Will read each post soon. I myself was confused as to how profit could be viewed as a "wage" when the asymmetry in private property (ownership) is present. I guess I became confused because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sigh, you've clearly been dealing with these arguments for some time.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant I was initially confused on reading the arguments in the comments section of the heteconomist post on the labour theory of value. Your responses have been quite clear in their expression to be fair.
I understand your use of irony here as a response to what I believe is the attempted redefinition of "wages and profit" by some to suit their own ideological agenda.
As for your "bitterness", as I said, I don't know for how long you've had to contend with such debates. So I cannot make a judgement other to say, I personally find no offence with it, so no need to apologise.
Oh and thanks for revealing yet another source of information, that blog is great. The initial "musings on the labour theory of value" explained what I was myself wondered for some time without being able to formulate a nice articulate structure for my logic.
Anyway. Ciao
Extra: I've been commenting anonymously using D.K. up to now however using my google account is much more fluid. So you can reply to me as D.K. or Deniz or whatever. I don't mind.
Magpie.
ReplyDeleteWill read each post soon. I myself was confused as to how profit could be viewed as a "wage" when the asymmetry in private property (ownership) is present. I guess I became confused because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Sigh, you've clearly been dealing with these arguments for some time.
Kind Regards
D.K.
@D.K.
DeleteYou're not confused, my friend. I'm being ironic and bitter.
@D.K.
DeleteBy the way, apologies for that bitterness. I should not subject my readers to that.
@ Magpie
ReplyDeleteSorry, I should have been more clear. I meant I was initially confused on reading the arguments in the comments section of the heteconomist post on the labour theory of value. Your responses have been quite clear in their expression to be fair.
I understand your use of irony here as a response to what I believe is the attempted redefinition of "wages and profit" by some to suit their own ideological agenda.
As for your "bitterness", as I said, I don't know for how long you've had to contend with such debates. So I cannot make a judgement other to say, I personally find no offence with it, so no need to apologise.
Oh and thanks for revealing yet another source of information, that blog is great. The initial "musings on the labour theory of value" explained what I was myself wondered for some time without being able to formulate a nice articulate structure for my logic.
Anyway.
Ciao
Extra: I've been commenting anonymously using D.K. up to now however using my google account is much more fluid. So you can reply to me as D.K. or Deniz or whatever. I don't mind.