labour expenditure BrE
labor expenditure AmE

He assumed that 'the law of value cannot develop into anything other than the law of simple labour expenditure'.

Bukharin again disagreed, arguing that there is basically only one law, that of proportional labour expenditure.

In the transition period planning will modify the law of value, but on the basis of the law of labour expenditure.

The costs include those that are economic, such as research, equipment purchases, and labour expenditures, as well as moral concerns over the welfare of the horses.

Bukharin was not therefore proposing an eternal law, but indicating that the law of labour expenditure was an historical feature of human interaction with nature.

As we have seen, Bukharin maintained that the law of value is the capitalist form of the law of labour expenditure, at least in its prices of production guise.

Moreover, he saw Preobrazhensky as arguing for the violation of the material essence of the law of labour expenditure and not merely for violating the social form of the law of value.

Nevertheless, whatever the particular historical form the law of labour expenditure takes, be it patriarchal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist or communist it 'turns out to be the compulsory and universal regulator of economic life.'

Bukharin commented that 'the law of proportional labour expenditure or, for short the 'law of labour expenditure' is a necessary condition of social equilibrium in all and every socio-historical structure.'

At best, it is an assumption used in modelling, which is justified if - as Marx believed - the divergence between total values and total production prices is quantitatively not very great, because actual labour expenditures constrain their divergence.

He was quick to point out, however, that one should not therefore equate the law of value with the law of labour expenditure, since to do so would be to lose sight of the specific historical form and character of value relations.

Preobrazhensky says in his reply to his critics, in the foreword to the second edition of his book, that Bukharin is too general, and not specific enough, since he 'merely' talks about the law of labour expenditure and not the form it would take in the transition period.

The development process of the law of value into the law of labour expenditure finds its expression in the fact that by way of a plan, 'prices' in their semi-fictitious function (i.e. no longer as prices determined by the 'barometric fluctuations of the market') consciously turn out differently from how they would spontaneously.

He assumed that 'the law of value cannot develop into anything other than the law of simple labour expenditure'.

Bukharin again disagreed, arguing that there is basically only one law, that of proportional labour expenditure.

In the transition period planning will modify the law of value, but on the basis of the law of labour expenditure.

The costs include those that are economic, such as research, equipment purchases, and labour expenditures, as well as moral concerns over the welfare of the horses.

Bukharin was not therefore proposing an eternal law, but indicating that the law of labour expenditure was an historical feature of human interaction with nature.

As we have seen, Bukharin maintained that the law of value is the capitalist form of the law of labour expenditure, at least in its prices of production guise.

Moreover, he saw Preobrazhensky as arguing for the violation of the material essence of the law of labour expenditure and not merely for violating the social form of the law of value.

Nevertheless, whatever the particular historical form the law of labour expenditure takes, be it patriarchal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist or communist it 'turns out to be the compulsory and universal regulator of economic life.'

Bukharin commented that 'the law of proportional labour expenditure or, for short the 'law of labour expenditure' is a necessary condition of social equilibrium in all and every socio-historical structure.'

At best, it is an assumption used in modelling, which is justified if - as Marx believed - the divergence between total values and total production prices is quantitatively not very great, because actual labour expenditures constrain their divergence.

He was quick to point out, however, that one should not therefore equate the law of value with the law of labour expenditure, since to do so would be to lose sight of the specific historical form and character of value relations.

Preobrazhensky says in his reply to his critics, in the foreword to the second edition of his book, that Bukharin is too general, and not specific enough, since he 'merely' talks about the law of labour expenditure and not the form it would take in the transition period.

"The biggest advantage of the single-entity model is it gives you control over labor expenditures, because you don't have owners bidding against each other for player services," said Scott Rosner, who teaches the business side of sports at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

The development process of the law of value into the law of labour expenditure finds its expression in the fact that by way of a plan, 'prices' in their semi-fictitious function (i.e. no longer as prices determined by the 'barometric fluctuations of the market') consciously turn out differently from how they would spontaneously.