"There's no such thing as a free lunch" is an admission of the labor theory of value

[uppi]

* She also said, "I think banks are smart enough not to use actual Zip Code information to decide who to give a loan to, because that's just so obvious, but most data-science algorithms do use geolocation information to decide, for example, who is a 'high-value' customer." I'm curious now what information that might be.

Well, they might just convert you address into actual geocoordinates, which they then feed into a fancy algorithm nobody really understands. One problem with some machine learning algorithms is low explainability: They can have high accuracy in predicting what they are supposed to predict, but are hard to understands in terms of which parameters are decisive. But if you want to give advantages to the rich people (because that is better for business) without explicitly saying so, an opaque algorithm might be exactly what you want.

And ZIP codes have the disadvantage that the boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, so if you switch to something else, you at least are not screwed over by living on the wrong side of an imaginary line.

But even if explicit geoinformation is included, it might be inferred from other data. For example, the school you went to probably tells a lot about what kind of neighborhood you grew up in. Or your neighbors could be inferred from your contact list on social networks and so on.

 

[Patine]

It's actually a science fiction term. From way back in the classic age of the 1950s.

And it was the original party motto of the Libertarian Party of the United States when it was founded in 1971. That may have been inspired by the science fiction term, as Libertarianism has a long history of it's views being advocated through wonky fiction authors - Ayn Rand, Robert E. Heinlein, Terry Goodkind, Newt Gingrich (yes, he wrote fiction - science fiction, in fact), the former member of the Futurists (the young New York City group of science fiction authors in the '40's and '50's that had included Isaac Asimov and others) who wrote, "the Syndic," whose name eludes me, etc.

 

[onejayhawk]

There's no such thing as a free lunch" is an admission of the labor theory of value

In popular usage, I've mostly seen the argument presented by right-wingers as a pretend rebuttal to government services that left-wingers colloquially call "free". Free here of course meaning publicly funded with no private barrier to a service. So a right-winger will talk about lunch and then the left-winger will explain what he meant, and the conversation is immediately derailed from the point in question, devolving into a swamp.

The right-wingers that throw this around usually vote along conservative lines, a school that traditionally deny labor theory of value. But the point of the phrase is that there is always an opportunity cost to goods, regardless of market value. So if I myself grow all things necessary to make a lunch in my backyard, and give it away for "free", there is indeed value in the lunch.
- If you believe in the phrase and say it costs value to produce, you believe in labor theory.
- If you don't believe in the phrase and says it doesn't cost value to produce with no market value, you don't believe in labor theory and are free to spout nonsense about the usefulness of public services. Just don't use the phrase. The phrase is labor theory applied incarnate and all hail Marx-chan. Fight me on this.

All the theories of value are Marxist in origin. Other theories are modifications of or in reaction to Marx. That said, your argument relies on a very strained reading of the the expression. A better reading is that everything has costs.

The labor theory of value is that the value of something is equal to its labor cost. The marginal theory of value is that the value is derived from its supply and demand. The No Free Lunch is derived from the theory of opportunity cost. Labor theory of value could include a free lunch and marginal theory of value could also include a free lunch, but opportunity cost of a free lunch is always present because there is always an opportunity cost when choice is involved in resources. I understand how you mean this means labor theory of value, which rears its head in ways like this if you want it to.

Mostly true, but is it relevant?

The definition of value is somewhat contentious, it is not synonymous with cost (money, energy, time, effort, or otherwise) no synonymous with utility (benefit, happiness, etc).

This is definitely true and clearly not relevant to the proposition in the title.

Interestingly, having avoided all study of economics, the only context I've ever seen TANSTAAFL discussed in is the actual "free meal (or vacation or whatever) if you'll listen to my pitch" one. It means, of course, that someone is trying to con you into a bad deal by giving you gifts.

Exactly. Cost may be deferred, costs may be non-monetary, costs may be born by another, but there are always costs.

TAANSTAFL is typically an accusation of purposely concealing the negative aspects of a proposal.

J

 

[Patine]

All the theories of value are Marxist in origin. Other theories are modifications of or in reaction to Marx. That said, your argument relies on a very strained reading of the the expression. A better reading is that everything has costs.

So, Confucius (551-479 BC), who spoke on the idea of non-monetary value of good governance and such in a society deeply used to currency exchange as an economic medium, is Marxist (Karl Marx - 1818-1883 AD)?

 

[Samson]

She also said, "I think banks are smart enough not to use actual Zip Code information to decide who to give a loan to, because that's just so obvious, but most data-science algorithms do use geolocation information to decide, for example, who is a 'high-value' customer." I'm curious now what information that might be.

You know that if you lived in the EU or UK you could ask any organisation that is doing that to tell you what the data is and how it is used?

 

[Colon]

So, Confucius (551-479 BC), who spoke on the idea of non-monetary value of good governance and such in a society deeply used to currency exchange as an economic medium, is Marxist (Karl Marx - 1818-1883 AD)?

Even the labour theory of value was espoused by Adam Smith and the classical economists before Marx (which is where Marx got it from, like most of the economics he used).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Origins of TANSTAAFL

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tanstaafl.html

 

[Cutlass]

And it was the original party motto of the Libertarian Party of the United States when it was founded in 1971. That may have been inspired by the science fiction term, as Libertarianism has a long history of it's views being advocated through wonky fiction authors - Ayn Rand, Robert E. Heinlein, Terry Goodkind, Newt Gingrich (yes, he wrote fiction - science fiction, in fact), the former member of the Futurists (the young New York City group of science fiction authors in the '40's and '50's that had included Isaac Asimov and others) who wrote, "the Syndic," whose name eludes me, etc.

The problem being that the "libertarians" very rarely supported liberty. Rand certainly never did. Nor did Gingrich. And Heinlein could go pretty fascist as well, which is what Starship Troopers is about.

In short, the term is mostly used by people trying to get a free lunch at someone else's expense.

 

[Patine]

The problem being that the "libertarians" very rarely supported liberty. Rand certainly never did. Nor did Gingrich. And Heinlein could go pretty fascist as well, which is what Starship Troopers is about.

In short, the term is mostly used by people trying to get a free lunch at someone else's expense.

I'm not a fan of the Libertarian Party at all - I find them frightening and twisted. Their ideas are nothing short of monstrous, and when I had a look at the website of the Separation Party of Alberta (a former independentist party in my home Province of Alberta, when my uncle, who had a shining for them at the time, "suggested it"), I saw big pictures of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan on the home page and immediately said, "no thanks!" Libertarian ideology is built around a heartless elitism with the idea that the starting wealthy elite get a leg-up that cannot be overcome because of lack of business and property regulation, and thus Libertarians CLAIM they didn't build or enforce an elitist regime - it's just there, and if you don't like it, "pull up your bootstraps." Cold and warped, thoroughly, and a very easy stepping stone to those dystopian science fiction properties of the '80's where the dystopian government style was an unveiled Corporatist Dictatorship as opposed to Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, and the other usual suspects. As a social worker for a living, I find Libertarianism absolutely repugnant, and the growing fascination in Alberta with American-style Libertarianism greatly worries me. My bringing up that the early Libertarian Party of the United States used the thread title line as their motto was stated purely for academic reasons to contribute to the conversion - not as any remote sort of endorsement.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Even the labour theory of value was espoused by Adam Smith and the classical economists before Marx (which is where Marx got it from, like most of the economics he used).

Most of what (early) Marx wrote was commentary on Smith, Ricardo, and other "classical" economists, which Marx called "national economists". It's fairly enlightening stuff if you can get past the Hegelian terminology and old-timey language, especially the Paris Manuscripts.

As a social worker for a living

Do you mind me asking what kind of social work you do?

 

[Patine]

Do you mind me asking what kind of social work you do?

Principally arranging and maintaining (bureaucratically maintaining) an assured income for the severely handicapped - those unable to work (or work to the degree of self-sufficiency) due to serious permanent handicaps (beyond say parapalegia, deafness, and such). I've been mostly relegated to office work rather than on the ground work, of the last while, but that, I'm told, is the path to "promotion," (or possibly, as I fear, "pasture")

 

[onejayhawk]

So, Confucius (551-479 BC), who spoke on the idea of non-monetary value of good governance and such in a society deeply used to currency exchange as an economic medium, is Marxist (Karl Marx - 1818-1883 AD)?

That's no contradiction, because every academic idea has precursors. Marx is the first to formalize the concept of value as a social and economic concept to be studied.

Most of what (early) Marx wrote was commentary on Smith, Ricardo, and other "classical" economists, which Marx called "national economists". It's fairly enlightening stuff if you can get past the Hegelian terminology and old-timey language, especially the Paris Manuscripts.

Marx was always a better sociologist than an economist. Even his valid economic notions are socially driven.

J

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Principally arranging and maintaining (bureaucratically maintaining) an assured income for the severely handicapped - those unable to work (or work to the degree of self-sufficiency) due to serious permanent handicaps (beyond say parapalegia, deafness, and such). I've been mostly relegated to office work rather than on the ground work, of the last while, but that, I'm told, is the path to "promotion," (or possibly, as I fear, "pasture")

That's a great service you're doing for your community. Good for you, Patine

 

[AdamCrock]

"The Bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the needs of an expanding Bureaucracy" Heh ... I kinda work in (and under) bureaucracy as well ... with it we are powerless, without it ... even more so (just like with women )