« The Tragedy of Elian | Main | Pennies from Heaven» Russell Roberts
June 17, 2008
True Progressivism
Don Boudreaux
According to today's Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama alleges that "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers." If this presidential wannabe is correct, then some of the world's most prosperous workers must be the people in that newly discovered tribe in Brazil -- persons with absolutely no contact with the global economy or with modern technology.
Less extreme cases, of course, include persons not so cut off from the world as these Brazilian tribes. Sub-Saharan Africans should be more prosperous than eastern Europeans, who, in turn, should be more prosperous than Americans and western Europeans.
Of course, if the facts don't follow this pattern, then I guess that Sen. Obama will soon publicly apologize for either misspeaking or admit that his thesis is flawed.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Myths and Fallacies, Standard of Living, Trade | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e55375e7e58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference True Progressivism:
Comments
Yeah, he's pretty much a clown. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that workers have been receiving a decreasing share of profits.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Workers receive wage and non-wage salary...while risk-taking entrepreneurs receive profits (or losses).
Surely he would complain if workers received economic losses in a venture in which they do not take the same risks as the entrepreneur mobilizing scarce resources.
Such is the pandering and economic illiteracy in politics.
Please Don, write something to the WSJ or other media outlet calling Obama out for the phony that he is.
Posted by: Overfloater | Jun 17, 2008 4:14:24 PM
Well, according to this (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121365641014879041.html?mod=Leader-US) interview, Mr. Obama says: "I'm a big believer in evidence. I'm a big believer in fact. You know, if somebody shows me we can do something better through a market mechanism, I'm happy to do it. I have no vested interest in expanding government or setting up a program just for the sake of setting one up."
Of course his stated policies appear to run contrary to facts and evidence, and also tend to be non-market solutions, and this might just be so much posturing to give the appearance of being intellectual, reasonable...a "different kind of politician".
We'll see. I'm from Missouri on this one.
Posted by: CRC | Jun 17, 2008 4:42:20 PM
that a politician would say that he has no vested interest in the political machinations of "government" is so horridly untrue that it would be laughable, were it not something that caused my peers to look starry-eyed at the man for saying.
Posted by: shawn | Jun 17, 2008 6:01:48 PM
I think you missed the more important line, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." I don't even know where to begin...
Posted by: Jason | Jun 17, 2008 6:14:15 PM
You guys have it all wrong. Obama said "workers" he meant "unions". He's a socialist so all "workers" either are in unions or they should be. And he is right, Globalization and technology have definately, spanked the unions, and thank the LORD for that.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 17, 2008 6:15:07 PM
I dunno Barack, the Indian women in this Bloomberg article (link below), wearing the first proper clothes of their lives, seem pretty darn happy about globalization...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=abyFj4i7kxmQ&refer=home
Posted by: Manny | Jun 17, 2008 6:34:48 PM
"I'm a big believer in evidence. I'm a big believer in fact...."
Oh, good Lord! When I read that I thought it was a parody taken right off peoplescube.com! Did Barack actually say all that with a straight face.
In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that workers have been receiving a decreasing share of profits.
Nice, eh? Karl Marx repackaged for the 21st century.
This guy is a disaster. I just hope that if he gets elected and he gets a dumbocrat congress too that they screw things up so badly that we get a massive backlash. And in this one endeavor, I have every confidence that the Obama and the dumbocrats are fully capable.
Posted by: Methinks | Jun 17, 2008 7:09:40 PM
Why would you read that and assume he is talking about absolute position in the world, rather than relative position in society. Which has more inequality, the newly discovered tribe or the US? Obama and many Americans put a positive weight on the wealth distribution, as well as on growth. Obviously, you don't, and you can argue that we shouldn't as well, but deliberate misinterpretation hurts your credibility.
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 17, 2008 7:31:25 PM
It is so selfish of Charlie to keep all that misery all to himself like he does.
Posted by: jpm | Jun 17, 2008 7:58:36 PM
There are legitimate beefs to be had with Barack Obama's economic policies, but that he doesn't like globalization or technology is not one of them. And it's silly, and frankly, intellectually bankrupt to cherry pick statements and take them out of context. I expect more out of you guys.
"There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off.
Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete – and succeed – in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people."
- Barack Obama, 05/16/2008
Posted by: semischolastic | Jun 17, 2008 8:05:44 PM
Surely, this board hasn't deteriorated to calling people liars by quoting them verbatim!
Posted by: jpm | Jun 17, 2008 8:26:01 PM
"Which has more inequality, the newly discovered tribe or the US?"
Who cares? The workers in the US almost certainly have a much better position in life than any member of that tribe, and it's thanks to things like "globalization and technology and automation". Don's point is perfectly germane.
Posted by: Geech | Jun 17, 2008 8:36:09 PM
Which has more inequality, the newly discovered tribe or the US?
Honestly, why should that matter?
The inequality we have in India currently is certainly higher than what we had in 1980. But no one here is going to argue that we were better off in 1980 than 2008.
I cannot help but think that the people who worry about inequality only do so out of sheer envy.
Posted by: raja_r | Jun 17, 2008 9:16:54 PM
I have to admit I don't get the link between Globalisation and Brazilian tribes. But still (as some have noted) union workers have inevitably priced themselves out of the market and others would say that the Welfare State helps illegal immigrants and automation. In a free market there'd be no job protection or unemployment compensation hence a long-term unemployed person would be as desperate as a Third-Worlder for work. Hence there'd always be a pool of homegrown cheap labour and no employers calling for 'illegal immigrants who'll do the jobs Westerners won't do'. After all a growing society has to be increasingly unequal - a great many people aren't good at wealth creation and someone with a net worth of $100 is going to be more unequal with a billionaire than a millionaire. Heck how much of the Third World isn't poor in a necessarily 'mystical sense' rather they just seem poor relative to modern society when, in fact, Third Worlders have the same standard of living that virtually everyone had 500 years ago?
Posted by: Gil | Jun 17, 2008 10:25:24 PM
"I have to admit I don't get the link between Globalisation and Brazilian tribes."
The point is that Obama blamed "globalization and technology and automation" for "weaken[ing] the position of workers". Don provided an example of workers who had suffered none of those things and were definitively worse off than those who had.
Once again, Don provided an example of people who were worse off *specifically* because they had no access to "globalization and technology and automation".
That's the link.
Posted by: Geech | Jun 17, 2008 10:38:38 PM
""Which has more inequality, the newly discovered tribe or the US?"
Who cares? The workers in the US almost certainly have a much better position in life than any member of that tribe, and it's thanks to things like "globalization and technology and automation". Don's point is perfectly germane."
I would rather live in America than the Brazilian tribe as well. Obviously, most people would. One would have to place a very, very high weight on equality and a low weight on absolute status to prefer living in the tribe.
Don Boudreax places zero weight on inequality. He does not care at all about it. That's fine. And it's fine to try to get people to prefer the same things you prefer. But some people do give positive weight to equality, and c'mon put your economic thinking caps on. Is it really surprising a low human capital worker wouldn't be happier in an economy more like those of western Europe that US? I mean pure unadulterated self interest explains a lot of the sentiment of factory workers.
I mean you can sit hear telling each other how smart you are, but any reasonable person realizes that there is a lot more to the argument that saying --Obama hates capitalism.
PS-Norway has a GDP per capita $10,000 higher than the US. I think a low human capital worker would much rather live there than the US.
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 18, 2008 12:06:28 AM
Charlie,
Equality of outcome in an environment of liberty is a utopian fantasy. If people are left alone to their own devices, there will be massive differences in outcome because there are massive differences in talent, resources and circumstances. If this fact alarms you, it is because you haven't thought it through. It is noble to empathize with those who are less wealthy than you. It is juvenile to try to seek power over the whole in order to rig the system so that outcomes are more equitable -- and palatable to you. It is also totalitarian. Not to mention that some of the high-fliers who get dragged down into mediocrity (by those who would make things more 'equal') may be prevented from creating value that those on the bottom of the ladder would benefit from. Take that filthy stinking rich Steve Jobs. He sure has an oversized share of the pie, doesn't he Charlie? Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it. Maybe he should be banned from working. After all, he's made his millions, right? He's got more money that he can spend, right? He really ought to change his ways and figure out how he can "give back" to society, shouldn't he. He's been cramming iPods, iPhone, iTunes, Macs and Pixar movies down our throats for years now, and it's time he quit doing that and figure out how to share more of his wealth with other people. Tell all the folks who get laid off (hourly tech support people, janitors, marketing people, engineers, sales people) that they just need to find someone less wealthy to work for. Tell them that they can all move to Norway -- wow, lots of demand for workers there I'll bet.
Good plan, Charlie. I'll even let you take credit for it. It's only fair.
Posted by: markwriter | Jun 18, 2008 12:42:43 AM
Charlie: "some people do give positive weight to equality"
Do you have any preschoolers, Charlie? They're pretty obsessed with fairness, aren't they. Think about it!!!
Posted by: markwriter | Jun 18, 2008 12:45:48 AM
"Is it really surprising a low human capital worker wouldn't be happier in an economy more like those of western Europe that US?"
It's not surprising, but, again, who cares?
It is still undeniably true that globalization, technology, and automation improve rather than damage the station of virtually all workers, especially in the long run. Obama was just wrong, as Don very succinctly demonstrated.
Posted by: Geech | Jun 18, 2008 12:56:56 AM
"PS-Norway has a GDP per capita $10,000 higher than the US. I think a low human capital worker would much rather live there than the US."
Think there's a little distortion in there from all that oil production spread across a small population? Since when is Norway the paragon of economic strength? Lies, damned lies, and statistics I say.
Posted by: Mace | Jun 18, 2008 1:31:28 AM
Nope don't really get it Geech. It's akin to someone who has their own water tank and doesn't rely on city water and doesn't know/care if a terrorist poisons the city water supply. I would regard the 'creative destruction' of Capitalism as a moral Utilitarian argument as we don't know if everyone was uniformly better off thanks to automation and/or Globalisation. Obama would be right - American workers are going to be worse off if their jobs can be outsourced to machines and Third Worlders. It won't make a difference to Brazilian tribes either way.
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 1:41:42 AM
It won't make a difference to the Brazilian tribes, Gil, because they're dirt-farmers on the verge of starvation with no knowledge of the world of which they're barely even a part.
Anyway, your economics are wrong as usual, Gil. You're correct that capitalism won't improve everyone's lot uniformly, but that doesn't mean that everyone won't benefit. You can still be better off even if you have a smaller piece of a larger pie.
However, it's far from obvious that a job lost to a third world country could not be replaced by a job of equal or greater pay. If the job can be moved to a third world country, an area of the world with little capital investment by definition, it probably wasn't all that productive or high paying.
Posted by: Geech | Jun 18, 2008 1:57:12 AM
Nor would the financial collapse of the U.S.A. wouldn't make much differencet to non-U.S.A. countries - they'll just find other countries with which to deal. The tribal people didn't look partcularly skinny and they wouldn't care if there Developed World lost all their oil and electricity and had to revert to tribal ways.
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 3:47:56 AM
and contrary to that, Gilduck would be thrilled!
"We don't support the terrorists but we support their mission"
Nancy Peloci
Posted by: jpm | Jun 18, 2008 7:40:32 AM
"PS-Norway has a GDP per capita $10,000 higher than the US. I think a low human capital worker would much rather live there than the US."
This comment doesn't bother me as much as it does some. You see the GDP per capita difference when comparing the US to just about any South American country is just about that same figure if not greater. So, if Charlie does like the South Americans, he'll flee to Norway the land of oppurtunity. And in essence allow people like the rest of us, to live a prosperous life with our HORRIBLE new technology and improved working conditions.
Posted by: Eduardo Prieto | Jun 18, 2008 9:19:04 AM
"Obama would be right - American workers are going to be worse off if their jobs can be outsourced to machines and Third Worlders."
Frederic Bastiat addressed this way of thinking and seeing the world in a piece entitled "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" (link below).
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
Posted by: Michael | Jun 18, 2008 9:36:41 AM
Gawd! Someone else quoting the F Bastiat 'broken window' story. X(
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 10:38:08 AM
Maybe it'd make some feel better if I put like this:
1. Outsourcing is bad for some in the short-term.
2. If some didn't recover in the long-term then that no one else's problem is it?
A better version of the broken window would be some sort of Economic Darwinism - survival of the profitable. The Survival of the Profitable ensure only best and brighest businesses survive and only new and adaptable can truly emerge from the primordial slime. Just as caged birds develop strange colour mutations that their wild ancestor didn't - so too in a 'mixed economy' various business models which wouldn't survive in truly free markets wouldn't last either.
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 10:44:18 AM
It isn't limited to outsourcing; domestic competition is bad for some in the short term as well, and not everyone will necessarily recover in the long term. It doesn't matter whether you're speaking of international, national or local comeptition -- there will always be some form of economic winners and losers.
Focusing on the relatively few economic losers in one course of action (outsourcing) while turning a blind eye to the economic losers that would result from not taking or disallowing that course of action does not change this fact; you merely shift the loss from the shoulders of your preferred group(s) to the shoulders of those you couldn't be troubled to consider.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 18, 2008 11:05:06 AM
"A better version of the broken window would be some sort of Economic Darwinism - survival of the profitable."
I don't think you have any idea what the broken window fallacy really means.
Posted by: Geech | Jun 18, 2008 11:06:12 AM
Michael:
"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."
"Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil."
I like both of those lines from the article you recommended. But I would disagree with the broken window approach to economics. This would mean that we would NEED others to do poorly when in reality that's not the case...
There's no such thing as a piece of a pie we are all fighting for. Rather we hope that the quality of life increases for all (though it will never happen at an equal pace), since the net effect would have a positive impact on our own life...
Posted by: Eduardo Prieto | Jun 18, 2008 11:23:35 AM
To add further information to the discussion about Norway's per capita income:
Norway has just over 4.5 million people and (if you can believe Wikipedia) is the world's third largest oil exporter, after Saudi Arabia and Russia.
And, just try to immigrate there. The Norwegians are too smart to let the rest of us in.
Posted by: Person of Choler | Jun 18, 2008 12:06:26 PM
And, just try to immigrate there. The Norwegians are too smart to let the rest of us in.
Indeed. Zero-sum societies really can't afford immigration.
Semischolastic,
That's a very nice quote and you happened to cherry pick a portion of a speech in which Obama does what politicians do best: Talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. The devil's in the details. HOW is he going to embrace the future? WHAT does he mean by "progress"? Etc. When you see quotes that are specific - like the ones you claim were cherry picked - the picture changes.
This reminds me of Bush constantly yapping about smaller, less intrusive government while never meeting a government spending bill or a bill that constrains freedom he didn't like.
I think our best bet is to split the kids up. One party gets the legislative branch and the other gets the executive. Seems to yield the best result.
Posted by: Methinks | Jun 18, 2008 12:40:11 PM
The only goal of an election campaign is victory. Successfully campaigning for office means tapping into whatever your prospective voters want to believe. It bears little relation to good public policy that takes into account the unforeseen future in addition to the visible present. So, it's not surprising what Obama tells people. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. Like all politicians, he will say whatever he needs to say and change it to fit each audience.
Posted by: thinker1776 | Jun 18, 2008 12:59:43 PM
Quote from Gil: "Just as caged birds develop strange colour mutations that their wild ancestor didn't ..."
Are you saying that caged birds develop new feather colors because of the cage?
Posted by: Keith | Jun 18, 2008 1:32:17 PM
Darwinism is good only so long as it [the theories] is [are] used to debate with a creationist. But when it comes to people and economic outcomes, Darwinism is bad, right Gil? Unless, of course, economic outcomes are actually distributed across national borders to the 'third worlders'...then it's also bad because it's not the kind of distribution that benefits Americans.
I tell you, Gil, it would be really nice if you could just pick one side of the fence and just stay on it.
Posted by: lowcountyjoe | Jun 18, 2008 2:26:21 PM
Guys, you are getting confused, it's really simple.
Obama said, "globalization and automation hurt the position of workers"
Boudreaux says the claim is false interpreting position to mean absolute position. I say the claim is correctly interpreted as relative position, and that it's true. I said taking an ambiguity and interpreting it in such a way that it's false undermines credibility. I take that part back a bit, because thinking back, I think Don just read it that way and probably has trouble reading it any other way. And if you follow the examples Don gave it follows perfectly that automation and globalization hurts the relative position of workers (though I'm not sure what the Gini's of Eastern Europe look like).
All I was pointing out that if you interpret the statement correctly it's true. And then, I even pointed out that just because it's true, it doesn't mean you have to be anti-automation. You can argue that equality should have little weight. Do you see how that is a valid argument? Whereas just misinterpreting someone is an invalid argument?
Lots of strawmen were thrown around here. I think one person said I wanted to grab totalitarian power and hated Steve Jobs. Bravo, sir. And many others just responded with, "we shouldn't care about inequality." That's a fine argument, but it doesn't respond to mine.
Also, just an aside, a lot of people hoped on the Globalization part of it. I know Globalization is a buzz word and a libertarian rally call, but that really shows your economic ignorance. Almost all of the gains in standard of living have come from automation (especially read more generally as technological change). Globalization is just a tinsy part of what makes us different from Brazilian tribes men. I'm surprised more people didn't recognize that.
Cheers,
Charlie
PS- I can think of two responses to my argument. 1. Obama did mean absolute position. 2. Globalization and automation doesn't hurt worker's relative position.
It's interesting no one went down the path of what is a worker. I think it goes to show, we all know he doesn't mean all workers, but rather just low human capital or as one poster said "blue-collar" workers.
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 18, 2008 3:07:52 PM
Wasn't it Marx that said a thing's value is equal to the amount of labor that goes into it. So, being more productive decreases value. Perfectly logical.....
Posted by: jorod | Jun 18, 2008 5:06:56 PM
Charlie,
"I think it goes to show, we all know he doesn't mean all workers, but rather just low human capital or as one poster said "blue-collar" workers.
Posted by: Charlie | Jun 18, 2008 3:07:52 PM"
That was a good post of ambiguities explaining ambiguities, but your finale draws this response from me:
Objection - no facts in evidence that Obama knows what he is talking about at any time, so any comment on the quote in debate must be from the basis of speculation, both yours and others.
If you can find and provide proof that Obama has a clue about economics, or how free markets (hell, any markets) work I'd love to see it, or listen to it.
Thank you very much.
Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 18, 2008 6:49:03 PM
Wasn't it Marx that said a thing's value is equal to the amount of labor that goes into it.
That was Adam Smith. He essentially said that you'll value a thing in proportion to your effort in acquiring it. Easy come, easy go. This isn't really so different from marginalism.
Marx also had a "labor theory of value", but he defined both "labor" and "value" differently, so the two aren't really comparable.
Increasing productivity typically lowers price in real terms. If it doesn't, I wonder how competitive markets are. In this sense, Marx wasn't so far from the mark.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 18, 2008 6:51:53 PM
Martin, you got it completely backwards. Marx's "embodied theory of labor" was exactly as quoted by him, not Smith. Adam Smith used the term "exchange", NOT labor. It's a big difference. The value of the item was different from the value paid. You can't equate "labor" for "price paid" and attribute it to Smith, but it was what the idiot liberal Marx did.
Wasn't Marx's middle name "Charlie"?
Seems likely
Posted by: jpm | Jun 18, 2008 8:01:22 PM
I know Globalization is a buzz word and a libertarian rally call, but that really shows your economic ignorance. Almost all of the gains in standard of living have come from automation (especially read more generally as technological change). Globalization is just a tinsy part of what makes us different from Brazilian tribes men. I'm surprised more people didn't recognize that.
Ignorance is bliss, eh, Charlie? I wonder what processes were involved that spurred on the automation; because it couldn't have been the competition, the specialization, and the need for improved communications that were unlocked and realized by the power of globalization.
Posted by: lowcountyjoe | Jun 18, 2008 10:02:07 PM
Speaking of true progressivism, here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5843550.html
is another example of the shit we are being fed and will be fed by the media.
Note Michelle Obama is going to undergo a "softening of image". This in no way should be taken to suggest that she is going to change in any way, still the radical black chick, but the media will now begin to hide that and only give you the "image" you are intended to see and hear.
Now you can expect to hear her quoted as saying, "I love honkies, some of my best friends are honkies." You'll feel warm and fuzzy all over.
Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 18, 2008 10:12:24 PM
I have to say that some comments to this post are more thought-provoking than the post itself. I am not sure Prof. Boudreaux is reading this, but I'd like to provide some constructive criticism. Russ Roberts usually posts motivated by some economic observation or analysis. Even if his beliefs can be somewhat inferred, he asks questions. I feel that too often Don Boudreaux posts indignations, with too little analysis and too much sneering. There are also excellent posts, with useful information and great insights, but tegarding this last comment. I think that criticizing Obama based on one piece of second-hand information is a waste of time. A single deed or statement does not capture the character of a politician.
I hope that in the future there will be fewer posts, but of greater quality.
Posted by: gappy | Jun 18, 2008 10:24:24 PM
Gappy,
Do you sincerely want us to take it that you are under the belief that every comment here was made regarding Obama based solely on the above quote revealing a sweeping ignorance not just one snippet of ignorance.
I suggest you revise your thinking, Gappy, I know I made my comment about Michelle and previous comments about Obama based on an accumulation of his statements, documentations of his beliefs and character in his own words, associations of his that would still exist except for the spotlight of public awareness, and ditto for his wife.
I suggest to you that every commenter here is as aware, or more so, than I am of who the man is and are not falling for the bullshit of the mesmerized media.
Like most politicians, but more so, Obama is at this stage a very one dimensional candidate for president, and his one dimension is being half black.
That sums it up.
There, Gappy, you just got an intelligent analysis and commentary.
Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 18, 2008 10:39:08 PM
I'd be tempted to suppose "who cares what an economist foresees in the long-term and short-term"? In a truly free market society 'intellectuals' wouldn't exist or at least have no authority as people would just do what they wanted without interference. Likewise what's the big deal with zero-summing providing it's consensual? I'm sure plenty of people live in a zero-sum economy where wealth is neither created nor destroyed merely re-circulated. I was saying via individualists' values if those who plan a business's future see it more profitable to outsource than they should do so without worrying about any feel-good "but about those who'd be hurt by this" because 'those' are not the managers' responsibility, period (I'm sure vidyohs and brotio would point this out).
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 10:58:14 PM
Martin, you got it completely backwards. Marx's "embodied theory of labor" was exactly as quoted by him, not Smith. Adam Smith used the term "exchange", NOT labor. It's a big difference. The value of the item was different from the value paid. You can't equate "labor" for "price paid" and attribute it to Smith, but it was what the idiot liberal Marx did.
"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."
and
"The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities."
Smith, Wealth of Nations
"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power."
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
Both in Wikipedia under "Labor theory of value".
Earlier, in Capital, Marx develops a labor theory of value, but he simultaneously discusses "use value" which he distinguishes from a good's value measured in labor inputs. Unlike Smith, Marx doesn't refer to the laborer's own valuation of his contribution but to some abstract "social utility" of the labor, so the Marxist valuation of labor is more like marginalist value, i.e. it's not the value the laborer places on his output but the value that others place on it.
That's at http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s23f99.htm.
Of course, Marx was a contemporary of the marginalists, and Hayek maintains that Marx was aware of them and altered his thinking in light of marginalism after writing Capital. That's in Wikipedia under Marginalism.
Posted by: Martin | Jun 18, 2008 10:58:49 PM
"Almost all of the gains in standard of living have come from automation (especially read more generally as technological change)."
Charlie, if that were the case, why are all the clothes in your closet and the consumer electronics in your home made in other countries?
And, by the way, OF COURSE YOU'RE A TOTALITARIAN, CHARLIE! How else do you get more of that 'equality' you're so keen on, huh? People either give away (redistribute) money voluntarily as charity, or they give money (redistribute) in exchange for something you give them (commerce), or... or... what's left, Chuck? How else are you going to take that money away from them (redistribute it) so you can have your 'equality' you're yearning for, huh? People who worry about equality, as I said in my other post, are reverting back to the childlike state, the one in which people obsess over 'equality'; i.e., whether they have as much money as the other guy. How much do you make a year, Chuck? You might make more than I do, and you know, if that's the case, I think a little equalization is in order. Wouldn't everyone agree? After all, Chuck won life's lottery, and I'm haven't done nearly as well as that rich fat cat Charlie. He needs to "give back," and he can start by giving something to me. I think equality is important. And if Charlie has more than I do, then equality is definitely something I'm interested in. After all, my position has been weakened by automation; it's all beyond my control. Dang robots, anyway. C3PO!!!
Posted by: markwriter | Jun 19, 2008 1:40:45 AM
Charlie said:
"Obama said, globalization and automation hurt the position of workers...Boudreaux says the claim is false interpreting position to mean absolute position. I say the claim is correctly interpreted as relative position, and that it's true."
Their relative positions have been hurt? Like, the peasants who used to be subsistence farmers who are now working in manufacturing facilities? They're hurting? Or the ones who used to assemble things by hand who are now running sophisticated machinery? They're hurting? Or the people in America who now work in offices at computers instead of in factories? They're hurting?
Wow, there sure is a lot of pain out there. It's good that righteous, morally insightful folks like Senator Obama are there to point it out to us.
Posted by: markwriter | Jun 19, 2008 1:55:08 AM
Gilduck,
"In a truly free market society 'intellectuals' wouldn't exist or at least have no authority as people would just do what they wanted without interference.
Posted by: Gil | Jun 18, 2008 10:58:14 PM"
I suppose the problem with your ever expressing clear intelligent thoughts is that you never seem to have any.
Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 19, 2008 6:09:43 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
