tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post4928059099239566762..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING -- PART EIGHTRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-5664333294820480582013-03-04T07:57:52.852-05:002013-03-04T07:57:52.852-05:00Great line from Upton SinclairGreat line from Upton SinclairRobert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-71930773303895013862013-03-04T03:43:08.864-05:002013-03-04T03:43:08.864-05:00Brilliant exposition!
"This may strike the r...Brilliant exposition!<br /><br />"This may strike the readers of this blog as obvious, but try telling that to Thomas Friedman!"<br /><br />As journalist Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-29441567981075277452013-02-11T02:07:58.221-05:002013-02-11T02:07:58.221-05:00The notion of exploitation, as you have demonstrat...The notion of exploitation, as you have demonstrated,seems so obvious that it is depressing to me that people like Friedman (and Krugman) will adopt frameworks that deny the surplus altogether. Seems dishonest and convenient. More puzzling to me, however, is why economists, who wish to see capitalism and markets overthrown in favor of some version of a democratic economy and planning, will say that Marx's labor theory of value doesn't add up mathematically. My haunch is that they are making a distinction between the notion of exploitation, as you have described it (which they would accept), and the labor theory of value writ large, that is, as an explanation of all value.Jerry Fresiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01427077490696059928noreply@blogger.com