What do you think about Marx's idea that the price of goods is influenced by the invested labour?

value or 'price' is resolved from demand, consumer tastes and preferences. The markets willingness to buy a good 100% affects the price.

This example has nothing to do with the labour or even costs to the burger but the willingness of the consumer due to his individual needs/tastes

youtu.be/UqOtQM8PCvA
For you.

not an argument

yup and consumer taste and preference are just subsets of demand in this context

shut up

I said nothing about cost or the invested labor.
I DON'T think that the cost or the invested labor is equal to the price of a good or value, whatever that means outside of the price.
Some of you seem to think that tho, which is just wrong.

oh boy, lmao

You should probably listen to the explanation, fam.

Lol

Sell me your car for a dollar then

Stop being stupid

it's fine if you use money for currency colloquially, but not in an "educational" video

there is no difference between those two

no it's not, it is determined by the market and is completly subjective

No. Money is a commodity and is subject to the same market forces as any other commodity.

Jesus christ wtf is this image.
You can't just immdeatly jump into equating the price of a burger with ambigious minutes "of value" like that without properly defining it.

Everything about that is just completly wrong. Equating burgers with some ambigously defined value minutes. A person holding "time" like its currency. The capitalist for some reason getting time in this transaction without making the context clear.

And for some reason the total value at the end, which is completly unrelated to everything before.

Wtf does total value even mean? Which total value of whom?

WTF is this? This is not even wrong, it's just a confusing mess of definitions.

There is no difference between price and value.

First post best post

Lol, illiterate classcuck confirmed

why would some kind of "value" even relevent outside an exchange?

It's a meaningless concept.

A-are you guys just worshippers of a marxist religion and believe in these axioms without any prior evidence for them. W-why?

Idk, you are the one discussing price

Show me a commodity that was created without labour then, either living or dead labour

Show me a commodity which has an absolute zero SNLT

Also

Lol

grass, the one used to feed livestock that is

or gold, but you probably won't accept that, because muh mining

But as I said. Labour is competly irrelevent.

I don't believe in the invisible hand. That term is way too overused by cuckservatives for me to even consider using it.

Lol, retard doesnt understand what a commodity is

Ok, there is some grass in the middle of kansas, how are you going to give it use without labour, how are you going to commodify it without labour? A commodity is an obke t that satisfies human wants how do you turn grass into something that satisfies my desire of feeding livestock without living or dead labour?

This is what happens when you are too busy watching cuck porn instead of reading the texts you claim to know anout

But axiomatic positions are dogmatic, aren't they? :^}

Grass is a commodity to feed livestock.

Not every commodity has to be directly related to humans. Obviously.

It still would be a commodity, even under this definition, because it satisfies the demand of farmers to feed their livestock.

Prices are subjective. You guys need to believe in a very confusing theory to somehow give your worldview some sense.

Also you realize, commie-kun, that even marxist labour theory of value says that prices are subjective? Right?

just see there, your own memepic

Subjective yes but to what?
it is subject ot it's exchange value.

we were trying to tell you this but you kept your head in the sand.
WHY

there is no such thing as exchange value

there is price and that's it, the rest are just concepts that have no relation to reality and are meaningless

You guys believe in such a confusing theory, that even your own people get it wrong:

Lol, imagine being this illiterate

Yes, that is what I typed, feel free to prove how they can realize thismdesire without dead or living labour, and with a SNLT of absolute zero

Correct

No, Cost-of-Production thoery of value is empirically correct,I dont follow the regular interpretation of the LTV

I have a fucking black flag you rdummy-kun

Correct, too bad we are debating exchange values

You have failed to provide an example of a commodity that can be realized without any form of living or dead labour, and that requires and absolute zero SNLT

Lol, how would you know, you are illiterate

Realize what?

The labour is all on the livestock side in relation to eating grass.

You all look the same to me, anarcho-kun.

(I am colourblind)

Exchange value is price. Price is just the "value" of exchange.

What you constructed to mean exchange value is just a concept only found in marxist theory to fit your ideology.

It's not used anywhere else.

Well good thing that was not my point in the first place.

Define for me exchange value and why don't you just use price instead?

THEN HOW ON EARTH PEOPLE DID TRADE BEFORE THE EXISTENCE OF CURRENCY ?

they EXCHANGED commodities directly, the value of each commodity worth in comparison to other commodity is called EXCHANGE value

NOW FUCK OFF AND READ SOMETHING YOU ECONOMICALLY ILLITERATE RETARD

So how does the grass grow? Does nobody tend the grasslands and they just magically grow without a hitch? Is no labour put into the grasslands? If no labour has been put into it, then it's not a commodity.

Prices are subjective, no duh. Prices are affected by how the market is acting and is typically set through a three-fold relationship, buyer vs buyer, seller vs seller, and buyer vs seller.
The Marxist LToV states that a commodity requires labour (living as in I go and make the pizza, dead as in I build a machine that makes the pizza) to be able to gain values, an exchange and use value.
The Exchange value is based on the amount Socially Necessary Labour, so 8 hours of labour = 1 coat = 16 pounds of coffee = 2 computer chips. It is from here that the EV has an *effect* on the *price*, but isn't the final deciding factor.
The Use Value is completely subjective. Different commodities have different use values. Without putting in any labour, these commodities have no use.

Huh, it's like you've never even touched Capital and are arguing out your ass and demanding that we accept your bs without proving anything.

And you have to raise the livestock, caress them, herd them, feed the herding dog, construct a farm and mantain it, all of that which requires labour

Good job retard, you didnt prove anything

Feeding livestock requires labour from the human

Wrong, as price is subjective, capitalists will never let exchange value become subjective, as they wont sell commodities for less money than what they cost to produce, as they will go bankrupt

What you constructed is a sign that lets us see that you are illiterate

You tried to imply exchange value is the same as price

Price is subjective, exchange value must be equal or higher than the cost of production

Value assigned to commodiities when exchanged

Because price involves money, and price is subjective and changed by currency inflation or deflation, exchange value does not and is not

Considering the rest of the thread, you're probably to retarded to connect the dots on the EV.
It takes 8 hours of labour to create a coat.
It takes 8 hours of labour to create 16 pounds of coffee.
And so on and so on. These are examples, not real world equivalencies.

It's in Marxist terms you fool. Different schools of academic fields have their own terms.

God you're such a fucking idiot.

retard of the month.
As Engels said a-propos the marginal value theory : "Vulgar Economy everywhere !"

There is no difference in Marxist terms.

In fact, I'm unaware of anyone but mug gold standard autistrians making a distinction.