Labor theory of value is wrong because water and diamonds

>Labor theory of value is wrong because water and diamonds

Wasn't LTV suppose to be prescriptive not descriptive? Honestly question.

I'm only asking because I know Marx wrote at length about the alienation of the worker from his product and the fetishization of the commodity which seems to bespeak an understanding of how products and their value become perverted far from its initial usefulness or human necessity.

It's descriptive. Nowhere in Capital does Marx make suggestions regarding how the economy ''should'' work.

Labour theory of value is just wrong.

...

the labor theory of value is only right if you twist the meaning of "labor" until you're just arguing supply and demand theory backwards

>there is one definition of a word, and its the one i like.
You can do this for both sides.

ok but that's not an argument against what I said

Supply and demand are not telling as everything. That approach does not explain how can commodities of different kind exchange at different values even when the commodities exist in equal supply and when there is equal demand for them.

At this moment, you have to fall back to the ''cost of productions'' theory of value. But that is also insufficient; that approach only opens up an infinite regress, explaining value with other values.

The only way out is through the amount of total social labor-time that the production of a commodity requires.

English isn't my first language, sorry. :)

>one of the most academic, abstract and sophisticated idea of all time DEBUNKED and DESTROYED in 2 minutes on Youtube

>How can I prove to people that my political views are not wrong
>I know, I'll call them stupid.

I think, by far, the biggest argument for LTV over neoclassical definitions is that the latter are focused on commodities traded in market economies and fail to take into account anything that isn't produced for the market when even an illiterate African understands why they should have an impact.
Autistic economics are thoroughly High Modernist and about as cancerous as the rest of the autistic sciences that period birthed.

>How can I prove to people that my political views are not wrong
>I know, I'll write a very detailed book about it.
>Oh wait, people just call me a lazy kike now.

>value is totally subjective, nothing bad will happen to firms if they sell below their cost of production

>selling below the population's perception of the subjective value means value is not subjective

>one of the most academic, abstract and sophisticated idea of all time

>agriculture is the only source of wealth

>something being a social construct means that it doesn't have real, material, objective implications and status

>value

>E-economic calculation p-problem is a valid critique of s-socialism

>derivatives

>gold standard is stoopid
>gold pieces have just as much inherent value as paper money