Person 1: I would pay $3 for that burger

...

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/VdubI
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

Really makes you think.

Socially necessary Labor time is a description of what happens between commodities in a competitive capitalist economy
Marx wasn't stupid, he even called his theory of value a subjective one and that value was realized by the market

...

...

forgot to sage

maybe you should read the beginning of capital, it actually makes sense.
Diamonds are valuable now, because there's a large Socially necessary average labor time to acquire them. Are you implying that if suddenly diamonds were everywhere and took no labor to acquire, people would still pay the same amount for them because they just like them so much?

here you go

The labour now costs $5 dollars,not $3 you would know there is a difference between the concept of price and the concept of value, and that the subjective theory of value is compatible with marxism if you werent a dumb, mouthbreathing retard

Can you explain this? always struggle to wrap my head around it

...

...

Your analogy about diamonds falls apart when you realize that that's literally what happened. Diamonds were rare and expensive, now they're common and expensive.

Basically, it's more or less how long it takes to generate one commodity under average circumstances using average technology.


That's because diamond companies have a virtual monopoly and maintain artificial scarcity in order to keep the price up, since it's not in any of their interests for the price to fall so that all that infrastructure they invested in to mine diamonds suddenly produces worthless rocks.

total labor time that goes into a commodity, averaged out over all the people producing that commodity.
Labor time includes the living labor employed as workers, and the "dead" labor of all the inputs (wool for coats) and means of production used up or depreciated. This is all measured as price. A representation of something, however, is not that thing. It's an abstract representation that can fluctuate in it's accuracy but generally trends back to representing SNALT.

if what you were saying is true it would also invalidate supply and demand, retard.
Also diamond companies hold monopolies/oligopolies. As I said, SNALT describes capitalism in competition.

Which proves that the less labour needed to extract them, the less their price on the market is

Yo are a special kimd of stupid arent you?

and yet the nutritional value of the burger and the work that went into the burger remains the same regardless.

Are you saying we should base value around what we feel is valuable? Our feelings, rather than verifiable fact? Are you in fact a shrill capitalist SJW just crying your eyes out for people to stop being offensive about the dominant economic system?

P-p-please don't rock the boat with your s-s-starvation or m-m-m-my collection of anime and video games might g-g-get wet

pics related

I bet OP is crawling back to /liberty/, mumbling "s-sure s-showed those l-leftists"

You're describing a monopoly situation. Sellers cannot arbitrarily set prices generally because there is a degree of competition.

How are burgers produced and sold? You have machinery (and animals here to) [always deducible to their labour-inputs… and which deprecate in value due to wear and tear and technological advance] and labour costs and also you have costs like rent and interest, which cannot be deduced to labour costs but are the result of pure capitalization on legal titles. All the LTV says is prices in the long run tend to converge on their value [socially necessary labour time].

The amount of necessary human labour personified in burgers has progressively decreased and will continue meaning their value does as well as more machinery is introduced into the process.

...

no price is too high for the nourishing burger

This. Price doesn't represent use value. The price of an object corresponds to an area of overlap between the minimum amount of money that has greater use value than the product to the seller and the maximum amount of money that has greater use value than the product to the buyer.

If seller is selling a burger and he decides that the burger has less use value than any amount higher than $2.

The buyer decides that the burger's use value is greater than any amount lower than $6.

The price is just some area in between that overlaps the buyer's maximum and the seller's minimum amount of money that has greater use value than the burger. It does not tell you what the use value actually is to either party.

Another analogy is that two parties are each thinking of a number, the number represents the use value to each party. Person A is thinking of a number below 7 (negatives are allowed), while person B is thinking of a number above 4. Now based on this information, determine what number each person is thinking of.

It's possible that they are both thinking of the same number if it's between 4 and 7, however each person is thinking of their own number within their own parameters, so there is no guarantee that the number falls in that overlap. That overlap represents the agreeable price between the two parties, it doesn't represent the number that each is thinking of, simply a range where it's possible for them both to think of the same number.

Considering that market value theory (ie the value of something is equal to whatever somebody is willing to pay for it) is entirely based on the idea that monetary value represents use value, this essentially destroyed its entire premise.

LTV on the other hand operates on the fact that labour is the source of all value, and as such should be used as a measure by which to set price.

The whole reason we have the theory thread is to help dumbasses like you actually understand what you're talking about.

...

Interesting, it seems that, over time, the rate of profit has a tendency to fall

Suppose the burger is priced at less or equal to $3, then both will get one. The person who would pay a higher price of up to $5, if he had to, doesn't actually pay that higher price.

Going a bit abstract here, putting economies of scale and patent monopolies aside: If we assume that there is efficient competition, that is, that it is easy for entrepreneurs to quickly enter or leave this or that type of business, and they are only making that decision based on where profit rate is high, the cost of production is what basically determines the price of goods, demand fluctuation (some stuff going in and out of fashion) only playing a minor role. This is the argument of classic economics.

You might wonder: Can the argument for subjectivity being important be saved by changing the example to, say, a unique art piece? After the unique art piece is sold, you can doodle some curves for an after-the-fact "explanation". But without repeating phenomena, what's left of economics as a science? Classical economics deals with a production process that repeats, with mass production, and makes predictions about that using physical data. The subjective turn "explains" everything after the fact, it comes up with some stories about what might have happened in this or that person's head. Where are the predictions? Where is the science? This is not an advance over the old method, it's a dead end of nothing but pure faith.

...

archive.fo/VdubI

...

Cucked again.

Why did you bump this shitty thread?

Persona 3: I will shoot myself in the head with a magical gun to expel the burger within in a grotesque pantomime of self annihilation.
Persona 4: The perception of the burger and the objective burger can only reconcile themselves in a violent psychic confrontation via the media of the culture one absorbs.

Have you stupid fucking faggots never heard of the marginal theory of value

It's not called the labour theory of price, faggot.

Yes, it's wrong.

Why can we never have anybody who actually knows just a tiny fucking bit about economics come here and criticize LTV? Why is it always bumbling morons who didn't bother to read anything but the first couple of lines on the wikipedia article?
I ask because since the LTV has very little presence in any modern econ institute, even of the lefty variety, there has to be some strong arguments against it. Like, why go neoclassical at all? I saw the first couple of lectures of that guy Anwar Shaikh about his new book, and I was looking for critiques made of it but couldn't find any. It seems to me that he argues that there's no strong argument to make any of the concessions that neoclassical econ seems to require, why make those concessions then? Why did they make them in the first place?

I've yet to find any critique of the LTV that doesn't either conflate value with price or make the mudpie argument. I'm fairly certain they have no real argument and bash it for ideological reasons. I mean, how can you be arguing in good faith when your arguments are already addressed by Marx in fucking Capital?

The LTV is bullshit.
"When speaking in terms of a labor theory of value, value, without any qualifying adjective should theoretically refer to the amount of labor necessary to produce a marketable commodity, including the labor necessary to develop any real capital used in the production. Both David Ricardo[1] and Karl Marx tried to quantify and embody all labor components in order to develop a theory of the real price, or natural price of a commodity.[2]"
There is no non-arbitrary way to determine the amount of labor time necessary to produce a marketable commodity, if Joe works his own one-man factory and one of the machines necessary for producing widgets is half-broken and widgets now take 8 hours to produce instead of 4, and Joe never spends the five minutes required to repair the half-broken machine, is the "necessary amount of labor" for Joe to produce a widget 8 hours or 4? You could say "it's whatever is required to produce a widget right now", well what if Joe owns another one-man factory that's capable of running at 75% capacity (e.g. it would take 6 hours) that's 30 miles away, is the "amount of labor necessary" 6 hours or 8 if he's halfway between the two factories, what if he's 5 miles away from the 75% capacity factory, what if he has plans for a machine that would cut the total time of production in half but never builds it, what if simply changing the process but not the actual hardware of producing the widgets would reduce the process to only requiring 1 hour of labor, the only potential answer to "what is the amount of labor necessary to produce a widget" is an arbitrary one, and if your theory relies on an infinite number of arbitrary decisions to determine something as seemingly simple as the "necessary amount of labor" that's hardly an objective determination of value. There have been factories producing cars which have required significantly more or less human labor due to automation, what is the "socially necessary labor time" for a completely automated process, right, your theory immediately breaks down because it's bullshit, according to the LTV a car produced solely by robots is of no value (in your reponses, please remember to pretend that it's physically impossible for a completely automated process to produce a car from scratch, even though it isn't, because leftists must always argue in bad faith.)
Consider Menger's Critique:
"There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command…The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value."

(2/2)
Labor is a "cost" to the person laboring, but how costly that feels to the laborer is completely subjective, the trouble of "acquiring a mowed lawn" (the difficulty/expense of having your lawn mowed, either by yourself or others), even assuming all lawns were exactly the same in size/shape, is subjective. Put simply, there is subjectivity in the appraisal of how difficult a task which requires x hours of time is, even if it requires x hours every time. But more importantly,
"The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed on average for its production… "socially necessary" is that the value only increases in proportion to this labor as it is performed with average skill and average productivity."
Skill is subjective: is a statue that is made 1.534x times faster but matches the model it is based off of 5% less exactly better or worse than the statue that is produced exactly and more slowly? That depends on your subjective preferences, and productivity is tied directly to exchange value, which is tied directly to how people subjectively value that object for exchange; a famous movie prop or autograph which required little labor to produce might have enormous exchange value, HENCE the productivity of the small amount of labor involved in making the prop/signature is very high, even though the intensity of the labor was relatively low, it is only because of the subjective appraisal of the "skill" of the person signing the autograph that determines the productivity, not some objective relationship to the amount of time it takes to produce an autographed photo. If I am having my lawn mowed, and the price of having it done by a group of young women with lawnmowers is more expensive than having a man do it with scissors, the LTV says the painstakingly cut lawn with scissors is somehow more valuable, you can try to save this by saying use value is not the same thing as exchange value but there is variability in the end lawn and there is no remotely objective way to say that one lawn is more skillfully cut than another, if a society subjectively values a traditionally mowed lawn that uses scissors instead of lawnmowers, the "average productivity" of a worker who uses inefficient methods could be higher than a worker who uses modern tools which would produce faster results and a more consistently mowed lawn, would Marx argue that in this case it is objective fact that a lawn produced with scissors is done so more skillfully if people only value having their lawns cut with scissors, even though LTV would say that the combined higher order goods combined with the faster worker would imbue "more labor time" and therefore produce more value, in this hypothetical society people subjectively dislike the modern lawnmowers and so the average productivity of workers using them is zero. Let's say a town has two companies offering to mow lawns, one staffed by a group of young women that cut lawns with horse drawn lawnmowers and the other with a man who offers to cut it with a regular lawnmower with a motor, if other men liked to pay to see the women mow in the summer heat, and maybe the women don't quite get a consistent pattern unlike the man with an actual lawnmower, maybe that inconsistent pattern is "better" (depends on your preference), is the lawn that is generally considered to look more shabby but has beautiful women doing the job "less skillfully" done, the men paying for it would say no, but that depends on your preferences both for beautiful women and consistent or inconsistently cut lawns. To try to save your "objective" theory by tying in "average skill" and "average productivity" is fucking ridiculous, BECAUSE AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT UPON HOW MUCH PEOPLE SUBJECTIVELY VALUE THE END PRODUCT, AND THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF SKILL. The only response to the mudpie argument is to tie in productivity and skill
WHICH IS INEVITABLY TIED TO SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES

Use value and exchange value aren't the same but they are related.

Bait harder next time.

And value is based on labor time which, to make sense in light of the mudpie argument, requires the involvement of "socially necessary" labor time (not just labor time), socially necessary labor time depends on productivity and skill which are tied to subjective human preferences, hence the whole thing is not objective if it all hinges upon making it seem not retarded by appealing to the (subjective) aspect of productivity.

...

Oh, this is the part where you can't handle rational discourse so we just post memes? Okay, two can play at that game.

How exactly is productivity subjective, if I may ask? You produce a certain amount of commodities or you don't?

Productivity is tied to exchange value which is a result of subjective preferences.

Let's say I have a twin who is famous, I am not. If we take the same amount of time and produce an autograph that is written in an extremely similar script, my famous brothers' autograph is subjectively valued more and hence 10 seconds of his writing is arbitrarily more productive than my own.

This is the first time someone with a cunt besides your mother has talked to you in years, don't prove the picture right by freaking out about identity politics the first chance a woman disagrees with your inane dribble.

Even I'm more respected than you on the internet.

Oh no, I am going to have to reevaluate my entire life because of this new revelation :(

The reason you can't get laid is because down the line in American history there was a lot of rural incest. I'm assuming you're an American fourth generation and natavist or so forth because of how retarded you are, if you're not I'm really sorry I thought the best of you.

You also reevaluate your life every day because you are depressed, so I can't tell if you're joking or not.

How is an autograph comparable to, let's say a hammer? An autograph doesn't have any inherent use value, unlike a tool,food, shelter ect.

It's a little ironic someone posting with an ancap flag would complain about Jews. Anyways, pay no mind to an-fem poster.

You're right, you get harder when the person behind the flag is a trap.

Please don't mind the attention whore who bitches about flags.

omg this is so asexualphobic you fucking bigot I hope you get gassed by the SJW Stormtroopers >:(!

If you could fit any information into your vacuous head besides how horribly you have been victimized by society, you might be aware of the fact that more women are on antidepressants than men, given that your mind immediately jumped to the subject of depression I can only assume this is a textbook case of projection, and I strongly encourage you to stop taking those SSRIs, they're bad for you.

I'd joke Rothbard was an honorary Aryan but some shitposter would screencap it and pretend I meant it literally.

What is the objective process for determining whether or not objects of aesthetic and sentimental value have no inherent use but tools used to produce warmth (e.g. shelter) are?

Can't eat an autograph. This is why people who buy gold & silver for exchange in a societal collapse are dumb. Personal circumstance plays a role, but money is literally just time people have invested into making something/providing something.

I don't care about social justice warriors I'm a radical feminist.

I just find it really funny you can't get laid. Most people in your position just go "NUH UH I GET LAID A LOT".

But what I find funnier is that you misread my first post to bring up "Jews and Shitskins".

Maybe if you were asian like myself, with actual parents and not the baby boomer offspring of inbred hicks, you wouldn't have your mother breathing down your neck about your inability to make a career to bitch about how unrestricted Capitalism is the solution on a communist message board.

Being sane. You aren't sane, so you don't understand a teddy bear signed by Selina Gomez isn't of the same value as an engine.

Go away.

...

You can't eat shelter, either :^)

You can certainly eat asbestos, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. Look at where your life is now.

Sorry, you people aren't even human, I'm going to stop reading there before any more of your sadistic gook hatred tries to boil me alive.

Yeah, but it'll keep your ads from freezing.

Wut

That picture is a good argument for why traditions are stupid.

If humanity is getting shit grades in school and bitching at your community college counselor about being rejected from disability services for having depression to explain why you're on academic probation again, I am glad I have transcended the bounds of humanity.

Ass

An ancap calling someone sadistic

BING BING CHING CHONG READ MY POST UNTIL YOUR SOUL IS GONE
GET AWAY FROM ME BEFORE I BLIND YOU WITH DENTAL FLOSS YOU FUCKING GOOK!

...

what did he mean by this

She's just sperging out.

shh, be quiet, they might hear us and try to boil our pet dogs alive for their soup

Different poster, you fucking retard.

This is Holla Forums, what do you think happens on Holla Forums.

see


I am going to boil this boy alive

My ears are bigger than your dick probably. So are my eyes.

Don't sexualize me you fucking pervert

Don't worry nobody is

Is this your implicit admission that you're subhuman, i.e. you are trying to sexualize me while referring to yourself as nobody?

So, if you needed any more evidence that chinks aren't human, here you have their own admission.

I hope this thread gets deleted before the Nip gets there and kills the subject of the OP's picture.

Tat's not what productivity is you simpleton. Productivity refer to an amount of commodity produced by unit of time. What you're talking about is profitability.

The end. VALUE!

I'm glad anfem poster derailed the thread so no one wasted their time with this retarded post.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/

At least bother to get an understand of Marx before parroting or copy and pasting Autistrian 'critiques' you found on OpinionsTube or mises.org.

No, I honestly think you should at least answer his post.

Debunking posts that are against us and engaging in discussion sharpens and improves our ideas and ultimately proves them right, if they are right.

So actually, fuck the anfem poster. She turned what could've been an economic debate, where we BTFO an ayncrap, into a idpol laced distraction where the actually reactionary ayncrap (as autistic as he is) now has a point. (I hate fucking gooks.)

Basically, don't make an echochamber. Ideas are sharpened by debate. And, go BTFO his ass instead of being a pussy about it.

And yes, I done it myself.

Forgot my glorious Gadsden flag.

Read Marx.

ITT: People who don't read the thread "arguing" with each other.

Holy kek the cappie literally sperging

(I'm the guy he responded to)
Ancaps response is exactly the fucking bumbling of people with absolutely no understanding of economic theory that I was talking about. Every single argument he raises is either:
"Muh arbitraryness"-man has discussed this shit a hundred fucking times here, every single time he gets fucked over ten ways, and he still makes the same shitty illiterate arguments every time. He doesn't deserve any fucking serious response.

Just as a way you can ignore him from the fucking start:
He keeps talking about "subjective preference" as if that somehow "debunks" LTV, but the fact is that no fucking economic theory was ever based upon the "subjective preference theory of value". It's just not a fucking thing.