Posted by Mountain on December 08, 19102 at 07:08:20:
The question about my labor value theory is shown.
First, it quotes from two books which have been written about the labor value theory and which were generally known well.
Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations
IN that early and rude state of society which precedes both
the aculation of stock and the appropriation of land, the
proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for
acquiring different objects seems to be the only cirstance
which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If
among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice
the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one
beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer. It is
natural that what is usually the produce of two days' or two
hours' labour, should be worth double of what is usually the
produce of one day's or one hour's labour.
Now, Adam Smith advanced the comparative advantage theory as explanation of exchange.
"Correction of principle-Marx economics criticism and modern economics of economics" Kaneko Hajime Bunshindo Co., Ltd. 1995 It quotes from P112.
People connect a certain exchange relation because the direction which participates in exchange is profit rather than self-sufficient. If the profits of this exchange are related with labor, they are
" If it tries to make the useful thing of a certain personally, it will purchase with the products of himself's far more nearly little than the amount's of labor which was probably spent labor." a certain useful thing, as Smith's stated. That is, in order to perform exchange, all participants have to shorten their labor. In other words, you have to obtain the profits of obtaining the useful thing of many in one's same working hours.
Verify a labor value theory with the view of this comparative advantage.
The goods with which two constituents of the simplest society are produced should consider the model two.
The capture time of the beaver and deer of Mr. A and Mr. B is umed as follows.
Mr. A One beaver 2 hours One deer 1 hour
Mr. B One beaver 16 hours One deer 2 hours
1. Exchange by Comparative Advantage Theory
If Mr. B supplies a deer in the larger range fewer than 8 than 2 to Mr. A supplying a beaver one time, it will be the convertible ratio which both sides get profits and carries out appropriate to a comparative advantage theory.
As an example, I will consider the case where it is exchanged in Mr. A's beaver 1, and Mr. B's deer 4.
Time at the time of being self-sufficient in the thing exchanged and got (it is henceforth written as self-sufficiency) 4 hours
Time which exchange took capturing the thing ped to the partner (it is henceforth written as exchange) 2 hours
Loss of the working hours after exchange (self-sufficiency-exchange) +2 hours
Self-sufficiency 16 hours Exchange 8 hours Loss of the working hours after exchange +8 hours
Therefore, in this example, Mr. [ Mr. A and / B / both ] are shortening working hours.
2. Exchange by Labor Value Theory
In this case, the case where the ratio of the amount of labor and the convertible ratio of goods which were dropped by production of goods are in agreement is applied to exchange by the labor value theory.
When exchanged in Mr. A's beaver 1, and Mr. B's deer 1.
In this exchange, both the working hours of Mr. A and Mr. B are 2 hours, and the worth of a thing of being exchanged is the same.
Self-sufficiency 1 hour Exchange 2 hours Loss of the working hours after exchange -1 hour
Self-sufficiency 16 hours Exchange 2 hours Loss of the working hours after exchange +14 hours
Mr. A cannot shorten working hours and the exchange by the labor value theory of 2 cannot be called example of exchange which carries out appropriate to a comparative advantage theory.
In this model, it turns out that exchange by the labor value theory is not necessarily settled in the range of a comparative advantage theory which carries out appropriate.
Thus, a labor value theory is not materialized like a kind of faith in actual economy.
Post a Followup