Convince me the labor theory of value is true

I believe he is saying that if a commodity was produced that took no labor, you wouldn't buy it because it takes no labor. It could be made constantly just with the Capital costs, and thusly would only even be able to be sold at those costs (competition). No value is created, labor theory of value wins.

I don't think you know what the Labor Theory of value is. It sounds like you are looking at value as use, how effective a product is, etc… When the Labor theory of value is referring to exchange value and how this comes from labor.

Highly unlikely.

Water has no value?
Wait I thought Marx supported the LTV to properly define exchange value.

Can I get an essay explaining how the LTV was literally the crux of every single thing Marx said.

Uh, are you sure you're familiar with the LTV? Marx doesn't mean "value" in the usual dictionary sense of having social worth (that would be "use value"), he defines it as the quantity of abstract labor contained in a community produced under the capitalist mode of production.

Read part one of Capital, it's not that long.

Meant "commodity", not community. wtf

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Electricity, ISP, your laptop itself, the general infrastructure needed (it would be hard to "mine" your shitcoins if nobody took care of the sewers, for instance, and your area were to be flooded by shitwater). But, you know… what's the labour input of backyard cockfighting? Do the bets on the cocks actually reflect the value that is put in organizing the event and raising the cocks?

Marx's LTV is a theory of value which like any scientific theory makes predictions/hypotheses. The LTV argues that the exchange value of commodities is determined by socially neccessary labour time. It is vindicated in this by econometric data. I'm not sure what you mean about 'measuring value'. Value isn't 'measured'. Commodities are valorised in the market and the LTV explains the underlying mechanics (SNLT) by which this occurs within the economy. You seem to be confused about what LTV is.

shitcoin isn't really a commodity, depending on how you look at it, its a currency or more realistically a speculative asset. Although it would be interesting to see some long-term econometric data showing the relation between bitcoin value and the labour input of it its generation.

Wait let me retract the water statement, I just realized how much of a contradictory argument that was.

Aren't (crypto-)currencies commodities, though? Money is the universal commodity.

Attached: 45.jpg (550x500, 45.53K)

If it was consumed with no labor? Yes! The "water" you buy is purified through human labor, bottled/piped/stored by human labor, and transported by human labor. If we were surrounded by drinking water all the time and it was produced by nature, water would have no exhange value. You can actually see this right now with the valuation of air for breathing.
I don't know what you are saying here. I just understand how the LTV works, I couldn't tell you why Marx personally like it other than its explanatory value. Can you be more specific?

Poker chips are currency for currency, what are you getting at?

So you agree that labor produces value then? If not, make a new argument since you and one that one.

I abandoned the last argument because I realized I was just as anti supply as I was anti labor.

I'm guessing you're thinking LTV is a theory how value should be calculated. The LTV explains how value is "calculated". Marx strives to do away with value entirely.

So… do you want to make a new one? I feel like a kid asking his girlfriend for her virginity jesus.

Probably not, I've abandoned that argument and gone on to others since I expect this thread to be over in about 5 minutes.

This was the one explanation I needed.