Does the labor theory of value account for time preference

Why does this liberal gorillaposter keep coming here with attempted "gotchas" if he hasn't bothered to do a hint of research beforehand? Last time he couldn't (or didn't want to) understand that labor vouchers are non-distributable, this time he's completely ignored the very basic principle of socially average labor time, which is like the very first thing you have to learn just to understand the definition of the labor theory.

If you're going to single destroy the most influential political-economic branch of theory of the past two centuries you might consider actually reading a few of the countless volumes of all-encompassing research, literature, theory and practice that's been establishing itself with greater and greater depth since the early 19th century. Seriously, why not just cut right to the usual bullshit "calculation problem" or six gorillion fallacious nonsense if you're going to be this lazy?

As far as I know: No.

That's a succinct description of the standard time-preference assumption. Is this assumption reasonable? (The intuition of mainstream economists is not an answer I find compelling.) Imagine 1) storage space is not an issue limiting your decisions and also 2) suppose that the thing in question is not something that eve rusts or rots. Then the standard assumption of time preference seems like a reasonable guess to make.

I spend most of my money on things where at least one of these two assumptions does not apply, therefore I don't think the standard time-preference assumption of mainstream economics is a good rule of thumb. Just consider food. There are some items I regularly buy again and again. If I consume the same thing repeatedly with very little time passing between these occasions, I don't enjoy it as much as when I let more time pass. And that's one good reason why I don't want to obtain everything as early as possible.

I'm actually surprised how far they went from their original "huh really makes u think" questions to actual questions on leftist theory.

that's entirely dependent on what is at stakes.

LTV deals with equalibrium prices, it gives prices that a commodity aims at due to capitalism, thanks to its labour content and exchange prices.

Monopolies or price control dont invalidate it. Shortages or oversupply are short term problems in capitalism that get corrected through the fact that things in shortage allow the capitalist to get more value in exchange than he put in, and vice versa. It then incentivises people to produce that and reduces production in oversupplies things, insofar as that is not hindered by restrictions such as monopolies, education, etc.

So no, it doesnt need to. Just like how a monopoly with price control doesn't.

I'm 99% sure gorillaposter knows exactly what they're doing and it's a flimsy premise to get people to discuss theory.

What is to stop people using other goods for trade instead? Even if you ban all trade, black markets will still exist.

Because black markets exist to fulfill needs that are illegal. They are inherently more expensive than white markets. The only reason to have one in labor voucher system is if stuff people really want is banned. Anything you could buy with vouchers would be far cheaper.

kys ancrap

This is part of its use-value.

/thread

Read

nigga I'm an anprim and I know you're retarded.

Doesn't this just fall into trying to quantify use value?

it's called the "labor theory of value" not the "labor theory of price"