[OT] Re: Python training time (was)

[Alex Martelli]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:

> Jack Diederich <jack at performancedrivers.com> wrote previously:
> |Marx's labour theory of value tried to set an absolute scientific
> |standard
> |[Marx considered himself a scientist] by stating that something was worth
> |excatly the amount of _human_ labor put into it.  He hedged this a bit
> |by saying the most efficient amount of human labor
> 
> But understand the special meaning given to "hedge" here.  The
> caricature "labor theory of value" Diederich describes is indeed set out
> in the first few pages of _Poverty of Philosophy_ (and repeated in Ch
> 1-2 of _Capital_, volume 1).

...and in that form it's not very far from what Adam Smith
had proposed.  E.g., it misses the important correction [by
Ricardo] that for those productions where e.g. land or mines
are among the factors of productions, it's the *LEAST*
fertile/productive field or mine being worked that determines
value (the extra production / lesser amount of labor needed
in more-productive fields or mines is what becomes the RENT
of a given field or mine).  But, yes, this and many other
important corrective factors are covered elsewhere by Marx
(often, in language so ponderous it makes Ricardo's light
reading by comparison -- main exceptions being, I suspect,
those passages where Engels may have lent a hand;-).


Alex