i think it's basically true, at least for how I kinda manage my finances in my head
Like "I had to work X hours for the Y price that costs is it worth it" or "would I be willing to work for two days for this"
Labor theory of value is immediately debunked by the fact that certain input goods and quality of craftsmanship can increase the value of a good substantially over its peers. A cotton bathrobe made in a Chinese sweatshop that took 30 hours to make will never be worth as much as a silk kimono from a highly trusted Japanese craftsman that was able to make it in 10 hours. There's far more to the value of a good than the amount of labor hours put into its creation.
For me it's more "am I willing to work this long and this hard for that?" rather than how long and hard it took the dude to make it
Presumably he'll feel the same for the money he gets in exchange for it
He would have to charge more for his bad robe than the good garment and so he'd probably go out of business. His labor has low efficiency, essentially, and people aren't willing to trade much of their own labor for it
Like if some giant slow fat dude said he'd work on my house for a day if I worked on his for a day, I probably wouldn't make that trade since he'd do less than me
To put it another way a lot of the labor isn't actually going into the good
Like the slow fat dude is expending a lot of his labor lugging his fat around, which doesn't actually provide a good or service to me directly
Similarly the less efficient sweatshop guy would be spending effort on stuff like figuring out where to put a stitch that the expert kimono maker would know right away; it's labor but the labor isn't really going directly to me in any way so doesn't add to its value
I'd argue that you'd wear the cotton robe more often, and the silk kimono far less often. Cotton robe would be wore probably every time you shower, while a silk kimono needs a special occasion.
There's also no secret Japanese craftsmanship, for silk weaving(not that they'd actually be weaving their own silk), silk cutting, or silk sewing. This isn't 500 years ago.
The Japanese are weaving silk by machine, and likely not doing anything different to sew the silk cloth.
People get suckered into thinking authenticity is a marker of quality. When it's really not.
I don't get it
What about the skill you need, and resources, and intelligence
Time is not the only factor
A smart person can do a hard task in a shorter amount of time, he deserves less money?
The labor theory of value is easily defeated when you realize that spending 10 hours of labor digging a ditch actually produces no value at all if no one wanted a ditch dug there
Yeah. Also, you can only get value for something if there is a demand for it. So somebody who knows how to build chariots can't make a living bc nobody wants that. But somebody that can fix airplanes or cars is very useful. Put simply. Just bc you waste your time doing something doesn't mean it has any inheritant value.
Labor theory of value is immediately debunked by the fact that certain input goods and quality of craftsmanship can increase the value of a good substantially over its peers. A cotton bathrobe made in a Chinese sweatshop that took 30 hours to make will never be worth as much as a silk kimono from a highly trusted Japanese craftsman that was able to make it in 10 hours. There's far more to the value of a good than the amount of labor hours put into its creation.
Value is determined by whatever someone else is willing to pay for it and that’s it.
Why do all critics of LTV know nothing about it? Intensity of labor, socially necessary labor, try to learn what the theory is instead of attacking an oversimplified strawman.
Still ignores the fact that things only have value because people put value on those, and as different people value things on different amounts value is inherently subjective, with labor intensity or """social necessity""" and time to lean being completely irrelevant
and that is even before you account for time preferences and supply&demand into the mix
There a reason why LTV is a joke in economy
That's not how the economy works though. When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says.
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
Why do all critics of LTV know nothing about it? Intensity of labor, socially necessary labor, try to learn what the theory is instead of attacking an oversimplified strawman.
They put a subjective price and I either buy or not subjectively, value is subjective so the ltv is always wrong
2 months ago
Anonymous
So you're just going to dogmatically insist on subjective price being a metaphysical reality. Fine, let it be so. Nevertheless the LTV remains a strong predictive model for how these subjective prices end up behaving in a market.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says.
yeah which is why it's shit. and the stock market is way better: pure supply and demand
2 months ago
Anonymous
>When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says
And when you go to the market you bargain.
The labor theory of value is easily defeated when you realize that spending 10 hours of labor digging a ditch actually produces no value at all if no one wanted a ditch dug there
Labor theory of value is immediately debunked by the fact that certain input goods and quality of craftsmanship can increase the value of a good substantially over its peers. A cotton bathrobe made in a Chinese sweatshop that took 30 hours to make will never be worth as much as a silk kimono from a highly trusted Japanese craftsman that was able to make it in 10 hours. There's far more to the value of a good than the amount of labor hours put into its creation.
Black person, Marx talks exactly about this in The Capital, Dunno what you gays are pretending. Of course labor is not the only value, but it may as well be the starting to point to factor the equation.
The basic example is mining materials. Materials that are mined and processed must cost as much as the effort to produce them. Next thing factored is supply, which Marx also talks about, if the costly shit were more available its price would go down.
The point of centering socialism around the idea is that the core of the thing's value is the effort when you strip down the rest of unnecessary things like profit, competition, etc.
Otherwise, what should a thing cost when you have a fair AI administrator handing down stuff, when the administrator doesn't take a profit, when the administrator knows what is needed in which moment, when the administrator is already working at the most efficient possible manner to refine the stuff.
An Eye for an eye, or should we start doing supply-demand and debt israelitery about carbon emissions as well? Oy Vey, I'm gonna burn this forest down for my shirt sweatshop but hey, I will pay you in nukes for the following 200 years with interest.
>The point of centering socialism around the idea is that the core of the thing's value is the effort when you strip down the rest of unnecessary things like profit, competition, etc.
Yeah, this is wrong. Value comes from the amount of money people are willing to pay for something. The amount of effort put into something doesnt really matter beyond that.
>the amount of money people are willing to pay for something
I wonder what influences that.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Their desire for the object is what influences this, not the amount of work someone put into the object.
It doesnt matter if you spent a year crafting the perfect rocking chair if no one wants it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA, except there's thousands of psychological tricks that exist. To shape our perception, so our desire isn't really our desire.
Like how if an identical object is priced at $0.79, $0.99, and $1.29, people will prefer the $0.99 more often. Even though the object is identical.
Or how we're more likely to buy something when we see that there's lots of it, and less likely to buy something when there's barely any left.
There's an unlimited number of these tricks that sellers can use, to manipulate us. Our desires aren't our desires anymore, and haven't been for 70+ years.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The fact that there are marketing tricks in order to influence the desires of potential customers in order to get them to buy your brand over brand x does not at all refute my point and in fact makes it even more.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't support your discussion, because it's not your desire, which is why people have post-purchase regrets. Getting tricked into purchasing something isn't what we think of as your desire, unless you're a psychopath trying to exploit others.
You burgers are so entrenched into the degenerate "anything for $1" mindset, that you've forgotten that you're consuming poison. Both literally in your food, and figuratively in your media.
NTA, but this is a completely different discussion.
I'm trying to point out that the discussion is wrong, because we don't even have our own desires anymore. You have to block out significant parts of the world, to even exist in a way that's not constantly spammed by advertising. You have to actively choose to avoid advertising, and even then you'll still be influenced by those around you, and they're influenced by advertising.
Socialism vs Free Markets, doesn't really exist anymore. They're both using the same tricks, but for their own goals.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're moving the goalposts.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>because it's not your desire
Yes it is. If I want something because it will make me popular, I want it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA, but this is a completely different discussion.
The labor theory of value is easily defeated when you realize that spending 10 hours of labor digging a ditch actually produces no value at all if no one wanted a ditch dug there
Yeah. Also, you can only get value for something if there is a demand for it. So somebody who knows how to build chariots can't make a living bc nobody wants that. But somebody that can fix airplanes or cars is very useful. Put simply. Just bc you waste your time doing something doesn't mean it has any inheritant value.
let's say you have a well made steel tool that never stops working and works perfectly, you lend it out to your neighbors for free.
nobody pays for it, SO IT HAS NO VALUE?
meanwhile you get a shitty iron tool that stops working in 2 months and needs to be replaced with another that you buy. plus it creates jobs because we need a guy who sells it and a guy who makes it.
people pay for that, SO IT HAS VALUE?
your shitty ideology promotes the bullshit called GDP and planned obsolescence
That's not an ideology, that's the way the economy works, moron. You lend a good instrument for free? It's your problem. You have to buy a shitty instrument? Your problem again, no one forces you to do any of that shit just like you can't force anyone else to lend you instruments for free. No amount of LTV is going to change it.
LTV is a pre-Marxist idea. It was the easiest way for classical economists and merchants to understand the value of goods.
This is from an era where intellectuals didn't know what inflation was and why it exists, and people unironically believed buying the dip and holding gold forever was a form of wealth.
it LTV theorists were gonna try to make a science out of it they should have gone for the energy theory of value. we can actually measure energy and it's arguably the most important thing in the universe. time on the other hand is subjective, even by physics standards.
>While most of his proposals – "to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort" – are now conventional practice, his critique of fractional-reserve banking still "remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom" although a recent paper by the IMF reinvigorated his proposals.
Can't believe keynes took all the spotlight
Man why do capitalist israelites can't reason that economy is constructive, that LTV is a starting point, and that basic income, teaching responsibility jn spending and reducing working hours end up benefitting people?
My government job is harder and more stressful because I have less hours to do shit. I have to cram everything into a small timeframe. Also I’ve noticed people work harder when they have an area that is “theirs” as opposed to when they have to share with other workers
Labor Theory of Value is flat earth tier pseudoscience. Only the biggest morons with absolutely no knowledge of the field take it seriously, and they only do for vain ideological reasons and misplaced hostility against "establishment" ideas.
Mainstream economics around the time of Marx used to uphold a similar theory, that a good or service provided the buyer with a fixed number of "utils" that currency ostensibly measured in an objective way. But even all the way back to Adam Smith, people recognized that there was something wrong with this idea. How for example could gold be worth more than water if the latter is necessary for life and thus more utile?
The answer was provided in 1883 by Carl Menger with his subjective theory of value and theory of marginal utility. It starts with a simple observation: In any transaction both sides stand to gain, otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place. How can this be? Because each party values the items transacted differently according to the marginal utility it provides them. Even one person will value something like water differently in different contexts (e.g. when drowning vs when dehydrated).
The fact that prices vary geographically and from day to day is another way in which this manifests that can be seen and understand by any layman. Marxists tie themselves into knots trying to argue that this is due to grand conspiracies to distort prices from their "true" value. But they can never name that value or even accept that it's objective. Even Marx concedes that the value of labor must be "socially necessary." The logical conclusion of this idea is the basic fact that they refuse to accept: that prices are determined by consensus and what's "necessary" varies for different people at different times.
The final pill is open borders capitalism.
It allows for:
1)The consent of the govern as they can leave
2)Free markets
3) Freedom to get resources from anywhere to start a business
4)Billions of poor people to migrate themselves out of poverty
i think it's basically true, at least for how I kinda manage my finances in my head
Like "I had to work X hours for the Y price that costs is it worth it" or "would I be willing to work for two days for this"
Take an intermediate micro and macro course
Labor theory of value is immediately debunked by the fact that certain input goods and quality of craftsmanship can increase the value of a good substantially over its peers. A cotton bathrobe made in a Chinese sweatshop that took 30 hours to make will never be worth as much as a silk kimono from a highly trusted Japanese craftsman that was able to make it in 10 hours. There's far more to the value of a good than the amount of labor hours put into its creation.
For me it's more "am I willing to work this long and this hard for that?" rather than how long and hard it took the dude to make it
Presumably he'll feel the same for the money he gets in exchange for it
He would have to charge more for his bad robe than the good garment and so he'd probably go out of business. His labor has low efficiency, essentially, and people aren't willing to trade much of their own labor for it
Like if some giant slow fat dude said he'd work on my house for a day if I worked on his for a day, I probably wouldn't make that trade since he'd do less than me
To put it another way a lot of the labor isn't actually going into the good
Like the slow fat dude is expending a lot of his labor lugging his fat around, which doesn't actually provide a good or service to me directly
Similarly the less efficient sweatshop guy would be spending effort on stuff like figuring out where to put a stitch that the expert kimono maker would know right away; it's labor but the labor isn't really going directly to me in any way so doesn't add to its value
you're completely wrong because cotton and silk robes aren't the same thing.
I'd argue that you'd wear the cotton robe more often, and the silk kimono far less often. Cotton robe would be wore probably every time you shower, while a silk kimono needs a special occasion.
There's also no secret Japanese craftsmanship, for silk weaving(not that they'd actually be weaving their own silk), silk cutting, or silk sewing. This isn't 500 years ago.
The Japanese are weaving silk by machine, and likely not doing anything different to sew the silk cloth.
People get suckered into thinking authenticity is a marker of quality. When it's really not.
Thing is, this theory was supposed to put an objective price on said good. Your way of thinking makes the value 100% subjective.
I don't get it
What about the skill you need, and resources, and intelligence
Time is not the only factor
A smart person can do a hard task in a shorter amount of time, he deserves less money?
There's no factor, value is a completely irrational concept. Economists just like to pretend they can quantify the abstract.
Why do all critics of LTV know nothing about it? Intensity of labor, socially necessary labor, try to learn what the theory is instead of attacking an oversimplified strawman.
Still ignores the fact that things only have value because people put value on those, and as different people value things on different amounts value is inherently subjective, with labor intensity or """social necessity""" and time to lean being completely irrelevant
and that is even before you account for time preferences and supply&demand into the mix
There a reason why LTV is a joke in economy
That's not how the economy works though. When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says.
They put a subjective price and I either buy or not subjectively, value is subjective so the ltv is always wrong
So you're just going to dogmatically insist on subjective price being a metaphysical reality. Fine, let it be so. Nevertheless the LTV remains a strong predictive model for how these subjective prices end up behaving in a market.
>When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says.
yeah which is why it's shit. and the stock market is way better: pure supply and demand
>When you go to the store you don't haggle the price, you pay what the counter says
And when you go to the market you bargain.
Because most people criticizing it are criticizing it based off a series of youtube videos or wikipedia articles rather than the source material
>wtf why are people criticizing debunked pseudoeconomic nonsense?
Marginalism won, get over it.
Black person, Marx talks exactly about this in The Capital, Dunno what you gays are pretending. Of course labor is not the only value, but it may as well be the starting to point to factor the equation.
The basic example is mining materials. Materials that are mined and processed must cost as much as the effort to produce them. Next thing factored is supply, which Marx also talks about, if the costly shit were more available its price would go down.
The point of centering socialism around the idea is that the core of the thing's value is the effort when you strip down the rest of unnecessary things like profit, competition, etc.
Otherwise, what should a thing cost when you have a fair AI administrator handing down stuff, when the administrator doesn't take a profit, when the administrator knows what is needed in which moment, when the administrator is already working at the most efficient possible manner to refine the stuff.
An Eye for an eye, or should we start doing supply-demand and debt israelitery about carbon emissions as well? Oy Vey, I'm gonna burn this forest down for my shirt sweatshop but hey, I will pay you in nukes for the following 200 years with interest.
>The point of centering socialism around the idea is that the core of the thing's value is the effort when you strip down the rest of unnecessary things like profit, competition, etc.
Yeah, this is wrong. Value comes from the amount of money people are willing to pay for something. The amount of effort put into something doesnt really matter beyond that.
>the amount of money people are willing to pay for something
I wonder what influences that.
Their desire for the object is what influences this, not the amount of work someone put into the object.
It doesnt matter if you spent a year crafting the perfect rocking chair if no one wants it.
NTA, except there's thousands of psychological tricks that exist. To shape our perception, so our desire isn't really our desire.
Like how if an identical object is priced at $0.79, $0.99, and $1.29, people will prefer the $0.99 more often. Even though the object is identical.
Or how we're more likely to buy something when we see that there's lots of it, and less likely to buy something when there's barely any left.
There's an unlimited number of these tricks that sellers can use, to manipulate us. Our desires aren't our desires anymore, and haven't been for 70+ years.
The fact that there are marketing tricks in order to influence the desires of potential customers in order to get them to buy your brand over brand x does not at all refute my point and in fact makes it even more.
It doesn't support your discussion, because it's not your desire, which is why people have post-purchase regrets. Getting tricked into purchasing something isn't what we think of as your desire, unless you're a psychopath trying to exploit others.
You burgers are so entrenched into the degenerate "anything for $1" mindset, that you've forgotten that you're consuming poison. Both literally in your food, and figuratively in your media.
I'm trying to point out that the discussion is wrong, because we don't even have our own desires anymore. You have to block out significant parts of the world, to even exist in a way that's not constantly spammed by advertising. You have to actively choose to avoid advertising, and even then you'll still be influenced by those around you, and they're influenced by advertising.
Socialism vs Free Markets, doesn't really exist anymore. They're both using the same tricks, but for their own goals.
You're moving the goalposts.
>because it's not your desire
Yes it is. If I want something because it will make me popular, I want it.
NTA, but this is a completely different discussion.
>Marx
Sorry I don't listen to NEET theorists
The labor theory of value is easily defeated when you realize that spending 10 hours of labor digging a ditch actually produces no value at all if no one wanted a ditch dug there
Yeah. Also, you can only get value for something if there is a demand for it. So somebody who knows how to build chariots can't make a living bc nobody wants that. But somebody that can fix airplanes or cars is very useful. Put simply. Just bc you waste your time doing something doesn't mean it has any inheritant value.
I am willing to pay top dollar for a high quality chariot, and no one makes them anymore.
Value is determined by whatever someone else is willing to pay for it and that’s it.
let's say you have a well made steel tool that never stops working and works perfectly, you lend it out to your neighbors for free.
nobody pays for it, SO IT HAS NO VALUE?
meanwhile you get a shitty iron tool that stops working in 2 months and needs to be replaced with another that you buy. plus it creates jobs because we need a guy who sells it and a guy who makes it.
people pay for that, SO IT HAS VALUE?
your shitty ideology promotes the bullshit called GDP and planned obsolescence
>nobody pays for it
You just lost some degree to access to said tool, therefore a price was paid for it, moron.
That's not an ideology, that's the way the economy works, moron. You lend a good instrument for free? It's your problem. You have to buy a shitty instrument? Your problem again, no one forces you to do any of that shit just like you can't force anyone else to lend you instruments for free. No amount of LTV is going to change it.
LTV is a pre-Marxist idea. It was the easiest way for classical economists and merchants to understand the value of goods.
This is from an era where intellectuals didn't know what inflation was and why it exists, and people unironically believed buying the dip and holding gold forever was a form of wealth.
How is 'value' defined?
it LTV theorists were gonna try to make a science out of it they should have gone for the energy theory of value. we can actually measure energy and it's arguably the most important thing in the universe. time on the other hand is subjective, even by physics standards.
I have a book on that
Wasn’t that Frederick Soddys concept?
>While most of his proposals – "to abandon the gold standard, let international exchange rates float, use federal surpluses and deficits as macroeconomic policy tools that could counter cyclical trends, and establish bureaus of economic statistics (including a consumer price index) in order to facilitate this effort" – are now conventional practice, his critique of fractional-reserve banking still "remains outside the bounds of conventional wisdom" although a recent paper by the IMF reinvigorated his proposals.
Can't believe keynes took all the spotlight
Wasn't that Henry Ford's idea?
I hate corporate Memphis like you wouldn’t believe. Reminds me of that Keith Haring (who associated with Maoists, no less) shit in the 90s.
Yeah. Absolute nonsense spouted by foaming at the mouth communist Adam Smith.
Man why do capitalist israelites can't reason that economy is constructive, that LTV is a starting point, and that basic income, teaching responsibility jn spending and reducing working hours end up benefitting people?
My government job is harder and more stressful because I have less hours to do shit. I have to cram everything into a small timeframe. Also I’ve noticed people work harder when they have an area that is “theirs” as opposed to when they have to share with other workers
Machines work way harder than men and more machines producing things usually means cheaper stuff.
Labor Theory of Value is flat earth tier pseudoscience. Only the biggest morons with absolutely no knowledge of the field take it seriously, and they only do for vain ideological reasons and misplaced hostility against "establishment" ideas.
Mainstream economics around the time of Marx used to uphold a similar theory, that a good or service provided the buyer with a fixed number of "utils" that currency ostensibly measured in an objective way. But even all the way back to Adam Smith, people recognized that there was something wrong with this idea. How for example could gold be worth more than water if the latter is necessary for life and thus more utile?
The answer was provided in 1883 by Carl Menger with his subjective theory of value and theory of marginal utility. It starts with a simple observation: In any transaction both sides stand to gain, otherwise the transaction wouldn't take place. How can this be? Because each party values the items transacted differently according to the marginal utility it provides them. Even one person will value something like water differently in different contexts (e.g. when drowning vs when dehydrated).
The fact that prices vary geographically and from day to day is another way in which this manifests that can be seen and understand by any layman. Marxists tie themselves into knots trying to argue that this is due to grand conspiracies to distort prices from their "true" value. But they can never name that value or even accept that it's objective. Even Marx concedes that the value of labor must be "socially necessary." The logical conclusion of this idea is the basic fact that they refuse to accept: that prices are determined by consensus and what's "necessary" varies for different people at different times.
The final pill is open borders capitalism.
It allows for:
1)The consent of the govern as they can leave
2)Free markets
3) Freedom to get resources from anywhere to start a business
4)Billions of poor people to migrate themselves out of poverty