Let's discuss the validity of the LTV

The LTV doesn't factor into cost the capitalization upon [physical or intellectual] property titles. Property titles command monopoly rents e.g. if I could acquire a copyright on the colour blue and sue everyone that used it I could extort a rentier income off this intangible asset I acquired from the state. Property titles are capitalized upon in many complex sorts of ways to acquire purchasing power which allows the owners to restructure the capital structure in ways they otherwise couldn't.

Mainstream economics focuses on how people spend their income without really questioning the source of it… they assume all income is "earned". The LTV operates under the assumption that the value of products and capital goods can be purely transformed into their labour costs which of course is not true as long as property exists. Market prices do not reflect value but are capitalized "earnings" reflecting many things such as land and other property rights in them.

Human capital. More time/money has been invested into the porn star's dick-sucking, so of course her succ is going to be more valuable.

...

If you want discussion you need to put more effort into the OP than "Hey what do you guys think about X" you dumb faggot.

...

If they were actually economically literate they'd know that the LTV is just a theoretical explanation for a subjective value and isn't any more or less refutable than any other theoretical explanation of how people find value in things.

You don't need any certificate to be a professional dicksucker, just look at yourself

But isn't that only true to a limited degree. Sure there's makeup artists and camera men that put in labor to make her dick sucking more valuable but a poem star can often earn 100s sometimes 1000s of times more than a plain prostitute.

The amount of additional labor that goes into a poem stars dick sucking doesn't make up that huge difference.

Price is not value.

LTV doesn't try to explain market prices but the centre around which they equilibrate and how this regulates the production of commodities

As far as I understand LTV is a version of supply and demand that explains why supply and demand exist in the numbers they do and how different commodities relate to society and each other.

Then again, I might be wrong.

Yep, you're right: you are wrong
Not a big deal fam. LTV can be boiled down to the statement that the value of any given commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time it takes for society to produce it.

Remember, we are not referring to the exchange value of the object, but the use value. Whenever people say something along the lines of "LTV is wrong because diamond/water paradox" or whatever, they are mistaking value for exchange value, which is purely a capitalist concept.

Don't take my words as gospel though. I'm still working my way through this stuff. Marx's Capital would be a prime read on the subject, but in the meantime reading a condensed version of the book or even just the wiki on the LTV would be helpful.

Oh yes, i know it talks about value and SNLT, that is what I meant by "how commodies relate to society and each other". Marx uses the SNLT and all that to explain why there is a demand for commodities, why there is a certain supply, why the price is a certain way and how competition works.

Oh, but you forget that we have gone past the traditional market roles into a perverse sense of capitalism, where the human capital rises, not because of labor put into the capital, rather than the fetishization of said capital and the propaganda that made people want it. It's the same as "whole foods" and so on. You don't by the tangerine. You but the idea of the single unpealed tangerine in the single box. The spectacle is stronger than matterial conditions.
Until it throws a rock in it's glass house, that is.

Even if we don't go by Marx, we can go by Ford.
If the proletariat does not have money to buy the comodities it makes, they'll remain unsold. With higher automation, less workers are needed, less wages, less purchasing power.

More supplie, less demand. That means part of the production has to be destroyed, crisis and so on.

The reason LTV and so on is argued against so much nowadays, is precisely because the crisis in the 70-80s was averted by the creating of credit cards and so on. And today's crisis is the outcome of that. Yet nobody wants to accept it, or it would mean capitalism doesn't work and automation will bring it's end. So the modern priesthood of economists refuses to accept the truth and will do everything possible to "debunk" LTV.