User talk:Jack Upland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Carlot Ophuls 2 Turnbull 3 Magdoff 4 Bulls 5 LTV 5.1 Proposed reorganization 6 Hornet's Nest 7 Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy 8 Crime in Australia 9 Paradox 10 Hillary Bray

[edit] Carlot Ophuls

Jack, you really have to stop this. Why do you have to be such a meanie? Turnbull had every right to do what he did. And these people are all over the place with things that are happening.

Well, as King Caractacus's court astrologer said to the Nizam of Hydrabad's grand vizier... Um, I forget. (But you get the gist.)--Jack Upland 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, it isn't spelled, "Hydrabad," but, Hyderabad. See that you don't forget it.

I like you, Jack, but you really have to stop this nonsense about Carlot Ophuls and the chancellery of Fitzsimmons Oenschwelleier having had anything whatsoever to do with the Kennedy administration.

Apologies. When I wrote Hydra I must have been thing of your behaviour.--Jack Upland 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turnbull

I'm sorry, Jack, but Turnbull had every right to stipulate that those actions performed by Elizabeth's court STAY in Elizabeth's jurisdiction.--66.65.63.154 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, because I have no idea what you're talking about.--Jack Upland 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magdoff

Sorry to bother. I saw your comments regarding the Venona Project and the the need to be skeptical about government intelligence files. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 09:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bulls

Tas Bull and Ted Bull were two different people. I don't think Tas was ever a communist. He certainly wasn't a Maoist. Adam 06:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I did immediately check and changed it back, but I think you then changed it again! It's right now (I think). Tas was a Communist (weren't all the wharfies?!).--Jack Upland 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No. My good friend Bunna Walsh was always an ALP member, as was Charlie Fitzgibbon. The DLP had a presence on the Melbourne wharves too. Tas Bull may have been a comm in his youth, but I don't think so. I will check when I get back to Oz. Adam 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can research it here in Bangkok, I find there is quite a lot about Tas online. Adam 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, he was a CPA member 1951-59. Adam 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly (?) Wikipedia needs an article on Tasnor and you've just done the research to write it.--Jack Upland 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done the best I can from here. There are probably better sources to be had in print from the time of his death. Adam 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LTV

Jack Apologies for the unsolicited post: I see you have contributed a great deal to the discussion of the Labour Theory of Value, and clearly have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about it. I'm researching for a project on markets and politics, and it strikes me that the LTV (which is fairly new to me) may explain the dichotomy between those of a broadly capitalist/laissez faire stripe, and those of a broadly socialist stripe (in each case, for want of a better word). That is to say, if you buy the neoclassical idea that the only relevant expression of value is the amount counterparties are prepared to buy and sell for, you'll tend to fall on the capitalist side of the divide. But if you accept the proposition that there's an intrinsic value to labour, then you will tend to see the machinations of the supply/demand equilibrium as having a distortionary effect on prices, and value - from thence the notion of proletariat exploitation - and indeed of there being classes of "workers" and "capitalists" arises.

I should own up that my own perspective is broadly one of accepting the neoclassical paradigm, but it seems to me much of the criticism "from the left" of capitalism, globalisation, free markets etc. relies on the sentiment that someone is being exploited, which is understandable/explainable in terms of LTV, but is harder to rationalise in terms of neoclassical theory. Would you agree?

As a second observation, and if that first assertion is right, would you agree that LTV ultimately sheets back to some sort of objectivism - in that there is an intrinsic value for labour? Neoclassical theory, on the other hand, is a more relativist reading - ie there is no value other than what one assigns to it. Would be very interested in your thoughts on this. Best regards ElectricRay 10:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting's what this is for! I think there is some truth in what you say. However, many people would argue that regardless how you explain them, global poverty, inequality etc, are bad in themselves. A few points of clarification though:

• Adam Smith & co accepted LTV but were pro-free market.
• LTV does not imply that supply and demand are a source of 'distortion' of prices, but rather that they generate the equilibrium which corresponds to labour value. Nor does Marx for one see price distortion as the source of exploitation.
• LTV is not a 'just price' concept, such as promoted by campaigns such as Fair Trade (though they could argue in terms of market economics that they were resisting 'oligopsony').
• Marx for one portrays capitalism as 'falsely ascribing supernational creative power to labour' (Critique of Gotha Programme), so the LTV's view of value is not necessarily as 'intrinsic' and 'objective' as you make out. But it is certainly objective (within limits of the system) when compared with marginalism.--Jack Upland 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack, thanks for your reply. Your second point in particular interests me. If supply and demand set the value of labour, then how is LTV any different to classical economics at all? It seems that the criticisms of Marginalism (taken from the Wikipedia article): Marginalism has been criticised for being divorced from reality... While classical economics attempted to find an objective explanation for prices, the theory of marginal utility is content with subjectivity. According to its critics, the theory concentrates on the exchange between individuals, ignoring the larger economy, and concentrates on the marketplace, ignoring production only do any damage if you think that being content with subjectivity is a bad thing: a Marxist (I think) would think that; a classical economist wouldn't necessarily. Would you agree? A neoclassicist would certainly say that his paradigm dealt with global poverty and inequality as well as (and better than) any objective-value theory. Once again, sorry to trouble you, and thanks for your time. ElectricRay 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No trouble. While it might go against the common impression, LTV doesn't deny supply and demand. Marx, for example, citing Adam Smith, said:

It suffices to say the if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. But supply and demand must constantly tend to equilibrate each other, although they do so only by compensating one fluctuation by another, a rise by a fall, and vice versa.[1]

The difference is explaining the equilibrium, which marginalism can't do. Hence the criticism of being 'content with subjectivity'. A theory which doesn't explain things is easy to defend but hardly worth it. (Of course, neoclassicists now start mutter about 'cost curves' etc, leading them closer to the LTV, but it is for them to justify why they reject the LTV, not the reverse.) By the way, the quotation you give is from me! And it's been criticised as inadequate, as you see in the discussion.

My point on global poverty is that I don't think you would convince many protesters with your 'neoclassical paradigm'. Many 'antiglobalists'do have their own economic theories - and some of these like Fair Trade, as I mentioned, are incompatible with LTV as well! But it's fundamental a basic reaction to grinding poverty etc. And I think the issue goes beyond interpreting the world towards changing it. We've seen enough of the 'free market solution' to know it's not going to be short-term. And as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead...--Jack Upland 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words in reply to your comments about the bar where the price goes down as one drinks. --Christofurio 19:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reorganization

Hi Jack, Hope you saw my replies to your posts over on the LTV Talk page. I'm glad you're around to bring some sense to this point-scoring back and forth debates within the article. Perhaps WikiMedia needs a better mechanisms for discussions and it might take some pressure off ot he articles themselves to serve as that space. I guess in the mean-time we'll just have to stay vigilant. Anyway , thanks for your contributions. Take care, Rob (--Cplot 04:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Hornet's Nest

Can I see what you were sent? Always fun to see what is circulating.  :-) --Cberlet 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Wilcox / George book. Center/right authors pissing on anyone on the left who studies the right. Lot's of red-baiting. Tiresome. Makes assumptions about my political ideology that are simply false. Sigh.--Cberlet 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the title sort of gave that away...--Jack Upland 08:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Jim Byrnes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy

Jack I have just commenced this page and (shamelessly) lifted a part of your text from Hindmarsh Island. I would appreciate any editorial imput you may have. Thanks. Joan Gos 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crime in Australia

Can you explain why they have anything to do with law enforcement? They certainly look like crime to me, or at least alleged crime. They certainly are out of place in the law enforcement category, which is for matters specifically relating to law enforcement agencies and procedures, not to investigations of specific incidents. -- Necrothesp 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox

"[The marginal theory of value] also supplies an answer to the so-called “diamond-water paradox,” which economist Adam Smith pondered but was unable to solve. Smith noted that, even though life cannot exist without water and can easily exist without diamonds, diamonds are, pound for pound, vastly more valuable than water. The marginal-utility theory of value resolves the paradox. Water in total is much more valuable than diamonds in total because the first few units of water are necessary for life itself. But, because water is plentiful and diamonds are scare, the marginal value of a pound of diamonds exceeds the marginal value of a pound of water. The idea that value derives from utility contradicted Karl Marx's labour theory of value, which held that an item's value derives from the labour used to produce it and not from its ability to satisfy human wants." -Encyclopedia Britannica TheIndividualist 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So what?--Jack Upland 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So you're claiming in the article that the LTV was a solution to the paradox. That's not true. TheIndividualist 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're making 2 assumptions:

• Battlestar Britannica is always right. (If you read the passage from Wealth of Nations you'll see that Smith did not merely 'ponder' the paradox but proposed a solution based on his distinction between 'value in use' and 'value in exchange'.)
• Wikipedia should simply record the truth and ignore controversy.

In fact, Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. As you are well aware, the theory of marginal utility is not universally accepted. I merely propose that we outline several proposed solutions to this paradox, briefly mention the pros and cons, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. Any objections?--Jack Upland 05:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Bray

Thanks for getting stuck into the expression in that section Jack, it was a semi-POV shocker which was hard to read. Usually I am good with expression, but sometimes it completely fails me. Grumpyyoungman01 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)