This is a linkpost for http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/costs-are-not-benefits/
I would define "value" as "long-run average market price."
Sure. But note that the great majority of people do NOT define "value" like this, so there will be communications problems :-/
So there is "value" which you are saying is basically cost of production (right?) and there is the SPA ("subjective practical advantage") which is just how you feel about things. If I understand you correctly you are also saying there is no link between the two (because demand does not affect the "value"), yes?
This looks like unusual terminology, but are there any significant heterodox statements about reality that you want to make on this basis? Translated into regular econospeak you are saying that demand does not influence the cost of production (subject to quibbles about fixed and variable costs) and I would expect Econ 101 to agree with that. What exactly do you deny in "marginalism"?
I agree that economics (as a field) has a LOT of problems, but what are you suggesting as a solution?
Not "cost of production," but "price of production," which includes the cost of production plus an average rate of profit.
Note that, according to marginalism, profit vanishes at equilibrium and capitalists, on average, earn only interest on their capital. I disagree. At equilibrium (over the long-run), an active capitalist (someone who employs capital to produce commodities) can expect, on average, to make a rate of profit that is at all times strictly above the going interest rate. The average rate of profit must always include so...