> > > >Why? The question is, what work does this alleged quantity do? I agree >that > > >LTV talk is useful heuristic way to saying that there's exploitation. But >we > >can say that without LTV talk, that is, without denying that there are >other > >sources of value than labor or that SNALT does not provide a useful >measure > > >of a significant quantity. > >I would have thought that a more important reason for trying to hang onto >the LTV is that it embodies a fundamental egalitarian principle; if we >believe that my life is equally as valuable as your life, then an hour of >my >life must be worth the same as an hour of your life, and I think that this >ends up implying something like the LTV. > >
This confused. First of all, Marx adamantlt, savagely, and ruthlessly rejects egalitarianism and any appeal to to principles of justice. He is not an egalitarian. He also rejects justice as "shit." He mocks those who proceed from moralism to economics. His use of the LTV derives from the fact that it was the standard theory of his day, used by Smith, Ricardo, Mill, etc.; he used ita s Roemer uses Walrasian economics, it was jsut the place to start. It had no, zero, zip, moral implications. Neither has it any moral basis, since brutal inegalitarians like Ricardo embraced it. If you want the moral point, you don't need the LTV,a nd the idea that morally, an hour of my time is jsuta s importanta s an hour of yours, though defensible, perhaps, on Kantian grounds of justice, is without economic implications, or sociological ones either.jks _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
