This perception of inadequacy of the Labor Theory of Value was partially because of the embarrassment of the financial, landlord, and mercantile interests, which the LTV rightfully identified as rentier or quasi-rentier sectors; it could not be allowed to survive lest the Usury of the economic system was excised with the official sanction of economic orthodoxy.

The Subjective Theory of Value collapses the vital distinctions between economic sectors. On the other hand, the Labor Theory Of Value gives way to an economics which, even if it is narrowly and perhaps imperfectly defined, can offer meaningful information about the state of economy as it exists: as a complex of productive forces generating the means of sustenance (housing, clothing, food & drink, transport, etc.). Subjective Theory of Value-based economics can observe an economy undergoing the process of deindustrialization, with all the necessaries of life becoming dearer and dearer as measured in terms of labor-hours, and conclude that the economy is growing, as long as the economic spheres facilitating said deindustrialization are making profits high enough to compensate for the collapse in production. Labor Theory of Value based economics cannot bring itself, nor anyone else, to this delusion.

The Neo-Liberals of Silicon Valley have already made American economic conservatism, of whatever variety, utterly obsolete.

Bitcoin gets the attention, and it should, but Facebook showed that the only thing keeping Silicon Valley from retiring the Federal Reserve and simply issuing its own currency is the state, the Big Government. Hence Facebook’s attempt at their own cryptocurrency, the “Libra.”

Facebook proved it was quite serious by inviting all of the other Silicon Valley companies to join: Facebook had no illusions of being the new Money Monopoly, but did have illusions of itself being the “First of Equals” President of the new Money Monopoly.

When Bill Gates was still running Microsoft, in an interview he explained that he did not see Microsoft as competing with Apple or some other computer company.

Microsoft’s real competitor, Gates explained, was Goldman Sachs, and that competition was first and foremost over “talent.” “Talent” meaning the next generation of extremely smart people coming out of the elite universities.

Indeed, Silicon Valley, Wall Street – and the National Security Administration – all compete for a relatively small pool of very smart people.

Goldman Sachs, as a specific company itself but more as a human-centric network, has always been able to recruit the “Best and Brightest” because spending five years at Goldman Sachs is how you “make your nut.” A 25 year old from a modest background can jump from university to Goldman Sachs at 25, spend five years there and earn a fortune, and go on to greater fortunes by unofficially representing that human-centric network of Goldman Sachs in both the private and public sectors, at home and abroad, in the Empire’s satellites and on its borders.

Especially in the last 20 years, this increasingly goes for Silicon Valley technology companies. California doesn’t need Wall Street. Companies like Google can already do everything a bank can do virtually for free with the exception of interfacing with the government, and especially the court system.

There is no “technology” that a bank has that a Silicon Valley Social Media can’t clone, and trivially.

Exiled Jargon does an excellent job going over the awful bait-and-switch of American conservatism post-war:

This also solves the left-populist problem What’s The Matter With Kanasas? Fundamentally, why is it that American conservative right-wingers, primarily indebted wage labor take the opposite side of their own economic interests by advocating a hard money policy unfavorable to net debtors as well as a policy of low taxes on unearned wealth and high taxes on earned wealth?

The American conservative movement has long displaced the objection to the totalitarianism of the historical “Communist” regimes with an economic attack on social welfare, the welfare state, and in extreme cases even private non-profit collectives.

Because Americans are not allowed the freedom of association to define the in group and the out group they revert to a knee-jerk individualist libertarianism that denies the legitimacy of any collective action at all … except when that collectivism is a for-profit corporation, for some reason.

This results in American right-wing conservatism adopting the worst of totalitarianism – getting worse in the era of Technocracy – and the worst of “individualism” – unable to form a proper in group, Americans attempt individual defense against the highly collective forces of finance capitalism, the state, and supra-state globalism.

The Conservative American Right thus promotes the worst of all worlds.