesseRafe talk contribs 57,932 bytes +145 Reverted to revision 898181565 by 129.7.106.20 (talk): OK, that's not contradicted by the material you deleted (TW) undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 19:0419:04, 13 June 2019 47.200.26.187 talk 57,787 bytes −145 The labor theory of value has nothing to do with price, It is not the labor theory of "Price". This edit about supply and demand has nothing to do with the labor theory of value and does not belong here. Supply and Demand disproving the labor theory of value have absolutely nothing to do with one another and one can not be used to "disprove" the other. It is not the labor theory of "Price". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flFyaguUqIo undo

21 May 2019

(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Labor theory of value: Revision history Add topic