> I don't know what Zerge means by "the more Marxist LTV". I would
> think Ricardo would be a more appropriate focus of the discussion
> here anyways.


Of course, Ricardo started it, but Marx is the one that gave it fame.

> But the topic was to relate the contrast between the labor theory of
> value and the subjective theory of value to the contrast between
> the labor theory of value and the classical theory of value.
> 
> It would seem that Zerge thinks, incorrectly, there are no other
> choices than a subjective theory of value and a labor theory of
> value. And he thinks the classical theory of value is something
> other than the labor theory of value.


No, I do not think so. There are dozens of theories of value, and you
could more or less classify them on a spectrum along the
subjective-objective value.
Nevertheless, the STV and LTV are the ones most commonly compared. And
maybe you are right, it is wrong to compare them as if there where only
two of them; I agree with you on that.

> The logical conclusion to draw from Zerge's premises is that he
> thinks that the Classical theory of value is a subjective theory
> of value.


No I do not. Quite the contrary. The classical tehory of value, as
exposed by Adam Smith, is the epitome of an OBJECTIVE theory of value.
If you check my equations, you would see that they represent pretty
much what Adam Smith said.

> Thus, he would argue that Ricardo, for example, either didn't have
> a theory of value or had a subjective theory of value, whether
> completely worked out or not.


And you reach this conclusion how, exactly? Sheesh.

> But I haven't seen him put anything forward on that topic, not
> even a reference to the literature. I happen to know that, in the
> literature, the relationship between subjective, or so-called
> neoclassical, theories of value and classical theories of value
> is contentious.


>> The labor theory of value I proved in the example above is
>> neoclassical 100%, but using modern techniques.

> If one wants a modern theory of value, one could look at:
> 
>    Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Savadori 1995. Theory of Production:
>    A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
> 
> Often those who explain this theory of value, think of it as
> consistent with an approach put forth by William Petty:
> 
>    "To express my self in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to
>    use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes,
>    as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that
>    depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites and Passions
>    of particular Men, to the Consideration of Others."
> 
> I realize that the textbook I mention above is advanced. The student
> needs a simplified version to introduce him or herself to this
> modern theory of value. I think the following, though equally
> rigorous, does not treat some of the advanced topics of the
> above textbook:
> 
>    Luigi L. Pasinetti 1977. Lectures on the Theory of Production,
>    Columbia University Press.
> 
> I realize that Pasinetti is still fairly advanced. An even simpler
> textbook presentation can be found in:
> 
>    Vivian Walsh and Harvey Gram 1980. Classical and Neoclassical
>    Theories of General Equilibrium: Historical Origins and
>    Mathematical Structure, Oxford University Press.

>>> The answer to the second question is "no".


>> Did you try to work through the equations at all?

> That seems to me to be a non-sequitur.
> 
> But I did note that Zerge's starting premise, that all income is
> wage income, rules out more developed classical theories of value.
> 
> Once again, Zerge has (again) refused to comment on this proposition.


To the statement " First you need a generally acceted definition of
value", this is what I said:

"We are talking about the value of goods. Let us assume that the only
way to obtain goods is to work, get paid, and buy the goods with the
money you earned.
Then the subjective value of a product is how many hours you are
willing to work to get that product."

Fine. If you remove the assumption that so offends you, then we have
that people also have wealth not obtained through labor, for example,
inherited wealth. Then the subjective value of a producto is how many
hours you are willing to work for it OR how many other products (or
"utilit" if it pleases you) you are willing to forfeit to buy that
product, with your inherited money.


>> Is there any part I could clarify for you?
>> The important points are these. First, the time of an economic
>> agent is
>> limited; it can produce either commodity A or commodity B, not both
>> at
>> the same time. Producing one causes the opportunity cost of not
>> producing the other one.

> I don't see what that has to do with the (false) Labor Theory of
> Value.


It proves that you can reach a price OBJECTIVELY, which our friend
smithaa thinks completely impossible. Smithaa is quite obviously a
proponent of a 100% subjective theory of value. What I propose is that
it is a combination: price bands are set objectively, and the price may
fluctuate subjectively, specially due to the lack of perfect
information.
Tell us, what is your position of theories of value?

>    "It is terrific to contemplate the abysmal gulf of incomprehension
>    that has opened between us and the classical economists. Only one
>    century separates us from them. (I say a century; but even 1/2
>    century after, in 1870, they did not understand it. And during the
>    preceding century an obscure process of 'disunderstanding' has
>    been going on.) How can we imagine to understand the Greeks and
>    the Romans? (Or rather, the extraordinary thing is that we DO
>    understand, since we find them perfect, Roman law and Greek
>    philosophy.) The classical economists said things which were
>    perfectly true, even according to our standards of truth: they
>    expressed them very clearly, in terse and unambiguous language,
>    as is proved by the fact that they perfectly understood each
>    other. We don't understand a word of what they said: has their
>    language been lost? Obviously not, as the English of Adam Smith
>    is what people talk today in this country. What has happened then?"
>       --Piero Sraffa