"mud pie argument" meaning in English

{
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "-"
      },
      "expansion": "mud pie argument (uncountable)",
      "name": "en-noun"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "noun",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "English entries with incorrect language header",
          "parents": [
            "Entries with incorrect language header",
            "Entry maintenance"
          ],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "topical",
          "langcode": "en",
          "name": "Economics",
          "orig": "en:Economics",
          "parents": [
            "Social sciences",
            "Sciences",
            "Society",
            "All topics",
            "Fundamental"
          ],
          "source": "w"
        }
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "ref": "2017, Musa Jega Ibrahim, Emerging Issues in Economics and Development, InTechOpen, page 48",
          "text": "Actually, it was Böhm-Bawerk, one of the prominent leaders of the Austrian school [12], who used the ‘mud pie argument‘ to attack the classical economists in general and Karl Marx in particular for using the labour theory of value. The fact that a product ‘costs‘ a certain amount of labour does not mean that it has some value.",
          "type": "quotation"
        },
        {
          "ref": "2019, Adam Booth, Rob Sewell, Understanding Marx’s Capital: A reader’s guide, Wellred Books, page 84",
          "text": "Firstly, as Marx asserts, for a commodity to have an exchange-value, it must first have a use-value – that is, there must be a social need for the commodity. If there was no such need, the commodity would not and could not be exchanged at all, and hence it would contain no value. The mud pie argument, then, falls flat on its face."
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "The argument against the labor theory of value pointing out that mud pies that take an immense amount of labor still have little to no value."
      ],
      "id": "en-mud_pie_argument-en-noun-I3fNpnWM",
      "links": [
        [
          "economics",
          "economics"
        ],
        [
          "argument",
          "argument"
        ],
        [
          "labor theory of value",
          "labor theory of value"
        ],
        [
          "mud pie",
          "mud pie"
        ],
        [
          "immense",
          "immense"
        ],
        [
          "labor",
          "labor"
        ],
        [
          "value",
          "value"
        ]
      ],
      "raw_glosses": [
        "(economics) The argument against the labor theory of value pointing out that mud pies that take an immense amount of labor still have little to no value."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "uncountable"
      ],
      "topics": [
        "economics",
        "science",
        "sciences"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "mud pie argument"
}

{
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "-"
      },
      "expansion": "mud pie argument (uncountable)",
      "name": "en-noun"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "noun",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        "English entries with incorrect language header",
        "English lemmas",
        "English multiword terms",
        "English nouns",
        "English terms with quotations",
        "English uncountable nouns",
        "en:Economics"
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "ref": "2017, Musa Jega Ibrahim, Emerging Issues in Economics and Development, InTechOpen, page 48",
          "text": "Actually, it was Böhm-Bawerk, one of the prominent leaders of the Austrian school [12], who used the ‘mud pie argument‘ to attack the classical economists in general and Karl Marx in particular for using the labour theory of value. The fact that a product ‘costs‘ a certain amount of labour does not mean that it has some value.",
          "type": "quotation"
        },
        {
          "ref": "2019, Adam Booth, Rob Sewell, Understanding Marx’s Capital: A reader’s guide, Wellred Books, page 84",
          "text": "Firstly, as Marx asserts, for a commodity to have an exchange-value, it must first have a use-value – that is, there must be a social need for the commodity. If there was no such need, the commodity would not and could not be exchanged at all, and hence it would contain no value. The mud pie argument, then, falls flat on its face."
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "The argument against the labor theory of value pointing out that mud pies that take an immense amount of labor still have little to no value."
      ],
      "links": [
        [
          "economics",
          "economics"
        ],
        [
          "argument",
          "argument"
        ],
        [
          "labor theory of value",
          "labor theory of value"
        ],
        [
          "mud pie",
          "mud pie"
        ],
        [
          "immense",
          "immense"
        ],
        [
          "labor",
          "labor"
        ],
        [
          "value",
          "value"
        ]
      ],
      "raw_glosses": [
        "(economics) The argument against the labor theory of value pointing out that mud pies that take an immense amount of labor still have little to no value."
      ],
      "tags": [
        "uncountable"
      ],
      "topics": [
        "economics",
        "science",
        "sciences"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "mud pie argument"
}