Me bht khush kismat hun k ghar bethe me LUMS k ek teacher ko sun or dekh or samaj rhi hun jese LUMS student..Alhamdulilah

I cannot emphasis enough on how much I get to learn from you everyday. You are literally my idol. As a student I can say I have learnt more from your videos for free, rather than what I take in from classes in my college by paying thousands. My only aim in life is to do my PhD under you and become a Marxian Economist. Inshaallah

Okay. Now you have to realise that you also have an international audience and you can't leave them behind 🙂 Please do this in English too

@Taimur_Laal

3 жыл бұрын

Saminda Ranawaka ok. I’ll redo it.

@f2007094

Жыл бұрын

​@Taimur - Urdu I think there's a dearth of such resources in Urdu and Hindi. So thankful that you use that medium.

U really studied economics in very deep ! And u r explaining in a very easy and in a simple way. Brilliant man 👌

wow ye jyada hi interesting concept h, aapne dhajiyan uda deni h capitaliston ki aur aapke sath mein bhi hun

There is a 'problem of transformation value into prices' this was pointed out by Prof Joan Robinson of Csmbridge University. This arises from the tendency of return on capital to equalise in the economy. However, she also asserted that it doesn't invalidate the labour theory of value nor the surplus value.

Very interesting and deep concept explained in such a beautiful and easy manner. Hatsoff to you sir. I will watch each and every video of yours. Economics has never been easy for me. But today I found the right teacher. Greetings from me.

سر میں آپ کے ہر ہر لیکچر کا شدت سے انتظار کرتا ہو ں۔ اور خاص بات یہ کہ آپ بہت ہی آسان انداز میں سمجھا تے ہیں یہ ثبوت ہے کہ آپ نے خود گہرائی سے مطالعہ کیا ہے۔ رسمی تعلیم سے بڑھ کر بات کر رہے ہیں آپ۔ سلامت رہیے۔ اور اگلے لیکچرز میں ضرور سمجھائیں کہ کس طرح کارل مارکس نے اس استحصال کو ختم کرنےکی تحویز دی اور کیسے ثابت ہوگا کہ یہ واقعی معاشی استحصال کو ختم کرنے کا باعث بنتی ہے۔

You're doing amazing important work, sir!! Thank you very much.

Mashallah. Nice video

if a person comes with an idea/concept to make a machine that will be beneficial to users and then raises capital and hires labour to convert that idea/concept in to tangible product, how would you attribute "Labour Theory of Value" to him? how much profit should go to that person and how much to the laborers to converted the idea/concept in to tangible product?

On the basis of demand how far it can go, like real estate in the world has gone way high . Many producers are making high profit money is emigrating to real estate industry , but still many people cannot afford to buy a roof on their heads,so where it will end?

V good Doc Sahab

Thanks you Sir , You are doing great

Very well explained! 🙏👍

Well defined sir

nice sir

An article on website by John ********* says (i agree with him) that Marx's thoery of value is essentially theory of COMMODITY. Not labor theory of value.

Great job sir 👏👏👏👏

Socially necessary labor time is time necessary (as society of capitalists deems) for production of good. Word socially is important.

I really enjoy your lectures all the time your lectures make demand high for the supply of education 😁 and after listening you now i know why in are schools and colleges students don't know what they are studying and why they don't have any interest in study because every teacher is not a true teacher like you i m proud of you

thankyou soo much sir ..

brilliant lecture Sir. Marx was a real genius or ye duniya har genius ko paagal he kehti aayi hai.

can someone add english subtitles?

Sir.. please explain Some communication theories & how the government use it

Yes

Im your fan. I learn alot

Well explained sir.. But chapter 2 in my Das capital is exchange.. Where I didn't found it in your lectures. Thanks

@Taimur_Laal

3 жыл бұрын

On this channel.

Azaming sir

Wah

so amaziiiiinnnnngggg

You are too good and right at everything sir

Now a days robots are using for work, what is effect on labour and labour theory

Sir, how can we apply this on technological innovations? If someone has created an app of Facebook through his intellectual skills and he earns capital from it, is there any labour value? Or creation itself is a labour value?

@asadullahkhokhar8900

3 жыл бұрын

what about his organization, labor working in it?

sir kya is ka matlb ye nikaly k agr kisi karobar m nuqsaan ho rha h chahy wo "long run" m b ata dikhy tb b karoobar ko bnd nai krna chahiye ku k is ki demand doobara barhni h

@Taimur_Laal

6 жыл бұрын

Umais Shahid no. It doesn’t mean that.

@umaisshahid8514

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir

bohot accha video aapne bnaya hai, lekin bas ek galti hai shayad, Adam smith ne hi labour theory of value formulate ki thi.

Sir what does mean "sarmaya" . which type of Hindi u r speaking I couldn't understand so many words But I've heard such Hindi language words in Pakistani news channels. U r amazing sir Now I'm well aware of labour theory of value Thanks sir

@toobamalic-

5 жыл бұрын

He is using urdu words. sarmaya means capital.

In "Wage Labour and Capital", does Marx include profit in his use of Cost of Production? If prices are set by the supply and demand as mentioned there, then how does profit equates to a surplus value created by the workers... Since the price set above and beyond the cost of wages+instruments+raw_materials, things which the capitalist furnishes from his already existing capital, depends on an arbitrary struggle between supply and demand(often artificially created new demands) this price can be anything above below or equal to the previous costs incurred to produce that product... If so then is surplus value leading to a profit or just this arbitrary struggle which sets a final price allowing a profit? Finally, if on average, taking ups and downs of the system, the cost of commodity ends up as the cost of production which does not include a profit but only what the capitalist gives to produce the commodity, then on the whole there is no profit being created? I would appreciate if anyone helps me in these questions to better understand the Marxian ideas...

@harshithsubramaniam5924

Жыл бұрын

Consider this. Let's say our capitalist wants to make a chair. For that, he needs certain raw materials & tools (wood, glue, hammer, nails etc.) and a carpenter (the human labour input). He puts these two things together, and he ends up with a chair. The raw materials & tools, we'll call constant capital (c) and the human labour input, we'll call variable capital (v). In order to make the chair, the capitalist buys these raw materials and tools at their value (or at their natural price - price that tends to the cost of production). Because if we assume market competition among sellers and buyers, prices will always get lower and lower, but they cannot go below the cost of production. So, the capitalist buys these raw materials at their value, not above or below it, which is (say) $24. Then, he has to buy another commodity in the market that can put these raw materials and tools together to make the chair. That is, labour-power (or the ability to labour, the ability to work). The value of labour-power, like all other commodities, depends on the socially necessary labour-time required to produce it (that is what Dr. Taimur Rehman has shown towards the end of the video - the reduction of cost of production to labour-time). But what is the value of labour-power? what is the socially necessary labour-time required to produce labour-power? The answer Marx gives is, the value of labour-power is that cost, which it takes to reproduce the labourer's ability to work. This means that the value of labour-power includes the values of all those commodities which the worker needs to live (and hence reproduce labour-power). This is food, shelter, reproduction costs (so that the working class can remain intact), and depending on the cultural norms, all the other commodities that he needs to live. So the value of labour-power is, again, determined by its cost of production & reproduction (or, socially necessary labour-time). Let us say that is $3/day. This is the variable capital that our capitalist has purchased. Now, we have constant capital ($24) and variable capital ($3). So the outlay of the capitalist is $27. We will assume that the labour-time required to produce this variable capital (all commodities needed to sustain the labourer/day) is 4 hours. In the process of producing the chair, the labourer works with the tools to produce the chair. For the sake of simplicity, i'll assume that all the tools and raw materials get used up in making this chair. So, by working, the carpenter transfers the value of inputs ($24) to the output product (the chair). On top of this, the labourer, by expending his labour-power (expending his energy, brains and muscles), is adding a value of $3 by transforming the raw materials and tools into the chair. As previously assumed, the worker, by working for 4 hours, transferred the value of constant capital and added the value of variable capital = $24 + $3 = $27. (NOTE: The process of transferring value of c and adding the value of v happen at the same time, because if the worker doesn't work, this value wouldn't get transferred in the first place). But alas! the value of the final product is exactly the same as the value of the inputs (raw materials, tools and labour-power). How do we solve this connendrum? Remember something important here. The v of $3 can can sustain the worker for the whole 24 hours. the food, clothing, shelter etc can enable him to live for another one full day. And carefully follow this: The fact that 4 hours of labour-time is required to reproduce the value he recieved in wages ($3) does not mean that the worker cannot work for another few hours. He can work for 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 hours, because his wage will sustain him (reproduce his labour-power) for the next 24 hours. This means, the value of labour-power, and the value that labour-power can create, are two different magnitudes. It may only take 4 hours of labour to sustain a worker for 24 hours, but that doesn't mean he should only work for 4 hours. And this is the important property that the capitalist had in mind when he purchased labour-power. After the worker sold his labour-power, it no longer belongs to him. And the capitalist, as the consumer of this labour-power, can consume it as long as he wants (within these 24 hours of sustanance, he has paid). And so the worker works. In addition to the 4 hours he works to recoup his wages, he works 4 more hours for the capitalist. And in this 4 hours, he creates another $3. 4 hours of free, unpaid labour, creates another $3 of value, which the capitalist pockets as profits. So now, the value of the chair is = $24 (c) + $3 (v) + $3 (s) = $30. The capitalist's outlay was $27, and the surplus value created is $3. The main thing to remember is this again: the fact that 4 hours of labour is required to sustain the worker for 24 hours, doesn't mean he should only work for 4 hours. He has 24 whole hours. And this peculiar property of the commodity labour-power, makes it the source of surplus value.

Sir itne pure Urdu use na Kiya kre samjh nahi aati... Hindi ya Punjabi main koshish Kiya kre samjhane ki ya English b chalege.... It's my humble request.

So basically what u r suggesting is the more INEFFICIENT/LAZY u r the better it is ! On the other hand if a person is efficient & produces something efficiently like in real quick time & benefits the society by saving & providing the utility quickly so this should be undermined!

@Cinemucky

5 жыл бұрын

This is not how it works, nor is it how anyone argues it works. All one has to do is reach 4 pages into Capital to realize that this exact point was explicitly addressed: "It might seem that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour expended to produce it, it would be the more valuable the more unskillful and lazy the worker who produced it, because he would need more time to complete the article. However, the labour that forms the substance of value is equal human labour, the expenditure of identical human labour-power" (129)

@smith2354

4 жыл бұрын

No where in the video did he even suggest that, I don't think you and I saw the same video.