Is LVT accurate?

Is LVT accurate?

You mean LTV? I don't think any contemporary economists use it.

The LTV? Empirical observation does not support it, so no.

Not anymore
Intellectual property is getting more and more intrusive.

Yes. For empirical evidence, to start, I would suggest reading:

>Labour value and equalisation of profit rates:
a multi-country study - Dave Zachariah
>The Scientific Status of the Labour Theory of Value - W. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell
>The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value - Anwar M. Shaikh

how does paying the guy who makes shoes a dollar for every dollars worth of shoes he makes supposed to radically transform society for the better anyway

We'll I suppose it depends on how much surplus value would be taken away otherwise.

Ask yourself if identical houses built in an identical manner on dissimilar locations have the same value.

there no good reason to have it function otherwise

No

Because it's a massive pay rise

What the fuck is this supposed to prove, idiot?

People will always prefer the top floor in the commie block closest to the river and furthest away from the smoke stacks you dumb communist child and jealousy and resentment will always grow because egalitarianism runs contrary to the basic laws of scarcity.

No, not in any system where wealth can be derived from rent from property rights and not labor.

What does that have to do with LTV?

That you have a commodity whose value has a lot to do with a factor that is completely unrelated to the labor that went into producing it. Real estate's value is often defined largely by location, and location is just something that's there, you don't have people working on it.

A house built in a nice place in the Swiss Alps and a house built in the middle of the desert are valued differently even if the same amount of labor went into them.

I swear communists are always either retarded or arguing in bad faith.

But LTV is based on the labor that it saves you.

LTV isn't communist though.

>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
>-garl marggggggs

No, land is invaluable and interdependently connected to everything on earth. So it cannot be realistically divided, especially by economic interests.

gappitalism btfo

But real estate isn't a commodity

Not under modern definitions of the term, but if you crack open your Ricardo, or Marx who took the definition from him, you'll see that "classical" usage of the term "commodity" is good (as opposed to a service) that can be used to satisfy some sort of demand. Real estate would definitely fall under the definition; as the adding the necessity of complete fungibility had not been added yet.