Guardian columnist stumbles close to an economic truth

Of course, having got, vaguely, in the right space on the field there’s still a fumble of the pass:

Or to put it another way: the “abundance” in any given transaction is not what’s on offer from the retailer, but a much more precious resource….

That’s true, yes. The fumble is the next bit:

….– that of the consumer’s time.

The value in a transaction is not what is being presented by the retailer, yes, but it’s the value perceived by the consumer. Whatever that value is - whether it be of time, use, fashion, social status or any of the other things which interest human beings.

This is an important observation of course. For it’s what underpins everything about a market economy. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Because that is the measure of what the consumer values them at - at least. People will not pay more than that value they attach after all.

This then kills, stone dead, the labour theory of value. For we do not, we fellow members of the species, assign that value according to any calculation, at all, of the labour that went into the creation. Therefore the LTV might be useful as an intellectual exercise but not as a guide, rule or description of an economy which contains us.

Still, we do need to applaud a Guardian columnist at least beginning to stumble around in the right part of that economic playing pitch. We assume that this near success is a result of everyone being on strike - no doubt normal service will be resumed tomorrow.

Tim Worstall