Does Geoism depend upon the LTV much in the same way Marxism

>>2532617
No, it completely rejects LTV.

>>2533453
How?? It seems like Henry George essentially adopted Adam Smith's theories of the pricing of goods. It also seems like he understood the worker's added value to be equal to the given wages, which are really just a return on labor, which he says is equal to the return on capital.

In fact, under his system, wages determine the rate of return on capital, not the other way around.

None of them depend on the LTV.

>>2533498
>Marxist economics literally equates time units with labor worked and the recompense of individuals is determined on this metric
>doesn't depend on LTV

>Neoclassical economics necessarily involves a fundamental view of economics from the point of view of a completely fluid, stabilized equilibrium point
>not dependent on LTV

Admittedly, there were neoclassical economists who worked from a marginal framework, but marginality as developed by Léon or Menger are just one step away from the LTV

>>2533520
>Marxist economics literally equates time units with labor worked and the recompense of individuals is determined on this metric
I don't know what you mean by "time units" nor by "recompense of individuals" (if you mean wages, you are wrong). Clarify. None of marxist concepts depend on the ltov, not even exploitation (although some marxists would argue otherwise).

>Neoclassical economics necessarily involves a fundamental view of economics from the point of view of a completely fluid, stabilized equilibrium point
>Admittedly, there were neoclassical economists who worked from a marginal framework, but marginality as developed by Léon or Menger are just one step away from the LTV
You are talking out of your ass, anon. Neoclassical economics completely rejects the ltov. General equilibrium has absolutely nothing to do with the ltov.

>>2533555
Lets get down to the principles here, the labor theory of value as a concept was established to determine that the amount of labor exerted in your job would be equal to the value added to the product, and to the wages your receive.

How is this different from the neoclassicist's understanding of marginal value? For instance, think of how the interest rate is determined under Fisherian economics. The concept of the interest rate is a confluence of competing income curves and psychological willingness curves that determine the viability of a project. How exactly is the idea of an income curve not entirely dependent on the labor theory of value?

Certainly for Geoism, the LTV finds its influence hard and strong. But for Neoclassical economics, in wanes only because marginality is essential to their ideas.

Henry George wasn't really against anything Adam Smith said except for his definition of profit.