Making something artificially scarce. Like access to books, AI or oil fields, or taxi licenses, or real estate.
But that doesn’t invalidate everything Marx said about labor, it just adds to it.
Note I’m not an economist.
Supply side economics is also proved to be incomplete and it’s still the only way central banks try to stimulate the economy, by flooding the market with cheap money in the hopes capitalists grab it and use to produce more things. Sometimes they just put into their Cayman accounts, and central banks just doubles down.
Marx already spoke about artificial scarcity and rent, though. None of that invalidates Marx’s critique, they are already accounted for. I think the other user is mixing up Marx’s Law of Value with Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value.
In what manner is Marx’s Law of Value wrong?
There are ways value is created that are absent of labor and Marxist economists have to go to extremes to justify the labor basis of the value. l
Can you provide an example?
Making something artificially scarce. Like access to books, AI or oil fields, or taxi licenses, or real estate.
But that doesn’t invalidate everything Marx said about labor, it just adds to it.
Note I’m not an economist.
Supply side economics is also proved to be incomplete and it’s still the only way central banks try to stimulate the economy, by flooding the market with cheap money in the hopes capitalists grab it and use to produce more things. Sometimes they just put into their Cayman accounts, and central banks just doubles down.
Marx already spoke about artificial scarcity and rent, though. None of that invalidates Marx’s critique, they are already accounted for. I think the other user is mixing up Marx’s Law of Value with Adam Smith’s Labor Theory of Value.