How is the Labor Theory of Value wrong?
Furthermore, how is any theory of value even falsifiable? How do you tell where value does or does not come from?
>>887323
Because value is something people assign to something. You could pound on a rock with hammer for a year, and it would not be worth any more unless someone decided the rock now had some artistic value.
You turn a lump of gold into ring, but if the value of gold drops you'll be laboring at a loss
>>887323
>How is the Labor Theory of Value wrong?
It's completely unable to make predictions for one thing. For another, look at any given real estate market and note how location; which only tangentially is a labor cost, affects value.
>>887323
In a purely quantitative sense, the labor required to produce value is not reflected in the product itself.
Think of the proverbial goose who laid a golden egg. That goose produced something of value, but in terms of it's labor did next to nothing.
On a similar note, a well orchestrated business may produce an object with streamlined efficiency, and therefore require less labor than another, less well organized economic process. The more efficient laborer may actually use less labor than the less efficient one, and may even produce a better product (more value), thus demonstrating that the sum total of labor inputs doesn't quantify the value.
ITT: people who have never read Marx, people who don't understand the LTV, etc. Sorry OP, no one here will be able to give a real answer.
>>887684
Ive read Smith who came up with the labor theory of value
>>887323
>How is the Labor Theory of Value wrong?
Marketing is more important.
>>887684
Nice rebuttal you fucking cretin. Proof that up don't know what you're talking about.
>>887323
yeah, but that guy has to pay like 100 of those guys, is responsible for overhead and wastage costs, procurement of raw materials, distribution, legal costs, and inherent material risk.
so fuck socialist propaganda.
>>887436
> but in terms of it's labor did next to nothing.
Did you even read Marx?
>>887741
> yeah, but that guy has to pay like 100 of those guys, is responsible for overhead and wastage costs, procurement of raw materials, distribution, legal costs, and inherent material risk.
The same goes for slavers.
>>887752
your memes are anemic.
Slaving is a legitimate and morally acceptable business.
Are you going to tell me I don't have the right to sell myself into slavery? How dare you infringe upon my liberties with your self-righteous moral pretensions.
>>887752
>wage labor is slavery
Is this you anon?
>>887752
The difference is a slave is property, he cannot refuse to work, or leave, or choose his own place of residence, etc, etc.
conflating any form of hierarchy with slavery is pretty retarded
>>887716
>marketing is not labor
>when someone say youre just paying for the marketing
>the marketing isnt being paid for
What
ITT:
We use the word "value" to mean "price,"
We use the Neoclassical definition of "value" to argue against a classical theory of value.
We come up with counterexamples to the LTV by talking about things to which the LTV doesn't apply (e.g., real estate).
Keep it coming guys!
>>887800
The original labor theory of value considered things like book keeping and management to be highly valuable forms of labor. Where is that in Marxist understanding of the term?
>>887812
Where does he deny it. I'm genuinely curious when Marx says those aren't labor. There's profit derived from labor and there's profit derived from capital.
Value as we use the term denotes a subjective judgement.
True value as a property is harder to define.
Statistically, some coins necessarily find more use than other coins. I posit that those coins that so happen to find more transactions posses as a property inherently greater true value than other coins of the same subjective numeric worth, simply because they pass hands more often and are singularly more responsible for greater economic movement.
This allocation of true value to distinct atoms would at first glance appear to be completely random, but that's certainly not necessarily the case.
>>887776
>the right to sell myself into slavery
Selling yourself is the opposite of slavery. That is the basis of getting a job, fuck off faggot. Go back to your street corner if you want to be dominated so badly
>>887798
No, it's because the LTV says:
>The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed on average for its production
It just isn't true. Not anymore at least.
The labor that produces the actual quality or content of the good of service is insignificant before the value provided by something like the Apple brand.
Branding the trinket with the Apple logo requires an insignificant effort, where is Marx's imaginary proportion?
"think different" <- not real labor
>>887800
>real estate isn't covered by the LTV
Funny, because it fits the definition for a commodity laid out in Das Kapital.
>>887868
>The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed on average for its production
so I can dig and fill up the same hole for the rest of my life and then suddenly that dirt will somehow be more valuable than the other dirt?
that's some bs
>>887883
Give me one example that wasn't propagated by religious chaste systems (which really aren't at their core voluntary)
Just one
>>887919
It's a retarded religion for people who think effort itself magically produces value, nobody in mainstream economics takes it seriously.
>>887929
Not him, but look at the debt slavery systems that existed throughout half of the Near East for time out of mind.
>>887929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
there are many flavors of slave.
>>887919
>dig and fill up the same hole
That's not labour performed for the production of a commodity.
If you're producing dirt, the labour expended 'for its production' it is just the 'digging' bit. Filling in the hole has absolutely nothing to do with producing dirt.
Anyway, you have to look at the labour performed 'on average' for the production of the commodity. Your commodity is dirt. If you spend your whole life producing a bag of dirt, but other people take 10 minutes, the average is still going to be pretty close to 10 minutes.
>>887958
>That's not labour performed for the production of a commodity.
According to who? Maybe I genuinely believe my digging and refilling is a productive task. Can you prove it isn't?
If you can, maybe you can tell me what "productiveness" actually is.
>>887820
>LTV is to explain equilibrium in supply and demand
Marx never said this, you're just peddling bullshit
>>887929
All the way back to the Code of Hammurabi: "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery."
You can educate yourself with: Buying Freedom: The Ethics and Economics of Slave Redemption by Appiah and Bunzl
>>887954
I knew about people selling themselves after falling into debt, but I didn't consider it proper slavery. I suppose it is.
I do think slave systems that discriminate and exploit ethnicities or just people who aren't as developed and put them in lowest class is entire different.
But self slavery almost seems like better system than the loan sharking that exists in modern banking. Those who are bankrupt should be able to sell themselves and their work instead of becoming homeless parasites.
Huh, thanks for opening my eyes anon.
>>887981
my dude like np
>>887966
Your product is dirt. A task is 'productive' from that perspective if it facilitates the production of dirt.
Digging is productive, it results in you obtaining dirt which you can sell. Taking the dirt you have produced and putting it back in the ground so that you have to dig it out again, is not productive. Indeed it is 'counterproductive'.
If you were a landscaper and you were being paid to level a piece of ground, then your product would be level ground. Filling in holes would therefore be productive, but making new holes just so that you have to fill them in again would be counterproductive.
Similarly, if my aim is to produce interesting conversations, then talking to someone who is obviously intent on pretending to be retarded is not productive.
>>887868
Branding provides value. People find utility in brand ownership.
It's like arguing painting things blue doesn't increase value because it would be the same if it wasn't blue.
>Branding the trinket with the Apple logo requires an insignificant effort, where is Marx's imaginary proportion?
But not cultivating that brand to be worth something, which is then averaged among all the trinkets with the brand on it.
>>887988
but it would be productive for me if you continued to do so, because I am also aiming to produce interesting conversation.
therefor, I should pretend that I am in fact pretending to pretend that I am retarded.
>>888013
See how that works out for you.
>>887969
Why does Marx need to say it? Marx didn't invent LTV, and it was not a particularly heterodox theory at the time. It has it's roots in the classical economic canon and used by Smith and Ricardo. Marx was just updating the theory, LTV is not inherently Marxian, and does not belong to Marx.
>LTV does not deny the role of supply and demand influencing price, since the price of a commodity is something other than its value. In Value, Price and Profit (1865), Karl Marx quotes Adam Smith and sums up:
>> It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.[4]
>The LTV seeks to explain the level of this equilibrium. This could be explained by a cost of production argument—pointing out that all costs are ultimately labor costs, but this does not account for profit, and it is vulnerable to the charge of tautology in that it explains prices by prices.[5] Marx later called this "Smith's adding up theory of value".
I've been thinking about the economy lately and recently I have come to the conclusion that people will make things because they want it, regardless of the motive, wheter its for survival, because of a greater goal or just because they like it (ie: food, paying college for my children, buying an anime body pillow).
But because people can't do everything they want, they trade. And because they trade they also create money which makes trading much easier. Initially people have a consensus on something, like, 100 tons of cereals are worth 30 tons of chicken, but then prices slightly adjust and soon the economy is established.
people will agree with contracts and sign deals under several conditions and ultimately there's always a set of options you can choose from that you don't have direct control over their existance but you can always choose what option you want.
We should look foward to reviewing all these economic terms like inflation, interest rates, and so on, because it might not be everyone who agrees with that, and they might not be necessary when economies are really simple.
What school of economies am I close to, /his/?
>>888017
unfortunate then that you have only been pretending to pretend that I am pretending to be retarded for pretend.
>>888031
LTV
>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.
>>888049
The term animal spirits was chosen to represent human irrationality and the forces that drive it. It was deliberately chosen to sound somewhat stupid and arbitrary.
First of all, Keynes did not invent the term animal spirits, although he did give it new meaning. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (that brit guy that wrote Holmes) used it before Keynes was born. Second of all, it doesn't mean animistic gods. It's a euphemism for the rebellious or proactive attitude found in young people.
It's basically saying "people aren't robots"
>>887323
It's nothing but a totally worthless philosophical exercise.
>>887323
>>887647
>>887684
>>887752
>>887776
>>887820
>>887958
>>887988
>>888048
This is exactly why LTV is considered at best a heterodox belief.
There is no evidence, never has been any evidence and never will be any evidence that the Marxist idea of labour theory of value has is or will ever be true. Every single one of these comments defending it is made from a standpoint of defending fairness, not on how reality works. It requires a gibberish interpretation of labour and capital where the price of a product is determined by the physical effort required to produce it and not relative supply and demand.
Second it relies on the also bogus belief that the wages of labour rely heavily on the effort required to produce them and not on the relative supply and demand of different skills in a labour market. This is why Marxist economics is a retarded field for middle-class neets.
Every single time, whilst spouting some condescending ass-tripe about how everyone is 'uneducated' you always go right down to bare-bones generalizations, imagining, falsely, that anyone above the level of metal-basher or porter is a parasite you absolutely refuse to consider that instead of pulling everyone down to the level of lowest common-denominator you should be eroding the wage premium of high-skilled workers by democratizing education.
If any of you fucknuggets were half as clever as you thought you were, you would quit your bullshit. It's not that people are uneducated or that you deduced exactly why someone came to a conclusion, Sherlock. It's that you're a hidebound religious retard whose utopian paradise has been ripped down from the heavens and put in our midst instead. You're still that same section of society that are crusading, violent heretic-burning idiots. You're just pretending to be more sophisticated.
>>887752
how fucking stupid are you? jesus christ
>>888240
Addendum: I am so fucking glad the labour theory of value is wrong. You know why? Because that puts us above the level of fucking savages. Now instead of subsisting like bloody animals a worker can, theoretically, pick up a power drill and mine a fuck-ton of everything, exchanging it for whatever is required. And keep your 100% skimming of profits delusion to yourself. Now fuck off and die commies.
>>888240
>Every single one of these comments defending it is made from a standpoint of defending fairness, not on how reality works.
So 'what if I spend my entire life digging holes and filling them in for no reason' was a more accurate description of how reality really works?
>It requires a gibberish interpretation of labour and capital where the price of a product is determined by
The labour theory of 'value' does not purport to show how the 'price' of a product is determined.
>Second it relies on the also bogus belief that the wages of labour rely heavily on the effort required to produce them and not on the relative supply and demand of different skills in a labour market.
It absolutely does not rely on that at all. That's so far off, I honestly can't even work out what concept you are misunderstanding in order to arrive at that conclusion.
If you can't present your opponent's position in such a way that he would agree with it, then you literally do not know what you are talking about.
>>888240
>This is exactly why LTV is considered at best a heterodox belief.
It's currently heterodox. It wasn't always.
>There is no evidence, never has been any evidence and never will be any evidence that the Marxist idea of labour theory of value has is or will ever be true.
LTV isn't Marxist
>Every single one of these comments defending it is made from a standpoint of defending fairness, not on how reality works. It requires a gibberish interpretation of labour and capital where the price of a product is determined by the physical effort required to produce it and not relative supply and demand.
No, it describes the mechanism behind Smith's invisible hand. This isn't retconning it, this is from Wealth of Nations. From the Start Smith said LTV value isn't the same as exchange price. It is what LTV has been trying to describe since the beginning.
>>The natural price is the central price to which the prices of commodities are continually gravitating. Different accidents may sometimes keep them suspended a good deal above it, and sometimes force them down even somewhat below it. But whatever may be the obstacles which hinder them from settling in this center of repose and continuance, they are constantly tending towards it.
>>Smith
>>It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.
>Marx
Considering Smith is considered the founder of economics, (let us ignore if he really was) you can't say his interpretation of the concepts is gibberish interpretation. It's later people either misunderstanding his point, or pointing out other factors at play. These other factors do not include supply and demand, because LTV is explaining supply and demand behaviors. Anyone who claims supply and demand disproves LTV fundamentally does not understand the point of LTV
>>888240
>Second it relies on the also bogus belief that the wages of labour rely heavily on the effort required to produce them and not on the relative supply and demand of different skills in a labour market.
No it doesn't, at all. Marx specifically wrote about the increasingly dominating role of capital instead of labor in producing profits was the root cause of tensions that would cause revolution. You lack any understanding of what Marx was trying to say and instead projecting your ideas of meme communism (which you can not entirely be blamed for because both Soviets and the west said Marxism was meme communism)
>Every single time, whilst spouting some condescending ass-tripe about how everyone is 'uneducated' you always go right down to bare-bones generalizations, imagining, falsely, that anyone above the level of metal-basher or porter is a parasite you absolutely refuse to consider that instead of pulling everyone down to the level of lowest common-denominator you should be eroding the wage premium of high-skilled workers by democratizing education.
Because you refuse to even read the original documents, or pertinent direct quotes, and just spout meme LTV and meme Marxism.
> If any of you fucknuggets were half as clever as you thought you were, you would quit your bullshit. It's not that people are uneducated or that you deduced exactly why someone came to a conclusion, Sherlock. It's that you're a hidebound religious retard whose utopian paradise has been ripped down from the heavens and put in our midst instead. You're still that same section of society that are crusading, violent heretic-burning idiots. You're just pretending to be more sophisticated.
>If any of you fucknuggets were half as clever as you thought you were
I'm not a Marxist. If you bother to read classical economic texts, they include LTV. You're projecting everyone who calls out your bullshit is a Marxist because its easy to resort to "lel marxist useful idiot" memery.
>>888290
>pick up a power drill and mine a fuck-ton of everything, exchanging it for whatever is required
And how daresay, would you acquire the capital for the lad or mining rights to scarce natural resources? Are you going to end up with a situation like the gold rush, where profits quickly plummet and normalize, because something vaguely like LTV is happening because people are changing professions to gold miner?
>>888339
>>888303
>>888315
>>888328
And once again the Marxist theologian artfully dodges criticism of his chosen dogma by misrepresenting his opponent's points and constantly moving his own position! There's not a single thing you have said which is original in the whole catalogue of communist apologia. It's a funny idea you bringing up 'Meme Marxism', because that's all these replies are: Memes
First: Fuck your gish-gallop
LTV is heterodox because it was always wrong. Quit hiding behind Adam Smith. It's Marxists who use it most today. The value of production depends partly on price. It is about balancing benefit versus cost. The benefit is a good's sale price, you economic illiterate.
In fact it completely explains your ignorance on the gold rush mentality. The price of gold never hit some LTV state because there was always an underlying price mechanism of demand and supply that fed in to the value of producing a good. If you want to say that the price was equal to cost meant that was LTV at work: It wasn't. The price mechanism allows for the price of a good to go below even the subsistence required for life. I would think even a Marxist knows what opportunity cost is, because if price reaches cost and people go work elsewhere, that is also supply and demand, not LTV.
LTV is never right. And yes, it is gibberish.
And from the economically incompetent statements you're saying that capital just drops out the sky from a Capitalists' fat fingers, rather than being any tool, item or good for producing anything.
You obviously did not read my original remarks about how it wasn't everyone misunderstanding you, it's your blind adherence to a religious dogma, which motivates your insistence on misrepresenting others and your own position, whether through lies, half-truths or diversionary tactics, including outright pretending you weren't answered. You're not a Marxist? All this textual bullshit and you think I'll buy that one? I don't care what you say on that
>>888048
I read on Wikipedia that "LTV says that the valor of labor, rather than the overall pleasure/comfort generated by a product, is what dictates prices".
In which case, what would be the theory that says that the comfort generated by something is what dictates price?
>>888433
Two points: There is no such thing as a natural price. And don't worry I've read Welth of Nations. Smith was wrong on LTV
>>888433
It still seems like you don't really understand the concept that the labour theory of value seeks to explain.
But sifting through your insults and non-sequiturs to try and work out exactly what you are misunderstanding seems like a lot of effort for not much value. If you want a meaningful discussion, you need to calm down and express your position a lot more clearly than this. Maybe start by identifying and addressing the particular point that you disagree with, rather than quoting four different posts and throwing together some disjointed rant about how ignorant everyone is.
>>888433
>LTV is heterodox because it was always wrong. Quit hiding behind Adam Smith. It's Marxists who use it most today. The value of production depends partly on price. It is about balancing benefit versus cost. The benefit is a good's sale price, you economic illiterate.
>LTV
>price
>accuse someone of being an economic illiterate
Yeah, you're misunderstanding it and no you never read smith.
>>888456
Until you understand that your baseless accusations and blame-pushing are the sole reason for my hostility, you will never be able to look at yourself critically and why you're wrong. You shouldn't throw stones in glass houses, especially how you pathetically accuse people of calling others ignorant when it comes from your own mewling mouth.
And disjointed? I condensed your ignorance and refuted it in one post. It is your problem that you cannot let go of LTV and its fundamental flaws. Instead you fixate on the typical marxist zealot's tactic of pretending he wasn't answered.
>>888433
>You're not a Marxist? All this textual bullshit and you think I'll buy that one?
Das Kapital is a single book, and single book which you couldn't be assed to read before strawmanning it. If you read one Marxist book, that makes you are Marxist? And I a monetarist because I read a couple of Friedman's books or a Keynesian because I've read some Keynes?
>The price mechanism allows for the price of a good to go below even the subsistence required for life. I would think even a Marxist knows what opportunity cost is, because if price reaches cost and people go work elsewhere, that is also supply and demand, not LTV.
How is that contradictory with LTV? That pretty much explains the supply side of how things approach equilibrium and it's labor based.
>>888461
Glad you completely misread me again. Stop playing yourself.
Until you understand I am calling LTV wrong because LTV makes no reference to the price component of value you will constantly go around in circles pretending that it's others who are ignorant
>>888468
Because you can't even articulate what LTV is. There are lots of reasons to criticism LTV without strawmanning.
>>888472
No it doesn't eqplain any such equilibrium, In fact it defies it, by showing that the price of a good can go below the subsistence for life if there is no option, which is still demand and supply. Or will only fall to the level of cost when an outside option exists, which means it depends on the demand and supply in another goods market.
I don't care what you say about reading Das Kapital, that load of tripe. I'm not strawmanning it and you're falling over yourself defending Marxist shamanism. Actions speak louder that words jackass
I mean come on! I learned this stuff in secondary school
>>888475
Because that's not what LTV seeks to explain. It in general, seeks to explain why commodity goods with relatively stable and predictable demand and are interchangeable with one another settle around the equilibrium price.
>>888478
Look stop calling every critcism 'strawmanning, memery or ignorance'. I mean when will you just admit you're stalling?
>>887684
Literally the only rebuttal I've ever seen of these criticisms is "you just don't understand!"
that's literally what LTV is. Fuck, surplus labor is literally directly taken from the idea that labor hours = value. Guess Marx just doesn't understand LTV, huh.
>>887323
>how is any theory of value even falsifiable? How do you tell where value does or does not come from?
Sraffa says hi
>>888493
>No it doesn't eqplain any such equilibrium
That is the intention of LTV from both Smith and Marx.
>In fact it defies it, by showing that the price of a good can go below the subsistence for life if there is no option
Please articulate this better. What does LTV say about price? Don't do broad paraphrasing of what you think LTV means.
>which is still demand and supply.
LTV seeks to explain a behavior of supply and demand.
>Or will only fall to the level of cost when an outside option exists, which means it depends on the demand and supply in another goods market.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying a monopoly/monopsony would not result is equilibrium prices? Because that would be correct, and LTV doesn't apply there.
You really need to articulate your arguments better. You are broadly asserting LTV says something, and then say it is wrong. You neither show LTV actually says that, or how it is wrong.
>I don't care what you say about reading Das Kapital, that load of tripe. I'm not strawmanning it and you're falling over yourself defending Marxist shamanism.
You should read it, if not for the sole purpose of being able to accurately and concisely attack it.
>Actions speak louder that words jackass
Yes, and the fact that you refuse to educate yourself speaks very loudly.
>I mean come on! I learned this stuff in secondary school
That explains your secondary school level of comprehension.
>>888495
You can dispute what commodity fits that bill, but the central theorem of LTV is that there is a natural price of a good determined by the labour put in to it. And that is wrong
>>888498
>Look stop calling every critcism 'strawmanning, memery or ignorance'. I mean when will you just admit you're stalling?
Because you're stalling whenever someone points out, with quotes, that LTV isn't what you think it is.
>>888500
It would help if you understood at least to the level where you could articulate LTV. But all you do is just say "you're wrong"
>>888508
Neo-Ricardians wish they were as influential as pretty much any other school of economics.
>>888510
More insults, more stalling, more diversions.
I think you just can't accept that LTV is completely false because it asserts an inherent value of a good, a natural pricedependent on effort. In reality the concept has no relation to supply and demand concepts no matter what futile words you say to the contrary.
I say Secondary level Economics comprehension because you don't even have that. And you're talking to someone with a professional degree in the subject.
Surely even a cretin would know I never mentioned monopsony. I mentioned supply and demand in labour markets when there is both an outside option to produce something else or no outside option for a worker when the price is falling. If there is one, the worker will move to what activity is most profitab;ee. If not, the worker can suffer with below subsistence wages. This is pure supply and demand. LTV is foreign.
This is secondary school economics and you refuse to imbine the truth of it, pureluy because of religious ego
>>888515
>You can dispute what commodity fits that bill
Commodity goods. And, not hiding behind Smith, but just to emphasize, the idea that LTV is for commodity goods was from the beginning and started with Smith. It's not reinterpretation or backpedaling, nor does LTV deny scarcity or supply and demand. You can use the textbook definition of commodity.
>>The value of any commodity, ... to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities
>the central theorem of LTV is that there is a natural price of a good determined by the labour put in to it
More or less. More accurately, it's the labor required to produce a good, not the amount of labor actually put into a good.
>And that is wrong
Inarticulate.
>>888519
I ignored your interpretations of what LTV is supposed to do and replied with what LTV is. And why it's wrong.
Whine about muh ignorance all you want. You're just another Marxist using the same tired tricks
>>888547
I told you many times that there is no natural price, that there is supply and demand and that Smith was wrong.
And why.
You can't afford some low-effort whine that I didn't answer you when I already have. Supply and Demand is the only determiner of price and by extension the value of production. There are no natural prices.
>>888519
It doesn't matter how influential Neo Ricardians are.
Sraffa made the model to prove or disprove the labor theories of value.
The necessary conditions to prove that value is determined by labor only are so restrictive that it makes the LTV false for all practical and theoretical purposes.
>>888545
>More insults, more stalling, more diversions.
Literally what you are doing.
>I think you just can't accept that LTV is completely false because it asserts an inherent value of a good, a natural pricedependent on effort.
No it doesn't. It says the market for a commodity will adapt to the point where the market adapts so that is the case because that is the equilibrium state. That includes changes to the supply side as well.
If you want to bring in Marx, he says this is actually unlikely and it's a coincidence when value and price are the same. Marx asserts that price often differs from value.
>I say Secondary level Economics comprehension because you don't even have that. And you're talking to someone with a professional degree in the subject.
Doubt it. Feel free to post a time stamped photo of your diploma.
>Surely even a cretin would know I never mentioned monopsony.
That's implied when you say there is no outside option.
>If there is one, the worker will move to what activity is most profitab;ee. If not, the worker can suffer with below subsistence wages. This is pure supply and demand. LTV is foreign.
You're not explaining how LTV is foreign. You're just asserting. LTV is not an alternative to supply and demand and not mutually exclusive to it. It's a theory about how supply and demand works. So "pure supply and demand" does not exclude LTV.
>This is secondary school economics and you refuse to imbine the truth of it, pureluy because of religious ego
I'm not a Marxist. Even an elemntary reading of only A Wealth of Nations would show your understanding of LTV is shaky.
Because pic is the best way to dertermine value.
The LTV is so limited that it is basically useless. No one in business takes it seriously or uses it in any way.
>>888587
And projection now!
Why would I give you something to doxx?
> It says the market for a commodity will adapt to the point where the market adapts so that is the case because that is the equilibrium state. That includes changes to the supply side as well
Stop talking in airy gibberish. It's so bad it's not even wrong. Again you have moved away from the central failure of LTV: That it asserts a natural price based on effort. And this is wrong because it is contrary to how supply and demand actually is and what it actually does.
Now stop with the stalling and accept that LTV is wrong. Whether you want to admit that I explained it is up to you, but that doesn't change that you're stalling by pretending I didn't.
>>888549
>I ignored your interpretations of what LTV is supposed to do
Quoted Smith, first dudebro of economics and his writings on LTV, and Marx, the communist devil you are trying to exorcise, which are completely relevant to what LTV is "supposed" to be. Again:
>>The natural price is the central price to which the prices of commodities are continually gravitating. Different accidents may sometimes keep them suspended a good deal above it, and sometimes force them down even somewhat below it. But whatever may be the obstacles which hinder them from settling in this center of repose and continuance, they are constantly tending towards it.
>Smith
>>It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.
>Marx
>You're just another Marxist using the same tired tricks
Yes, quoting Marx, the guy you're attacking, and quoting Smith, that economics guy who came out with LTV almost 100 years before, what dirty trickery.
>I told you many times that there is no natural price
You told me that. You didn't support or articulate it besides asserting it to be true.
>And why.
No you didn't.
>You can't afford some low-effort whine that I didn't answer you when I already have. Supply and Demand is the only determiner of price and by extension the value of production. There are no natural prices.
The idea is that supply and demand result in a natural price. Again, supply and demand does not preclude the idea of natural prices. LTV is the result of a thought experiment of supply and demand.
>Sraffa made the model to prove or disprove the labor theories of value.
Yet you seem to unable to articulate his thoughts. Since you haven't read Wealth of Nations or Das Kapital, I'm assuming you haven't read his book either. You just know it exists.
>>888608
>Why would I give you something to doxx?
Because it doesn't exist? What am I going to do with a time stand, and a paper with a university name, and a year on it?
>Stop talking in airy gibberish. It's so bad it's not even wrong.
These are non-arguments
>Again you have moved away from the central failure of LTV: That it asserts a natural price based on effort.
Yes and no. Probably no in the way you seem to be thinking about it. I've asked you to further articulate, but you refuse, instead hiding behind being vague.
>And this is wrong because it is contrary to how supply and demand actually is and what it actually does.
It's not contrary to supply and demand. This is not a fundamental truth, and you can't simply assert it to be the case without support.
>Now stop with the stalling and accept that LTV is wrong
I actually never said it was right. I said there are lots of ways to criticize it without going into full strawman mode and asserting without evidence like you have been doing.
>Whether you want to admit that I explained it is up to you
But you didn't explain anything. You just said "supply and demand" and "LTV is wrong". LTV is a theory based on supply and demand, it's not mutually exclusive with supply and demand.
>>888604
>>The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.
>>The natural price is the central price to which the prices of commodities are continually gravitating. Different accidents may sometimes keep them suspended a good deal above it, and sometimes force them down even somewhat below it. But whatever may be the obstacles which hinder them from settling in this center of repose and continuance, they are constantly tending towards it.
>>Smith
He's saying where the lines cross, market forces tend to drive the prices there, and it tends to be around the point where the results of a unit of labor result are exchangeable for the results of another unit of labor used to make something else. LTV is an attempt to explain what happens with supply and demand.
Value should be decided by the usefulness of item, cheap but sturdy tools, wood and natural resources, more availability from the self defense point-of-view. No wage slavery required, mere laizz-faire capitalism, I urge is the best economic philosophy. It is impossible to product test for some new inventions.
>>888643
No one cares about Smith's LTV either since the marginalist revolution. Value is entirely subjective.
>>888328
Whats the essentials in the Wealth of Nations? What should I skip, and what should I read? Can I have some honest cliffnotes? (I bought the book BTW)
>>888433
>I would think even a Marxist knows what opportunity cost is, because if price reaches cost and people go work elsewhere, that is also supply and demand, not LTV.
LTV is saying that people go work elsewhere because opportunity cost, the market normalizes where the value of the results of a unit of labor are approximately equal to the value of the results of another unit of labor.
LTV is not saying if you put in a unit of labor, the value will always be equal to the value of the result of another unit of labor. It's saying that the market gravitates towards that.
>>888604
>dertermine
You do realise that marginalists deny that they're determining value at all, they're producing a price proxy of ordered utility?
Whose in charge of the economy anyway? Hint: Old American Propagaters
>>888648
>Value should be decided by the usefulness of item
LTV does not deny that. LTV, while it says value is derived from labor, it's not saying because it has labor, it has value. It's saying the logical result is that the market adapts in a way that results in the value of a unit of labor being exchangeable for the value of another unit of labor. The correlation of labor and value is a result of supply and demand. It is not that labor is the cause of price.
>>888655
>No one cares about Smith's LTV either since the marginalist revolution. Value is entirely subjective.
That's a legitimate argument if you claim that the market can not sufficiently adapt to demand in that case, such is the case with trendy items (which are not commodities). Considering that a large part of the economy is based on such goods, applications for LTV are very limited is accurate.
That's entirely different from saying
>NUH UHHHH LTV IS WRONG
>>888659
Just read it.
>>887966
The lowkey shitpost to end all shitposts
>>887988
>Filling in holes would therefore be productive, but making new holes just so that you have to fill them in again would be counterproductive.
What if you're looking for diamonds, but creating pits for people to fall in is a negative externality?
All economic activity begins with human will, so it is a completely reasonable concept and most economists entertain this idea in thought experiments. Marx differs from the others by lending more legitimacy to the idea, if labor was quantified into a single metric like money and incomes paid purely due to labor, incomes would become a lot more equalized.
However there is a fundamental flaw. Labor or effort are merely a few things that stem from will, it would not be a stretch to include agency, desire, risk taking and other things, things that play an essential role in decision making thus every economic activity. When a bricklayer is hired by a construction company, to the bricklayer it seems like they are doing most of the work, if the bricklayer came from the ghetto they lacked the opportunities and education to start their own business, gain a managerial role or more economically productive uses for their labor, that is the injustice if there is one and in an ideal world the economy would be highly developed and everyone would be able to apply themselves, however the problem is not the good wholesome capitalist übermensch who willed the new building into existence and put everything together without which the bricklayer wouldn't have found work.
>>888675
>they're producing a price proxy of ordered utility
can you detail this ?
