How would you guys respond to this?

what if I subjectively determine my house to be worth more than all currencies put together?
would that effectively make it private property?

checked

it makes it private property because you are able to private it's use to others based on the rule of law, value has little to do if something is privately owned or not, generally things that are useful tend to have more value, but thats because of the very definiton of use-values

sure you can, but then what? are you going to sell it for that much? who will buy it for that much?
sure, you can determine it's exchange value as high as you want, but in reality it's exhcnage value comes from it's cost of production, it's location, its condition and other material qualities

/thread, sage this shit, this is entry-level bullshit

Mud Pie argument isn't an argument, it's simply ignorance to Marx's actual theories which are HEAVILY interlinked with market exchange.

Why don't you make an image rebuttal so you don't have to keep replying

...

I was just considering the one person in this situation (in situation one he spends less on it than in two but the total SNLT available for exchange haven't changed).

...

...

...

Don't know why I wrote that. Lemme change it.

FUCK
I'm gonna delete my post dw.

SNLT confuses the fuck out of me

why? the math adds up
the capitalist gained money but the total value didnt change

It just means the average amount of time it takes the average worker to produce this commodity. Since capitalism is all about efficiency (since time is literally money), the mechanisms of the market necessarily establish it as a rule of competitive of production.

Spending more time than necessary leads to wasted capital, and labour, and therefore wasted money and less profits.

Just read Capital 1, the first 7 chapters cover value.

how is the average amount of time calculated, and to what degree? and why does the average even matter?

In time, you answered the question yourself.
It is indeterminate, it is constantly changing. The SNLT for an apple could be $0.45 at 1pm and $0.50 at 2 pm. If the fact that is indeterminate seems chaotic to you, that's the point. Smooth production being based on consumers being willing, and able to realize a specific SNLT on the market place yet the SNLT being indeterminate and unpredictable is one of the contradictions that lends itself to crisis.
Because employing capital and labour cost money. The entire point of capitalism is to recuperate a profit from your initial investment. If the most firms can produce the good for $10 and since you take longer than necessary to produce it it cost you $14, you can't sell the commodity for $14 and expect to make a profit when all your competitors are selling it for $10.

So within an industry, there will be an average time it takes to produce a commodity in relation to the the average firm with the average workforce. That is to say, the average amount of rescues and labour power that must be expended in order to produce X commodity. This time is the SNLT.

But also Marx goes deeper into his analysis of value in Capital 3 (which I haven't read), and most people on this board aren't super fluent in Marxian economics either. The one exception is Marxhead who doesn't post as much as he used to.

this is a good bit on it: marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch16.htm

My suggestion is just to read Marx. Even after reading him if you don't agree with him you'll be able to craft a better critique of his economics and philosophy than 95% of Holla Forums and /liberty/. Here's Capital 1.

Alright, that's helped a bit, thanks

I definitely need to read more on Marxian economics.

...

I respond that whoever posts has obviously never read Marx in his life because Marx discusses this very issue in the first chapter of Das Kapital.

Thank you!

OP, I hope you are not offended that I'll just re-post my post from the last time we had exactly the same thread (two weeks ago):

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.

Also, read this thread: