Why is the price of everything in the market arbitrary?
Or I guess the better question is the contrary one: why isn't the value of a good or labor based solely on the energy (literal joules of energy) it took to produce/provide?
Pic semi-related
Because that's not how the market works.
>>79116218
>what is supply and demand
underage b&
also sage
>>79116218
Because people respond to incentives.
>>79116436
No shit.
And I'm proposing the conjecture, "what if the market had a different system of values?"
>>79116218
because that's not what makes something valuable faggot
>>79116572
Then no one will sell or buy goods under that system.
>>79116572
Then you want a people or a church, not a market.
>>79116218
>>79116572
this is economics 101-tier bullshit, fucking supply and demand
why are you on /pol/ and not know this?
>>79116516
I'm aware of supply and demand as well, but it's also a concept that is heavily open to exploitation.
I'm curious about discussing the idea of a system that has the value of goods/labors based on measurable values, rather than chosen values, and what the consequences/benefits/perils of it would be.
>>79116218
scarcity
it takes about the same amount of labor to produce an unsigned basketball jersey and a signed basketball jersey (literal only difference is the signing of the jersey) but because there are more unsigned ones they are less valuable to people, and as such are priced less
If this is leading to a discussion about the labor theory of value, you can just fuck off.
>>79116799
was it not already?
: ^ )
>>79116218
Using joules would be fucking absurd. Using labor would be a better metric in every way, and even that would not work that well.
>>79116218
Because joules of energy aren't directly proportional to the effort required to do work or the value generated.
Unless you want to measure the amount of red bull, addys, and existential clout required to complete an engineering degree
I have no idea if you're trying to drive at some sort of point OP, but no, what you suggest is retarded. What people will pay for something is a much better indication of value than how many joules it took to produce it. If that was the case beginners paintings would be worth more than masters because they would spend more time making them.
>>79116218
>why isn't the value of a good or labor based solely on the energy (literal joules of energy) it took to produce/provide?
Because the labor theory of value was consistent with reality, you could sit around all day carving wood spoons or digging holes and money would fall from the sky to compensate you for your input labor.
>>79116218
In a way, it's already happening. The most expensive items and services are resource, energy and labour-heavy.
>>79116721
Chosen value is derived from input costs. If you have a high margin product it will be attacked or bargained down as competent buyers are aware of your input costs.
Most consumers don't give a fuck and have information asymmetry where say, apple, know how much douche bags can afford and the douche bag doesn't don't the margin. So it's set at a point tards will pay.
So I argue that everything is priced , or chosen to use your words, by input costs.
>>79116581
This, labor theory of value is bull.
Example: every Magic takes the same amount of labor to create but some are worth more because of rarity and such.
>>79116218
Well OP, in theroy, it is.
More valued objects are harder to make which take more labor.
However this is also strictly corelated to demand and supply. Because of high demand and supply being low due to hard labor, the items become more valued.
Except for the case of some valuables like diamonds, where the owners have gotten all of the diamond mines and reduce the supply to make them more expensive.
>>79116218
>why isn't the value of a good or labor based solely on the energy (literal joules of energy) it took to produce/provide?
So what you are saying is "I dont think the economy is controlled by oil companies enough as it is, I want the energy sector to own the ENTIRE economy!"
>>79117240
You have to be fucking trolling.
>>79117082
No it wouldn't, because somebody who could produce equivalent spoons faster/cheaper/with-less-energy could undercut me in the market.
That's a neat little chart you have there, OP.
One BUMP for you.
>>79116721
value is determined by perception
it is totally subjective
>>79117081
Master painting is already more energy-heavy, since the master has likely spent decades on their craft.
>>79117213
It would take more energy to find a diamond than copper.
>>79117332
You're not getting me, famiglia. What I'm saying is that the value of the spoons and the holes is correlated with the demand. Your could make wood spoons until your hands give out but if no one wants to buy them, it was a waste of your time and your joules.
>>79117615
No it wouldn't. Diamonds aren't scarce to begin with, the owners already have a vast amount stored. They just sell them in low amounts to keep the prices high.
>>79117704
Yes, so, this would effect whether or not the product is purchased.
Not the actual purchasing value.
The last three digits of this post is the IQ sum of everyone in this thread.
>>79118031
>including (you)
>>79117949
You could argue that under your theory you can drive down your own bottom line by being super-efficient at producing spoons, but the raw materials that you use will ultimately be valued by demand alone.
