Lol ok maybe I'm retarded, gold's value is linked to it's scarcity, right?
It isn't really, say you are a novice craftsman and I'm an expert.
You craft a chair in 8 hours and I craft a chair in 6 hours and the chairs quality is the same between the two, which chair is worth more?
The one crafted in 6 hours because you saved time, which increases the value of your labor
It isn't really, say you are a novice craftsman and I'm an expert.
You craft a chair in 8 hours and I craft a chair in 6 hours and the chairs quality is the same between the two, which chair is worth more?
Precisely labor does not add any inherent value into a product.
Even in tribal and communal societies that was never the case and often objects had sentimental, personal, religious and spiritual value placed on objects.
When Karl Marx the israelite adopted the labor theory of value it was already long agreed that it was a flawed and idiotic idea
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Precisely labor does not add any inherent value into a product.
How do you create a product without labour? (assuming it requires labour).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You don't but more labor for the exact same product doesn't make that product more valuable.
Here is the key I said labor doesn't "inherently add value to the product"
If I don't want something (demand=0) how is it valuable?
First off you aren't the only one in the market but if there is zero demand there is effectively no value in the product.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you need labour to create a produce that people want then this means that labour is valuable, do you agree?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If you and I both create a chair and it takes you 8 hours and it takes me 6 hours to create the chair both with equal outcomes of quality.
Do I have a chair that is worth less than you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That wasn't my question. First we have to agree the labour which made the product is valuable, then we do a quantitative analysis.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Labor can be extremely valuable but it does not inherently have value.
And I poised my question long before
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Again, you're not answering my question.
If you need labour to create a produce that people want (has value) then this means that labour is valuable, do you agree?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Labor is not inherently valuable but can be valuable.
You can't pull this when I asked my question first.
I'm sorry but you answer me first.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>can be valuable.
Looks like you're agreeing that labour is valuable if the product it creates is valuable.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
How much is labor valued with 0 demand?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If the product is valuable this means demand>0.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
He answered your question but you are just too retarded to understand it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I already agreed.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
His point still stands though. The point he is making is that labor by itself creates no value. Just because you put in a lot of time and effort making something does not necessarily mean you are entitled to compensation simply for putting in the time and effort.
A prime example of this are jobs that pay commission rather than salary or hourly wage. A salesman, for example, could spend twelve hours a day trying to make sales to potential clients, but if none of them bite, the salesman doesn't get paid regardless of how much labor he put into his job. That demonstrates right there that labor by itself has no inherent value.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I agree that not all labour is valuable. The question is what labour is and how much.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's simple if the labor is needed than it is valued.
How much it's valued is dependent on the amount of labor needed, the skill needed for the labor and the scarcity or abundance of potential laborers.
Demand in excess of (localized) supply creates scarcity
You're simply just being anal without demand in excess of localized supply there won't be scarcity.
dig a hole, put the dirt back in and repeat 100 times, then explain how it created value and wasn’t just a waste of time. Back in the soviet union, like other socialist shitholes including those of the present, the state created an abundance of utterly meaningless jobs
pic related similar flawed logic
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You're simply just being anal
This whole thread is autists being anal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It’s too complex to be regulated, that’s the reason we call it the ‘free market’ since the two parties are supposed to negotiate the price depending on their subjective interpretation of the inherent value of the product/service
dig a hole, put the dirt back in and repeat 100 times, then explain how it created value and wasn’t just a waste of time. Back in the soviet union, like other socialist shitholes including those of the present, the state created an abundance of utterly meaningless jobs
Labor creates value because you have to pay someone to work for you. You effectively used to pay slaves by feeding them, because your initial investment in buying or capturing them would be a loss if you didn't. Wage labor and automation today creates a norm that absolves the overclass of this responsibility.
>not everything that is valuable requires labour.
Historical artifacts and unique collectables? Cant really think about actual reproducable commodities to which this applies.
It's not. At least not to you. And that's the point being made. Demand creates value, and what's valuable is different for each person according to their individual wants and needs.
Labour does create value, OP is attempting to doublespeak, pilpul and hegalian dialect Psyop you into remaining subservient to israeli economic systems. Hitler's Germany valued labour over gold and he brought his country from a degenerate, inflated economic turmoil ridden cesspool of kike filth into the strongest country that had the world on it's heels.
Marx made some good points about the psychological effects of the Capitalist logic:
>It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of Philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, it has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
And anyone who regards himself a genuine Conservative should find himself agreeing. The caveat here is that Marx didn't see this as a problem but as a feature of Capitalism, which he viewed as a necessary dialectic step on the road to Communism, which would be the complete liberation of the individual from all essential bonds, essential identities, etc.; the ontological basis of Marxism is Liberalism, in that regard, Marxists have the same end-goal as Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, etc. - they only disagree about the means to get there.
the problem with the labor theory of value is that you don't actually understand it. With the LTV Marx was attempting to understand/explain how a CAPITALIST mode of production works.
I've seen this thread before.
OP is a homosexual.
How does labor not create value?
If I spend all day in a mine and extract 1oz of gold, and you take a walk in the park and find a 1oz chunk of gold, which 1oz of gold is worth more?
They're worth the same in your absurd hypothetical situation, in reality it's obviously quite difficult to find gold so what does this matter?
My labor didn't add value to the gold?
Lol ok maybe I'm retarded, gold's value is linked to it's scarcity, right?
The one crafted in 6 hours because you saved time, which increases the value of your labor
No, it didn't.
Nor does the labor that goes into lockheed's skunkworks projects when compared to the ufo that crash landed in my backyard.
It isn't really, say you are a novice craftsman and I'm an expert.
You craft a chair in 8 hours and I craft a chair in 6 hours and the chairs quality is the same between the two, which chair is worth more?
Both are worth whatever the fuck someone is willing to pay for them.
and by "worth" you mean $ amount.
Precisely labor does not add any inherent value into a product.
Even in tribal and communal societies that was never the case and often objects had sentimental, personal, religious and spiritual value placed on objects.
When Karl Marx the israelite adopted the labor theory of value it was already long agreed that it was a flawed and idiotic idea
>Precisely labor does not add any inherent value into a product.
How do you create a product without labour? (assuming it requires labour).
You don't but more labor for the exact same product doesn't make that product more valuable.
Here is the key I said labor doesn't "inherently add value to the product"
First off you aren't the only one in the market but if there is zero demand there is effectively no value in the product.
If you need labour to create a produce that people want then this means that labour is valuable, do you agree?
If you and I both create a chair and it takes you 8 hours and it takes me 6 hours to create the chair both with equal outcomes of quality.
Do I have a chair that is worth less than you?
That wasn't my question. First we have to agree the labour which made the product is valuable, then we do a quantitative analysis.
Labor can be extremely valuable but it does not inherently have value.
And I poised my question long before
Again, you're not answering my question.
If you need labour to create a produce that people want (has value) then this means that labour is valuable, do you agree?
Labor is not inherently valuable but can be valuable.
You can't pull this when I asked my question first.
I'm sorry but you answer me first.
>can be valuable.
Looks like you're agreeing that labour is valuable if the product it creates is valuable.
How much is labor valued with 0 demand?
If the product is valuable this means demand>0.
He answered your question but you are just too retarded to understand it.
I already agreed.
His point still stands though. The point he is making is that labor by itself creates no value. Just because you put in a lot of time and effort making something does not necessarily mean you are entitled to compensation simply for putting in the time and effort.
A prime example of this are jobs that pay commission rather than salary or hourly wage. A salesman, for example, could spend twelve hours a day trying to make sales to potential clients, but if none of them bite, the salesman doesn't get paid regardless of how much labor he put into his job. That demonstrates right there that labor by itself has no inherent value.
I agree that not all labour is valuable. The question is what labour is and how much.
It's simple if the labor is needed than it is valued.
How much it's valued is dependent on the amount of labor needed, the skill needed for the labor and the scarcity or abundance of potential laborers.
You're simply just being anal without demand in excess of localized supply there won't be scarcity.
pic related similar flawed logic
>You're simply just being anal
This whole thread is autists being anal.
It’s too complex to be regulated, that’s the reason we call it the ‘free market’ since the two parties are supposed to negotiate the price depending on their subjective interpretation of the inherent value of the product/service
dig a hole, put the dirt back in and repeat 100 times, then explain how it created value and wasn’t just a waste of time. Back in the soviet union, like other socialist shitholes including those of the present, the state created an abundance of utterly meaningless jobs
>utterly meaningless jobs
Sounds very familiar.
IF I SPEND ALL DAY BANGING ROCKS TOGETHER, DO I NOT DESERVE TO HAVE MY DICK SUCKED!?
>digs a hole
>buries it
Somebody better pay up
That happens in the military all the fucking time homosexual. A business would be a military all day if it wasn't illegal.
Nice hole. I’d like to place this nazi sympathizer in there. I’ll pay you 2 labor vouchers
Labor creates value because you have to pay someone to work for you. You effectively used to pay slaves by feeding them, because your initial investment in buying or capturing them would be a loss if you didn't. Wage labor and automation today creates a norm that absolves the overclass of this responsibility.
Many jobs don't create value but gibsmedat, white boi. - D. Grabbler
>84
hahahhahahahaha
Not all labour creates value and not everything that is valuable requires labour.
>not everything that is valuable requires labour.
Historical artifacts and unique collectables? Cant really think about actual reproducable commodities to which this applies.
>demand creates value because.... because fuck you that's why
I demand your mom.
Demand doesn't create value.
Scarcity creates value.
Demand creates scarcity.
That's even stupider.
That's basically economics in a nutshell. Create crazy ideas and see which ones stick.
And old israeli hands control both demand and scarcity.
If I don't want something (demand=0) how is it valuable?
israelites use media to dress up one of their celebrity monkeys in vans and then tell naggers to buy the newest vans
It's not. At least not to you. And that's the point being made. Demand creates value, and what's valuable is different for each person according to their individual wants and needs.
Right. However, without labour that demand would not be satisfied (assuming it requires labour).
How much is labor valued with 0 demand?
It's not. I didn't say it is.
So then labor isn't inherently valuable
If by "inherently" you mean all labour then no it's not.
I would add, nothing is inherently valuable.
feeling good is inherently valuable
Why?
Because humans inherently prefer to feel good. I.e. there is inherent demand for it by definition
>Because humans inherently prefer to feel good
How do you know that? maybe some people enjoy feeling bad.
>How do you know that? maybe some people enjoy feeling bad.
Then they would call it feeling good
I didn't
The definition of goodness is that it is preferable to badness
Preferring x over y does not inherently tell anything about them other than there is x and y.
Demand in excess of (localized) supply creates scarcity
Labour does create value, OP is attempting to doublespeak, pilpul and hegalian dialect Psyop you into remaining subservient to israeli economic systems. Hitler's Germany valued labour over gold and he brought his country from a degenerate, inflated economic turmoil ridden cesspool of kike filth into the strongest country that had the world on it's heels.
>pay me for my time or we make the French revolution look like a joke
Yes.jpg why is it so hard for people to not be double dealing israelite?
fuck germans
>another day another homosexual op shilling his opinions
Labour to fulfil demand creates value.
Marx made some good points about the psychological effects of the Capitalist logic:
>It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of Philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, it has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
And anyone who regards himself a genuine Conservative should find himself agreeing. The caveat here is that Marx didn't see this as a problem but as a feature of Capitalism, which he viewed as a necessary dialectic step on the road to Communism, which would be the complete liberation of the individual from all essential bonds, essential identities, etc.; the ontological basis of Marxism is Liberalism, in that regard, Marxists have the same end-goal as Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, etc. - they only disagree about the means to get there.
the correct kind of labor produces value
the correct amount of labor produces value
too much labor adds no extra value
unskilled labor can detract from value
labor for labor’s sake is worthless, i.e. digging a hole then filling it back in.
the problem with the labor theory of value is it’s simplistic to the point of being useless.
you forgot to attach a picture to your shitpost
the problem with the labor theory of value is that you don't actually understand it. With the LTV Marx was attempting to understand/explain how a CAPITALIST mode of production works.