: Nice cut-and-paste work, but the part you left out indicated that determining "the underlying essence of value" wasn't usefull in real word economics.
: Perhaps YOU'D like to enlarge upon WHY (use-)value is NOT useful to 'real word economics.'
Don: I've never read Marx, but based upon our discussions so far I assume that use-value is similar to SVT. What I feel isn't usefull to real-world economics is the idea that labor creates value--"the underlying essence of value".
: In other words, TMU has no propaganda value for socialists and Marxists.
: Although the fact that it DOES have propaganda value FOR neoliberals and other assorted capitalist vampires doesn't seem to bother you in the least...
Don: Correct. But I'm convinced it is a useful theory, while LTV isn't (except for its propaganda value).
: The LTV has propaganda value, so we are going to stick with it . . .
: Well, Don, at least Joel explained WHY he believes what he believes---like SDF explained his beliefs, RD explained his, and I explained mine.
: How about you explaining YOURS?
Don: In fact, I like Joel's explanation. I'm not an economist, and I'm new to both the LTV and the STV. The STV seems to be a nice, simple, yet powerful theory. LTV seems to have only political value. I can't see any faults with the STV, but the fact that LTV needs all these special cases suggests weakness. So I believe what I believe based on a little libertarian reading and the debates we have had on this board.