Subjective vs. Labor theory of value

value does not rest with "you" however. it is a social phenomenon and requires a social explanation.

The leftist thesis on advertising so obviously wrong, and so foolishly defended by leftists, it itself is a perfect encapsulation of everything that's wrong with left. LTV has been proven to be wrong for more than a century now, but they can NEVER admit they are wrong. Its a religion.

It does rest with you in that you do not need to value what the society at large values. And not valuing something the society at large values doesn't always have to be some conscious statement, it can just be a matter of 'taste'. Commerce could not happen if people didn't make different valuations. If we all agreed on the value of anything in particular that thing would never be bought or sold as there'd be no reason to engage in an even exchange.

But even if it requires a social explanation, that is still a relativist position which might as well be called 'subjective'.

Heh good point about how people wouldn't exchange things

Ohh. The good ol' days where there was an "even exchange". I remember when I used to be able to trade the oil from the fish that I caught for the urine of a deer from the neighbor 2 miles away... Those were the days.

>implying you don't exchange currency for goods on a daily basis
>missing the point that it isn't and never was 'even'

If exchange was even the entire economy would look like a barter fair. We can't eat wicker baskets.

Just having a piss, m80. I agree with you.

Exchange cannot be 'even' by definition.
If we both evaluate the same goods to be worth the same value then we would have no reason to exchange. Do you walk down the street constantly swapping one dollar bills with everyone you meet? No, that'd be stupid because most people put the same value on a dollar. You gain nothing from trying to do that. Same would apply to goods. The very act of buying and selling suggests different valuations.

>

That's a specious argument because what is worth something to one man may be worth more to another. I don't need a pile of cow shit and may want it taken away, but I'm sure a farmer would be happy to pay for it.

Hence, subjective value.

>Do you walk down the street constantly swapping one dollar bills with everyone you meet?
Pretty sure that's the epitome of a sophism.

>not an argument

Yea, my point exactly. Even exchange is a stupid leftist fairy tale.

It's not an argument, but that is an obviously misleading axiom that you used for you argument.

It wasn't an axiom, simply an example showing the absurdity of two evenly valued objects being exchanged.

Included mostly to stop idiots from claiming 'the very act of exchange adds value for each participant allowing for two equally valued objects to be exchanged.'

>I declare it to be wrong, therefore it is wrong and you must admit this
Hmm.

labor theory of value is literally spooky garbage.

Your values are shaped by society but not wholly determined by it. We are all degenerates in one way or another, the 'average' consumer does not exist. It is a simplifying heuristic. The entire field of economics is a set of simplifying assumptions frequently manipulated for ideological purposes on both sides of the political spectrum.

That is literally his argument rephrased, lmao.

No it's not. It's a ridiculous but valid illustration of transaction costs. Transaction costs are why even exchanges never take place. If we were trading goods of truly equal value we would be so indifferent to the exchange that we would not undertake it because any exchange requires some expenditure of time or effort. Exchange takes place only when each party places a greater value on the goods of the other than the goods they must expend to acquire them.

How much money do you have? Why is it more than zero?

The number one thing people don't understand about the law of value is that:

1. it operates in a market economy

2. it takes the premise that exchange on the market cannot create value because exchange implies equivalents - a variant of the efficient market hypothesis

this means marx is starting with the assumptions of classical political economy and the neo-classical school too

from the above he concludes that:

1. value must be created in production since the commodity is worth more than the inputs (knowing that value isn't created at exchange)

2. since the inputs are resources and labour and the resources have been accounted for it is the labour that created the net gain in value

now that you know this you can actually discuss the issue

As a died in the wool Marxist I have no idea why this guy decided to make this defense.

Perhaps he was taught this in a post-modern school where they're afraid to engage in imminent criticism.

I'll note too that Bukharin was an anarchist.

The problem with the subjective value theory is that it's not the consumer who sets the price but the seller. The price is always the cost plus the profit a seller is willing to accept to monopolize market share, that's it. So profit, cost and the cycle of production are the predominant drivers for price and they are all objective factors.

The extent to which the price can be subjective is the extent to which market forces can act but market forces are themselves objective, they reflect the real wealth and real need of a group of individuals.

If you read bawerk then you should read bukharins economic theory of the leauire class to see the Marxist response

Bukharin was an anarchist?

Some dyed in the wool marxist

Only good post itt

money is distributed in the form of wages, profit, rent, interest out of the whole annual production of society masking the real nature of value

M – C ... P ... C′ – M′

where M′ = M + ΔM
M=Money
ΔM=Surplus
C=Commodity
P=Production

the main question which the theory of surplus-value is intended to answer is how does a pre-existing quantity of money capital M advanced at the beginning of this circuit become a greater quantity of money (i.e. M + ΔM) at the end of the circuit? how is the pre-existing M valorised? the appropriate initial given in the theory is the initial M advanced; this is the quantity of money capital that must be recovered before any ΔM can be appropriated and the initial M valorised.

you must explain the origin and magnitude of the total ΔM in the economy as a whole

This annoying rumple didn't address my question at all, you fucking autist. What I was asking went right over your head.

>The leftist thesis on advertising
oh, that one

>Even exchange is a stupid leftist fairy tale.

>exchange implies equivalents
Did that make sense to your stupid head?

>he doesn't realize that money makes money.

It's nothing magic. The money becomes a greater quantity due to opportunity/interest or effort or a whole list of other things like scarcity and unpredicted situations. The same quantity of money in one situation may be more valuable than in another.

I was directly referring to things leftists are saying in this thread.

> What?

a continuous self-propelled process of growth is quite magical and unnatural
money is just a claim on product; payments in the form of interest on loans can only function as a deduction out of annual product without having to cannibalize past value
interest existed in antiquity but it didn't result in rapid development because it wasn't channelled into productive profit generating investments, it was used for pure speculation and entrapping people into debt-peonage and making slaves
unexpected supply shocks due to natural crises and such happen but are anomalies to the general tendencies
the production process is the real source of value and what must be understood historically

> i am so smart the post

Is English your first language?

I guess I'll go and find 'the rightist thesis on women' on pol then lmao at your life

> What?

In critique of labor theory, if you are really shitty at doing something it is going to take you a lot of labor. The value should not logically be high simply because the labor was high. Conversely a skilled craftsman my require little labor to produce his wares that should mean the value of his wares is low simply because the amount of labor he put into it is low.

Productivity and quality >>> effort and time. Work smarter and better not harder.

Labor theory is marxist theory because marxism was lie designed to roil up the masses into willingly subjecting themselves to slavery. It is essentially telling people "hey those guys are fucking with money! You should work 2x as hard for nothing!" and they respond with "What?!?! Why I oughta... I'll show them!"

It is quite literally the realization of Arbeit macht frei. Marxism was a lie fed to hungry children under the guise of delicious candy in order for a few people to seize power and rule by enraging the masses against a phantom enemy.

In support of subjective theory, given the above refutation of labor theory, you have to ask yourself where does value come from, if you try to break down value as the sum of the parts you reach the point where the lowest part would logically have to have some magically intrinsic value.

Or a more simple approach, why do people choose to spend money on things other find to be senseless and vice versa? Because we value things differently, because value (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. In fact perfect example is the value we attach to things we find beautiful..... such as the shiny yellow sheen of gold. An otherwise weak and unremarkable metal that only in recent years in electronics have we found some sort of practical use for.

>he didn't get it

lol, that's basic political economy new friend

>never read any political economy

faggot

>it can just be a matter of 'taste'.
and where does 'taste' come from? Debord had a bit on how the fancy wine industry depends on a class of wine 'experts' in order to hype its products. If you look into how music journalism works, if you look into how movie criticism or even literary criticism works you'll find out it boils down to commodity hyping. Even if you don't value 'what the society at large values' you are just buying into a niche market- 'the counterculture' is a multibillion dollar industry. The problem with methodological individualism is the way it ignores people's place in the larger system, and in doing so, it helps hide the ways in which their autonomy is limited by the system. the Market and the commodity form are relatively recent innovations, their central place in human society is yet more recent still. The archetypical libertarian is convinced he is already a free and autonomous individual and is disturbed by any suggestion to the contrary. He smokes weed, is an atheist, and gets his ideology from oligarch funded DC thinktanks, he watches South Park and congratulates himself for being such a clever freethinker, just like millions of other like him.

You should kill yourself if it didn't.

>And the archetypical socialist takes huge rips from his vape, is an atheist, gets xir ideology from the ivory towers that still preaches socialism to be 'revolutionary' despite being the new opium of the masses ('educated masses' aka Berniefags), does not watch t.v. (Except that zir catches vice land once in awhile) because vir feels superior by not consuming popular culture. Said socialist is a free thinker but an even freer one than the other ideologies because sir is able to look down on all the others because they actually think, would you believe this, that they're free thinkers.

Anyone can do this. Libertarianism is a dead meme so please get up to date with the new. I don't know who is watching South Park except maybe college freshmen looking for something they can bond over on Netflix and chill nights. Your writing shows you are spooked beyond belief by the fact that outside forces will influence you and your tastes. Though they can influence they do not have to determine them. Though you should feel thankful they exist because without them a person like you would have a hard time expressing who they are. Remember acting like you 'see it all' from the outside is just another corporate cell to keep you placated. Hiro has you in his market and he's making so much DOSH off you.

Not sure guys, but it seems ,you are using value and price as two same things. I'm pretty sure that Marx said that those two are seperate things, yet connected sonehow.

I doubt Hiro's making any DOSH off anyone

We're waiting on his tax returns.

>Remember acting like you 'see it all' from the outside is just another corporate cell to keep you placated.
I think that's important to keep in mind.

>Libertarianism is a dead meme so please get up to date with the new.

The problem with fascism it's just really fucking stupid, ie. surrendering to the death drive out of resentment for the muh eternal SJW which, although inflated to omnipotence in the mind of reactionaries, is in reality just another neurotic, isolated individual at the complete mercy of the system, much like the reactionary himself. /pol/ is so desperate to spite the blue haired fat positive college activist that they'll immolate themselves and destroy us all in the process in hope of doing so.

I understood everything you said... I've heard a billion times before... its first paragraph of wikipedia level...

Is English your first language. "political economy" isn't something you read. That's like saying "never read right triangles".

> is a marxist
> saying others are brainwashed by the commodification of counter culture

Projecting much?

Wow, you are another level of retarded.

Go find an aspiring writer, read the novel they've poured their heart into, and then tell me if the fact that they worked hard on it gives it value.

>"political economy" isn't something you read.

Its not. You're just saying words you've heard before.

Fascism is actually about honour, duty, strength, discipline and fighting for one's own. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't know honour either you have it or you don't

Ever well said. If anything fascism is the real socialism, socialism that's not hijacked by bourgeoisie (ie marx).

The LTV doesn't imply any labour will produce equal value you retard

Then value is subjective...

>In critique of labor theory, if you are really shitty at doing something it is going to take you a lot of labor. The value should not logically be high simply because the labor was high. Conversely a skilled craftsman my require little labor to produce his wares that should mean the value of his wares is low simply because the amount of labor he put into it is low.

If you are good at your job your labor is worth more. Labor is not the time spent performing a task it is the total of quality, efficiency, and time.

Then value is subjective...

>Productivity and quality >>> effort and time. Work smarter and better not harder.

You are still falling into a moralistic illusion. As if somehow profits reflected an objective contribution to society. The political economy is an autonomous system driven by a logic of its own. Far from being a rational expression of 'human nature' it's a system that needs to be sustained, you have to create markets through institutions, laws, not to mention a requisite coercive apparatus. In the minds of market ideologues the market becomes a secularised version of God, eminently just and rational, synonymous with morality and 'nature' themselves.

And the collective is your god, dipshit. The difference is your god gets nothing done.

>In the minds of market ideologues the market becomes a secularised version of God, eminently just and rational, synonymous with morality and 'nature' themselves.

What contemporary centrist or right-wing economists says anything of the sort? Name one, and provide a citation.

Its all leftist projection, man. The only way to forgive one's own weaknesses is to attribute is to your enemies.

it's kinda sad to see the market as the greatest expression of your autonomy rather than and obstacle to it but ok

The Austrians/ancaps, for example, their economic methodology is literally one and the same with their Kantian autist morality. HH Hoppe is all about muh natural order. Even the moderate libertarians fall back on morality with religious overtones. ie. Hard Work is Good. God (the market) Always Rewards Hard Work. If it doesn't it's because its being somehow tampered with. Market=nature=god pretty much implied.

>HH Hoppe

Great, you've got yourself a name. Now provide a citation.

Lol. Dat projection.

Ancpaism, unlike marxism, isn't dogmatic, bad ideas are rejected and good ideas are perfected. Your god is a bearded wart covered rapist. My god is myself. (Well and Christ.)

>spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001276.txt
I guess it's fun to read something as pretentious and misguided as this. Spends two arguments using the weakest critiques of STV I have ever seen. Spends three sentences on STV and then feels he has sufficiently addressed it and can move in.

The first argument demonstrates that the author does not understand STV. There is no circular reasoning because price is not the cause of marginal utility, it is merely an approximate measure of marginal utility. Marginal Utility is a cause of price. No one argues that price causes marginal utility, it is actually astounding to me how stupid one must be to make such an error. (Confusing representation for cause)

The second argument is not one. Nobody claims that there is a unilateral control of prices. Only the consumers of a product determine prices and they have an effect on prices that is in proportion to the amount they consume.

If you're vaguely well read on this you would already know this but nonetheless this misconception is so painfully common that I feel the need to put this up here anyway:

Know that the Labour Theory of Value is very widely "misinterpreted" in that, what people think it says is not what it says in its entirety.

The common form the LTV is expressed in is that "relative prices are equal to relative socially necessary labour" this was what Marx propogated in Volume 1 and is more or less in line with the Smithsian LTV (be it different in its reasoning, Marx, unlike Smith held that exchange value is but the "phenomenological form" of labour value).

NOW, here's the important bit, that version (the one described above) is meant, according to Marx, to apply only to a pre-capitalist society assuming "rent = 0" that is, land rent. Actual capitalist societies do infact have relative prices differing from relative socially necessary labour values and the process by which prices are determined in a capitalist society is outlined in Volume III.

This process is generally discredited (and the LTV seen as downright wrong as a whole) because it is self contradictory. Unless under very specific assumptions, analyzing the Marxian model will reveal that it is not possible for both total prices = total values and total profit = total surplus, as Marx stipulated (you won't be able to understand what I'm on about unless you actually read up on Marx's model in Volume III, it's much more complicated than the one in Volume I). I'm not sure if this was the Bohm-Bawerk critique itself, I think it was, or maybe that was something else.

See the below, till the part Prabhat Patnaik stops speaking the first time (the Indian dude, start of the video itself).

youtube.com/watch?v=4IsLv7DIT2Y&t=401s

Now, I have heard that there is some interpretation of the LTV that avoids the common above criticism (about it being self-contradictory). Something temporal, is the name given the characterize that response, I forgot what it was.I don't know much about it.

>relative prices
Woops, I just saw the Patnaik video again and I realized I forgot to make one important clarification.

Patnaik mentions an important distinction between "natural" and "market" prices, the latter is simply the price currently present in the market, the former is seen as the sort of stable price that the latter will revolve around. In textbook economics, it is sometimes seen as the long-run price.

Some sources I have read suggest that this concept of natural price was common in political economy because data had shown that prices of goods to tend to follow some kind of trend or some fixed point that they revolve around, not ever deviating too far from it.

Just, adding something to what Patnaik said, Marx never himself explicitly specified he was talking about natural prices (hence not making his doctrine some kind of imperative without any reason for market prices to deviate from the LTV determined natural prices). This notion of natural/market prices is mostly added retrospectively, sort of to say "Well, ofcourse he was talking about natural prices, all the economists at that time were so he wouldn't feel the need to explicitly clarify the difference".

t. Econ grad student, ofcourse I only dabbled in the history of economic thought but one of my colleagues is a Roemer-bro (John Roemer was a prominent Analytic Marxist, Analytical Marxism being the name given to a particular intellectual movement, characterizing it in short, it has a lot of math, usually involves attempts to craft consistent theoretical models of the economy inspired by Marx's work but largely abandons the labour theory of value).

>unlike marxism, isn't dogmatic
>My god is myself. (Well and Christ.)

>Now, I have heard that there is some interpretation of the LTV that avoids the common above criticism (about it being self-contradictory). Something temporal, is the name given the characterize that response, I forgot what it was.I don't know much about it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_single-system_interpretation

Found it, never bothered reading too much into it though.

Also, don't confused Okishio's theorem with the more common (don't know why the article brings up Okishio) Bohm-Bawerk critique which focuses on Marx's theory as inconsistent with respect to both the bellow not being able to be true at the same time in his model:

1) Total prices = Total values
2) Total surplus value = Total profits

It doesn't make much sense to discount Marx's LTV without understanding modern defenses of its consistency. But on the other hand, these Marxists do expect you to make sense of their autistic battles to see who precisely is right (see the comments):
marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2016/2375

How often do you slip and call your boss 'Dad'?

>In critique of labor theory, if you are really shitty at doing something it is going to take you a lot of labor. The value should not logically be high simply because the labor was high. Conversely a skilled craftsman my require little labor to produce his wares that should mean the value of his wares is low simply because the amount of labor he put into it is low.
The socially necessary labour time of producing a commodity is regulated by market competition, being "shitty" is purely relative in regards to competition by other producers.
There has been many empirical studies that prove even a crude classical sort of labour theory is highly empirically accurate. Items with more embodied labour tend to sell at higher prices on average.
>Labor theory is marxist theory because marxism was lie designed to roil up the masses into willingly subjecting themselves to slavery.
The labour theory of value emerged with Adam Smiths analysis of value. Marx criticised the classical theory of value to come to his law of value.
>Or a more simple approach, why do people choose to spend money on things other find to be senseless and vice versa?
That's extending the pure question of value beyond the mere technical issues, a general theory of consumption or psychology isn't necessary to understand the basic structural nature of value

>The first argument demonstrates that the author does not understand STV. There is no circular reasoning because price is not the cause of marginal utility, it is merely an approximate measure of marginal utility. Marginal Utility is a cause of price. No one argues that price causes marginal utility, it is actually astounding to me how stupid one must be to make such an error. (Confusing representation for cause)
This is what Austrians claim, any form of economic rationality cannot even exist without market prices otherwise prices could just be abolished and we could deal with some form of calculation based upon individuals actual real utility preferences directly and not have to ever worry about a lack of aggregate demand arising
>The second argument is not one. Nobody claims that there is a unilateral control of prices. Only the consumers of a product determine prices and they have an effect on prices that is in proportion to the amount they consume.
Think about the relationship of actual production costs to utility

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy#The_aggregation_problem

> don't know what dogmatic means

I own my own business. How often do you slip and call your comrades Mama?

> I'm done pretending I know what I'm talking about the post.

who gets to define socially necessary? lmao

best leave it to the market, then you actually get revealed preferences rather than unfalsifiable guff

thank christ economics has moved on from ltv and marx has rightly been found to be far more relevant to sociology

>who gets to define socially necessary
The market. If it takes you 5 hours to produce something but the median is 2 hours [and always going down] you are under-performing and probably using dated methods which if you don't update means you will be eliminated by competition.

Time doesn't effect the price at all. If it takes me a thousand hours to make a cabinet, I can sell it for just as much as one that is built in an hour.

You're dumb.

If it takes you a 1000 hours to make a cabinet but your competitors only median times are 5 hours this will have no bearing on the price you can realistically set? You can demand whatever price you want to but it doesn't mean you can sell your product. Sure maybe you can get lucky and make a sale or two at abnormal prices if you get lucky but this isn't the normal functioning of business. Prices are regulated by competition and will keep you in check.

Dummy, I said I would sell the cabinet at the same price as the one hour one. Do you know how to read?

You could do that as a hobby or something but your commodity turnover time would make such a business totally infeasible.

Wrong. As the business owner, I decide the businesses upkeep, I can make any business model work. Producers don't decide value, consumers do.

...

You don't decide your rate of profit, the market does, that means you can't make any business model work that is fundamentally unprofitable.
If your commodity turnover is that slow prices would have to be so high to make a profit that it simply wouldn't be profitable.

Wrong. Profits are the wages of the business owner, keeping my personal costs down (ie deciding how I live my own life) allows me to run my business how I want. I can make any business model profitable.

this is a fucking blatant /pol/ thread.

Profit is no ones wages, profit is what's left over after all deductions are made. If you're paying yourself minimum wage and have that level of commodity turnover you can go nowhere and would be better off doing something that would actually be capable of actually generating an average rate of profit.

Wrong. Profits are the wages of the business owner. I don't care about your opinion of how I should live my life. Self determination is one reason why socialism is Wrong. And I've thoroughly proven your "point" about time and value being linked as Wrong.

Well good luck, you're really going places in the world kid, remember to just keep on beeing yourself.

> Admitting I'm incapable of original thought the post.