> If you have a valid economic theory, it doesn't matter if we apply it at 50BCE or if we apply it in 3000CE. Either an economic theory is able to explain a given economic situation and make predictions, or it is not.
Great, I'm glad you agree the labour theory of value is unable to explain and is unlikely to be valid.
It saves me, and probably all passing readers, the trouble of having to continue following this rapidly narrowing comment chain.
> Great, I'm glad you agree the labour theory of value is unable to explain and is unlikely to be valid.
You know that I didn't write anything in that regards and that you are - using sophistry - putting words under my fingertips.
This feels to me like you are not actually interested in coming to a shared understanding but more in "scoring points" in a discussion. This makes me quite sad, because that's something that I would expect from a discussion on Reddit or Twitter, but not on HN.
Great, I'm glad you agree the labour theory of value is unable to explain and is unlikely to be valid.
It saves me, and probably all passing readers, the trouble of having to continue following this rapidly narrowing comment chain.