>labor creates value because because I say so!

>labor creates value because… because I say so!

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    labor is value. the main reason you pay for things is so you dont have to do the work yourself

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I worked all day shitposting, you owe me money now bitch.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only value if someone pays for. If not, you're just fucking the dog for free.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >just fucking the dog for free.
        >flag
        Checks out.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kek. That's a common saying here. It really does fit.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Of course that's the first example of 'work' the Canuck comes up with

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Convinced at this point that all syrupnagger posters are burgerlard feds in some lesser known """""""""""""""intelligence""""""""""""""" base in Canada.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but not all labor is equal

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not all labor has value, otherwise you should be buying all the pozzed stuff

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. tranny retard

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this anon actually is this stupid
      it's over

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that not the main reason humans invented commerce? To get something without having to create it yourself? If not, why then?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are you stupid of course labour is value. What else is? what are you paying for? Money is only a motivation to do work. Without labour money loses all value, it's backed by nothing else

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      marx was right

      If it wouldn't generate value then the labor wouldn't exist

      Some labor is valuable, but labor does not automatically create value. Anybody who thinks it does is a moron.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but labor does not automatically create value
        Who is arguing so? And why are these threads always full of people strawmanning shit?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just teaching lurkers. Value is determined what a person is willing to pay for it. With communism, the actual value of labour unknown.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Value is determined what a person is willing to pay for it.
            A person? Single person?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A group or single w/e. You know what i was saying. An exchange of goods for capital allows its value to be known.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >An exchange of goods for capital allows its value to be known.
                Sure, value would not really have a reason to exist without the concept of exchange.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The concept of efficiency would also cease to exist.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thermodynamics exist regardless of exchange.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thermodynamics is also an exchange of values.
                Work doesn't come from thin air.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Work doesn't come from thin air.
                It does when you demand labourers undergo a "probationary period" as part of their contract that acts as little more than extracting free labour before cycling the slave out for another one once the grace period expires.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Value is determined what a person is willing to pay for it.
            No, that's price/exchange value.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >price/exchange value
              >value

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there are different types of values according to Marx/LTV.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                which is why Marx is retarded

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                why?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The typical communist line is that the guy who hires the man to push buttons at the factory is stealing from the factory worker... but it isn't simply labor that gives things value. Things have value or don't have value regardless of how much labor went into them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The typical communist line is that the guy who hires the man to push buttons at the factory is stealing from the factory worker.
            Yes, that is correct, but your understanding of LTV is not. Can you tell me what do you think LTV is?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Who fucking cares you made his point homosexual. Trying to further bait him just makes you look gay.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The typical communist will say that a product is made of materials that all cost a certain price and then you have a man who assembles those materials.

              If the finished product costs more than the assembled materials, then the laborer must have been the one who created that value, and thus he deserves the profits. But the argument is flawed for the reason i mention:

              The labor itself does not create the value. The value is in the finished product, and as such justifies hiring a laborer to assemble them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If the finished product costs more than the assembled materials, then the laborer must have been the one who created that value, and thus he deserves the profits. But the argument is flawed for the reason i mention:
                >He deserves
                >The value is
                >The labor itself does not create the value.
                Those are normative statements. Relevant to Marxoidism, but irrelevant to LTV which is a descriptive theory older than Marx.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"The labor itself does not create the value."
                All commodities derive their value from labour because they would not exist without labour, that's the whole point of Marx's criticism of Capitalism, is that regardless of how much someone will pay for a product, it would not be possible to pay for such a product unless someone made it to begin with. The specialised person who used their skills to seemingly make something from nothing deserves to be the one who is rewarded most.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The specialised person who used their skills to seemingly make something from nothing deserves to be the one who is rewarded most.
                That is up to him to demand when he makes the contract to get hired. If his skills are so special, he can command a very high price

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Labour doesn't actually paid enough hence the whole "proletariat vs bourgeois" stuff.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >*enough*
                by what standard? in what business?
                Doctors, for example, get paid way too much money.
                Same with lawyers and movie stars

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Doctors, for example, get paid way too much money.
                >*too much"
                by what standard? in what business?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I was just giving my opinion as a rhetorical tool to point out that your idea is just another opinion.

                [...]
                This argument would be cogent if not for the fact American capitalists shipped your industries to third world shitholes to avoid paying white Americans living respectable wages of $30/hr, so they could instead pay 4ft tall Bugmen in Asia $1/hr. This is also the same reason your Southern capitalists employ the tens of millions of illegal Hispanics in your country instead of white Americans, because they can get away with paying them half to a quarter the wage. Here we can see, the value labour can demand is arbitrary and highly relative to local politics, rights granted by the state, and labour organisation and laws protecting that.

                Just because one is "skilled" in the sense you had to acquire accreditation doesn't mean you will be paid more, it just means you're performing technical labour, often for wages that don't grow to outpace inflation, if at all.

                Sure when it comes to international politics, I'm totally in favor of enacting certain protectionist policies that prioritize our own people over foreigners. We all in our country have a reason to prefer ourselves to foreigners.

                On the other hand there is something brutal about global economics in that the most productive people will win over time. There are different ways to be productive, different ways to disrupt the other countries... It's complicated, but ultimately somebody is going to win at the expense of the others.
                If we want to win that battle, we need to be willing to work harder than the enemy. Work smarter. Work more fiercly and devotedly.

                Obviously in the US, we are captured by the israelites and don't have any kind of system that's going to survive even a century at this rate.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >your idea is just another opinion.
                and so is yours, so what?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I just thought you were trying to convince me of something. Nevermind

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, my point is that all "value" today is fundamentally arbitrary. Might makes right is the law of the land.

                Just because you say it doesn't means it's true.

                Just because YOU say it doesn't means it's true.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There are risk analysts and fields of economics where all they study is determining its risk and its value. It might be made up, but people are sure hiring them for their expertise in something that's made up. Maybe knowing risk and its value is perhaps... Valuable?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Some companies use probabilities and statistics to calculate prices ok. However it doesn't mean "risk"= "value".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Never said that. People here, or me in particular, is saying that risk is related to how certain a person is in judging its value. Higher uncertainty means higher risk. You can use risk to now judge for a fair value.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Higher uncertainty means higher risk.
                Yes, uncertainty in making a product. Risk of starting of business will not translate as well into value of products that business produces.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It depends how well you do a risk assessment. Who knows though, I never started a business before. I'm just a wage slave.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can use risk to now judge for a fair value.
                yeah you can, that doesn't mean "risk"="value".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                True. And this is why guilds are shit. It hides the doctor or lawyers true value of their skills by limiting the supply of lawyers and doctors.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                On the other hand, if his "skills" are actually very mundane and common, then any desperate guy off the street can equally do the job and in that case his contribution is not so valuable.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The specialised person who used their skills to seemingly make something from nothing deserves to be the one who is rewarded most.
                That is up to him to demand when he makes the contract to get hired. If his skills are so special, he can command a very high price

                This argument would be cogent if not for the fact American capitalists shipped your industries to third world shitholes to avoid paying white Americans living respectable wages of $30/hr, so they could instead pay 4ft tall Bugmen in Asia $1/hr. This is also the same reason your Southern capitalists employ the tens of millions of illegal Hispanics in your country instead of white Americans, because they can get away with paying them half to a quarter the wage. Here we can see, the value labour can demand is arbitrary and highly relative to local politics, rights granted by the state, and labour organisation and laws protecting that.

                Just because one is "skilled" in the sense you had to acquire accreditation doesn't mean you will be paid more, it just means you're performing technical labour, often for wages that don't grow to outpace inflation, if at all.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > >"The labor itself does not create the value."
                >The specialised person who used their skills to seemingly make something from nothing deserves to be the one who is rewarded most.
                Says who?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Who is arguing so?
          Marx.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            this meme is retarded on another level

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >s...supply and demand isn't real!
              ok retard

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Read up on use value you fat american nagger, Marx adresses this exact talking point about trade

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Humans cannot exist without air, yet the air they breathe is free. How can that be? Because the state, nor the capitalist, has yet monopolised, or commodified, air.

                For example, oxygen is in greater abundance today than ever before in documented history, and it costs nothing, yet houses are in greater abundance today than ever before in documented history, yet cost more than ever before in documented history.

                Furthermore, the simple hypothetical model fails to account for the fact the capitalist generally will not sell a product for less than it cost them to produce. Regardless of how much market forces attempt to collectively bargain to lower the price, the price will remain fixed, because if it didn't and the enterprise was not profitable to the capitalist, he would not engage in it to begin with, because capitalists are driven by profit-seeking behaviour motivated out of fundamental greed.

                To this end we can say, market force discovery only functions to the degree to which a capitalist is able to set the price floor for profit above what is already profitable, not what they want it to be.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >humans need to breathe bro, that's why capitalism is bad
                did this sound deep/intelligent in your head?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm willing to bet you will become a Communist overnight and demand that Earth's atmosphere is communally owned the second someone like Musk figures out how to monopolise the supply and sell it in bottles.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the second someone like Musk figures out how to monopolise the supply and sell it in bottles.
                they already have the air is poison and you must purchase filters for it now on a nonstop basis

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Because the state, nor the capitalist, has yet monopolised, or commodified, air.
                lol, they're attempting to with CO2/emission credits lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oxygen is naturally occurring across the entirety of human habitats. It requires nothing to be consumed by anybody, at any time. Houses need to be created by individuals and those individuals need to invest time, labour and money to create them. You have to be 18 to post on this board

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You have still failed to see the obvious: oxygen spontaneously arising by chemical and geological processes found in nature still aren't "free", it required a highly technical mechanism to come about. But because it hasn't been commodified, it's "free" in the sense you paid nothing for it. No animal on planet Earth except humans pay rent to inhabit a patch of ditch. On your leased-property that you rent from a landlord or from your government with council taxes, of all the birds, insects, ruminants, and so on that inhabit that area, (you) are the only one paying to be there.

                Understanding this, we can say "homes" are a technical product that arises from human labour no different than "air" is a technical product that arises from natural labour. Again, you pay for one yet the other is free, because people who believe in private property said so.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >because people who believe in private property said so.
                Exactly. which is identical to OP's point
                >labor creates value because… because I say so!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don’t expect a memeflaggot who thinks houses should be free to understand how many contradictions he makes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >houses are in greater abundance today than ever before

                No, you are poorer

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dont know much about Marx himself, but your pic is wrong with the first slide. Product is not socially necessery, the term goes for the labour that goes into the product.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >product is not socially necessary
              That's the point of the meme you low IQ retard. Supply and Demand determines value, labor theory of value is moronic. Labor is not inherently valuable.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nagger, your understanding of economic theory is below just low IQ retard. "Supply and Demand determines value" is part of labour theory of value. It doesnt claim that " Labor is not inherently valuable." You mutts are so fucking dumb you cant even look up definition of something before being buttflustered by it. LTV is just a very crude and pretty much obsolete theory of value, but it is also the oldest one, it should be common sense way yet you still fail to understand.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nagger, your understanding of economic theory is below just low IQ retard. "Supply and Demand determines value" is part of labour theory of value. It doesnt claim that " Labor is not inherently valuable." You mutts are so fucking dumb you cant even look up definition of something before being buttflustered by it. LTV is just a very crude and pretty much obsolete theory of value, but it is also the oldest one, it should be common sense way yet you still fail to understand.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The answers to your post are basically the comic playing itself. Show them the theory is dumb and they'll go on these extremely convoluted ways to attempt to justify it, basically wrestling with the real world in order to make it conform to their ideolo- I mean, "economic theory".

            >You just don't get it!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it is presupposed in the retarded calculations people do to assert the capital side is stealing from the labor side

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This isn't a strawman, that is literally marx's argument

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I jerked off
        That was labor
        Where’s my money?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Send pic

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >"muh surplus value"
        I will make it simple for you American conservatives to understand.

        You work at McDonalds.

        You make $10/hr preparing orders.

        Each hour you take orders totalling $1,000 of revenue for the franchise owner.

        You are paid 1% of the value you produce each hour.

        The franchise owner keeps 99% of your surplus value.

        Capitalists really don't appreciate this kind of bare bones analysis because it lays bare the truth that the wage labourers should be paid is the revenue their labour produces, not its prestige. The reality is, the average McShit burger flipper produces more revenue than the average Bachelor of Business holding, paper pushing office drone does, yet they're not paid for it, because it's "inferior work for subhumans".

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why don't you open your own fast food place and pay all of the overhead costs and assume all the risk yourself? You can keep 100% of the profits then.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you better have a license for that goy
            >you better comply with modern construction laws that require using 50 million dollars to build a full industrial kitchen into your lemondade stand instead of just setting a table infront of your house. don't do that either that's against zoning laws; make sure you spend an additional 100 million dollars on purchasing property in a "commerical" zone that we created completely fairly with no preferential treatment to existing mega businesses that we gave loans too to start while you will have to start with no loans from 0

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Excuses. Clearly if it's so lucrative and profitable it would be worth the effort to acquire the licenses and meet the zoning requirements.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the "you didn't build that" meme is true.
                nobody is starting a business without a bank loan the costs are prohitively and intentionally high so megacorps don't have competition from small businesses.

                all these big corps fund politiicans that pass laws that smash small business in any area they are competing (zoning, excessive taxes / start up costs, preferential land deals, literally free money from venture capital money launderers)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"muh business risk"
            This is just another capitalist cope. The revenue a labourer can produce per hour is hypothetically unlimited yet they will always be paid a fixed sum. Principally this means productivity is not correlated with wages earned, and why labouring harder will not mean you earn more. This is why unions are important, because they understand the only thing that can drive wages up is the monopolisation of labour.

            Conversely, the risk a capitalist can take on per hour is hypothetically unlimited yet they will always be paid a hypothetically unlimited amount, in return. Risk is clearly not proportional to revenue, either.

            Here we can clearly see, in what is yet another ponzi scam: the loses of the capitalist are socialised onto the labourers, yet the revenue of the labourers are hoarded by the capitalist.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >risk is cope
              So go assume some risk if it's a non-issue.
              >fixed wages
              go work on comission
              >Risk is clearly not proportional to revenue, either.
              Nobody ever claimed it was, they are completely separate issues.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Risk is meaningless. Everyone takes on risk all the time. So what? It comes down to the same argument as
                >risk creates value because… because I say so!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>risk creates value because… because I say so!
                It's just that the person taking the risk deserves the rewards associated that risk.

                Why should someone who doesn't have any skin in the game deserve to take the profits?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's just that the person taking the risk deserves the rewards associated that risk.
                what risk and why? I risk my life when I cross the street, where is my rent?
                >Why should someone who doesn't have any skin in the game deserve to take the profits?
                Employees don't have any skin in the game?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what risk and why? I risk my life when I cross the street, where is my rent?
                The reason to cross the street is to get to the other side, like the old joke goes. That's your reward.

                >Employees don't have any skin in the game?
                No because they get paid even if nobody buys the product. Even if it's a total failure, the employees get paid every 2 weeks whatever salary they negotiated.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > That's your reward.
                which has nothing to do with any "risk".
                >No because they get paid even if nobody buys the product. Even if it's a total failure, the employees get paid every 2 weeks whatever salary they negotiated.
                and this has nothing to do with any "risk".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >which has nothing to do with any "risk".
                It's the reward for crossing the street. You can take the risk of getting hit by the car if you want... or you don't have to; it's up to you to decide if it's worth it.

                >and this has nothing to do with any "risk".
                Their paychecks are coming out of the owners' pockets. He is taking a risk by hiring them. He's hoping that their labor will result in profits, but it's not a guarantee. Thus he risks paying out a bunch of money for a possible economic benefit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It's the reward for crossing the street.
                Like I said, it has nothing to do with "risk". I cross the street because I want to cross the street. Risk = probability of some event. It's just a number. It has no qualitative factor. "Risk" is basically assigning a qualitative aspect to a number.
                >He is taking a risk by hiring them.
                and employees are risking their lives by working for that owner, so what?
                >He's hoping that their labor will result in profits, but it's not a guarantee.
                Employees are hoping they're gonna get paid, but it's no guarantee.
                >Thus he risks paying out a bunch of money for a possible economic benefit.
                Employees are risking their time/life for a possible economic benefit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I bet you would pay for armed security of you were crossing the road filled with feral naggers. Risk is when the value is unknown.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                "Risk" has nothing to do with "value".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just because you say it doesn't means it's true.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                While risk certainly is relevant for example in the stock market, it does not create value. Otherwise, the rates of return of capital would be proportional to risks, something for which I have seen no proof.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > I cross the street because I want to cross the street.
                Ok now imagine you cross the street, but found yourself back where you started. And instead the guy who made the road got across the street instead of you.
                And every time you cross the street, certain people who make roads would get across instead of you.
                You have to realize at some point that you're never going to get home... you're just going to get hit by a car.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and what does this have to do with "risk"?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You brought up the fact that getting hit by a car was a risk of crossing the street

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what risk and why? I risk my life when I cross the street, where is my rent?
                Nothing to do with rent. You judged the risk cross the street to be low. You exchanged crossing the road with just calories. Now if you want to cross the street filled with naggers, the risk would be higher and the value would be unknown.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >deserves
                Economy doesnt give a shit about who deserves what, anon. To strawmannify, if you roll a Russian roulette while making bread, that bread does not become more valuable.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Economy doesnt give a shit about who deserves what, anon.
                It does in the sense that the economy is a feature of a society and therefore is subject to the rules that society demands of it.

                If society cares about who deserves what, then the economy will also be made to care about it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In the sense you deserve to own what you own and you deserve to own what you were promised to own under legally binding agreements. Not in the sense, "I took a huge risk by doing this, now gimme money" or "I worked hard on this, I deserve to be paid well". You can take risks or work hard, but what you, as an individual did will still have to be evaluated on the market as not all risks are smart and not all hard labour is equally efficient.

                E.g. if you take a risk by starting a business in an already oversaturated market, but such a risk can not be rewarded; even if you provided a product that could compete it would compete much better in a market that is not saturated.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In the sense you deserve to own what you own and you deserve to own what you were promised to own under legally binding agreements.
                That happens to be the society we currently live in. But it's not generally a feature of societies and certainly it's not necessarily so.
                We place a value on ownership and on contracts (although prenuptial agreements are a notable exception) and on individual choice. But it's possible to have a society where the contract is only valid if it's a good contract. Or it only needs to be followed if it benefits the society. Or there can be any kinds of rules we can think of that could be put in place and would shape the economy.

                >E.g. if you take a risk by starting a business in an already oversaturated market, but such a risk can not be rewarded; even if you provided a product that could compete it would compete much better in a market that is not saturated.
                Yea I understand things don't always work out the way you think they will. I'm just saying that we do get to decide to some degree who deserves what.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >we do get to decide to some degree who deserves what.
                Language here is bit more complex. You can argue that Soros does not deserve the wealth he has, but at the same time you can respect his right to the wealth as his private property. Or you can say that Soros does not deserve the wealth he has with an intent of expropriating him. Or you can say that Soros deserves to have his wealth, simply because it is his private property and the way he acquired it is none of your business.

                Ultimately the part where you say someone does deserve more/less than is his private property does not matter as long as you are not handing out your private property. E.g. You can make a gofundme for a guy who got fucked over and you think he deserves more and people might volunatarily give him their money. But good fucking luck taking away money from Soros.

                When it comes to someone starting a business, people might indeed take pity on him, because he took a risk starting it, but good luck running a business based on other people taking a pity on you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Risk is meaningless. Everyone takes on risk all the time.
                So go take some more if it's meaningless?
                >risk creates value
                nope, never said that
                Supply and Demand are what matters

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So go take some more if it's meaningless?
                What would I take it it's meaningless?
                >nope, never said that
                >Supply and Demand are what matters
                so you agree that risk is meaningless?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if risk doesnt matter why not start hundreds of businesses until one becomes Amazon?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                because I don't have the money

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if you saved your money for 10 years then go tried to start a business

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Risk is occurs during the determination of the value. I have no idea how there are people who that exist that can do simple math and yet believe communism can work. Makes no sense to me.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >why labouring harder will not mean you earn more
              Labor theory of value DESTROYED.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >yet the revenue of the labourers
              >are hoarded by the capitalist.
              Everyone is a laborer and a capitalist. You work for mcdonalds, and you also own mcdonalds shares, which means you get dividends from the profits of the place in which you work. Doesn't matter whether you're a burger flipper or an executive you both labor for mcdonalds and you both profit from them. Public corporations are the closest thing to socialism, it's living proof that labor theory is retarded, and commies deny it because they don't actually care about what works they just hate people.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          this is why i have practically turned into a communist now.
          the problem is how do you fix it.

          in all the other communist systems the surplus labor just goes to the government and not the people either and the labor thieves just become the government and enrich themselves again

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The franchise owner keeps 99% of your surplus value
          damn bro that sounds like an infinite money glitch. business owners must never lose money then

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wages are also determined by supply and demand. Almost anyone can make McDonalds burgers = higher supply of workers = lower wages.

          It costs savings, investment risk, and accumulated experience, knowledge etc to start a small business or franchise. That has all been gained from the previous labour of the entrepreneur.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          99% of the work was already done when you arrived. You're just there to flip burgers, homosexual.
          Did you build the building that houses the McDonald's? No. You didn't even bring your own spatula.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > "the franchise owner keeps 99% of yoru surplus value."

          Urgh... are you retarded?
          If you understood calculus - assuming your stupid estimate of 1% is correct -- there is more than one person working there - more like 20 in a typical hamburger joint) so the franchise owner doesn't walk home with 99% of the revenue but only 80%, if everything else was free, which it isn't. Because, as we all understand except for the most stupid ones, the franchise owner pays the electricity, heating, AC and water needed to run the place. He buys the grease to cook the fries, he buys the patties, the salads, the drinks, pays for the distribution channel that supplies his restaurant (inclusing paying for the trucks, truck-drivers, and mechanics that keep the trucks working, plus fuel for the trucks), pays for furniture, because as we all understand (except you of course) that you can sit down in a restaurant, pays off the building, either the rent or the mortgage, pays for advertizing, pays for the costumes, pays taxes on what's left of his income.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Management is labour but that's not why owners get paid, they get paid because they own ie PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ie state backed violence.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
              Which is basically
              >pay me because… because I say so!

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Management is not labour. Management is the philosophy and rules which managers enact. “Managers” may be considered labourers, but the distinction matters.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Management is absolutely labour. I would argue the most important kind.
                >is the philosophy and rules which managers enact.
                yeah, and who creates and enacts these rules?
                >“Managers” may be considered labourers, but the distinction matters.
                Well, every labour is different but that doesn't change the fact that management is labour.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unions and government subsidies make management's actual value unknown. Too bad having bad management doesn't correlate well with the company failing nowadaya.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All labour value is unknown. We just make it up as we go.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet you can find out what labour is worth through cash flow analysis.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can find out the $ amount someone got, however that doesn't mean $=value. $ is just another made up number.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >$ is just another made up number
                It's not made up. It's value.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't make sense. All value is made up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My explanations doesn't make sense if you don't believe in value though. Ah well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I believe in value, just not any specific one. The notion of value changes with time, people and philosophy.

                You brought up the fact that getting hit by a car was a risk of crossing the street

                yes but it has nothing to do with me crossing the street. I cross the street because I want to, not because of any inherit risk.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The notion of value changes with time, people and philosophy.
                Value may chage due to time, people, and philosophy, but the notion remains the same. People have been bartering for goods before the stone age. People had a concept of value even back then.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes I agree the concept of value has existed and will exist

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I just don't agree with the capitalist concept of value because it's ultimately based on master/slavery.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Slavery can be productive though, regardless of wether or not you agree with it. Reality and ideology dont necessarily overlap.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                sure, slavery can be productive, but not the type of productive I want.
                >Reality and ideology dont necessarily overlap.
                I don't understand what this means.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ultimately, the individuals objective is to get what he wants out of the limited resources at his disposal. Those resources can be boiled down to a finite supply of capital and labour, which produce a product that people want or need, and thus has a market value. To me, that means my resources produce product, which other people value, allowing me to acquire what I desire. That’s “value” in a nutshell.

                It doesn’t make much of difference if my command over my resources is due to slavery, employment contracts, indentured servitude, or government mandate, or democratic election. The process remains the same.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That’s “value” in a nutshell.
                Capitalist "value".
                >It doesn’t make much of difference
                It makes all the difference to me though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not merely “capitalist value”, it is what’s meant by “value creation”, regardless of which system employs it. It’s not a debatable topic, it’s a formula and a definition.

                Now, you might be interested in other forms of “value” which are not economic, perhaps religious, moral, philosophical, etc? Which is all fair game, but you may want to premise your argument more clearly.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I enjoyed our conversation. Best thread of /misc/ for me. Every other thread seemed boring for some reason.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >yes but it has nothing to do with me crossing the street. I cross the street because I want to, not because of any inherit risk.
                I think you wouldn't cross the street if the risk of death were high enough

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                that's true but so what?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >that's true but so what?
                So risk does have something to do with you crossing the street

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes sure

                It’s not merely “capitalist value”, it is what’s meant by “value creation”, regardless of which system employs it. It’s not a debatable topic, it’s a formula and a definition.

                Now, you might be interested in other forms of “value” which are not economic, perhaps religious, moral, philosophical, etc? Which is all fair game, but you may want to premise your argument more clearly.

                >It’s not merely “capitalist value”, it is what’s meant by “value creation”, regardless of which system employs it. It’s not a debatable topic, it’s a formula and a definition.
                Not it's not. The notion of "value" changes all the time. What is valuable today might not be valuable tomorrow. That's the whole point. The whole idea of "capital", "market value", "private property" are a capitalist concept which may or may not exist in the future, so its ideas of "value".

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Prices change, but the definition of value does not. The physics analog is gravity. The experienced force of gravity depends on one’s relative position, the the mechanics of gravity do not change.

                As with gravity so with markets. Prices will depend on the equilibrium between supply and demand for a given product or service at a specific time and place. How one “feels” about this process has no bearing on its existence.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What we price and how we price it changes therefore the def of value changes as well.

                >The physics analog is gravity
                Gravity is objectively yes, but the theory of what causes gravity changes with our understand of the world/scientific model.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Erratums.
                >objective
                >understanding

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >theory changes

                I think you’re close to understanding this. We’re talking about the distinction between “mechanics/dynamics” and “rhetoric”. We may change our theories about gravity, but our theories don’t change the mechanics of gravity. As with markets: we may choose to change how and what we price (it happens all the time), but if our arbitrary decisions are inconsistent with the underlying mechanics of markets (which we can not change), all that is accomplished is a bankruptcy, a recession, or a collapse, depending on the scale of our hubris. Best to pay very close attention to the underlying mechanics of economics, before attempting to violate them. The story of Icarus comes to mind.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I said gravity is objective (it exists), but HOW gravity works is not (the "theory of gravity"). The notion that we value things is objective, but HOW we value them is not (the "value theory").

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is a degree of subjectivity and assumption to our theory of gravity, yes, but if that theory fails to accurately model the underlying mechanics of gravity, then we fail in our attempts to build spaceships. Just as I noted before, how we assign value is subjective, but if we get it wrong by failing to align our prices with the underlying mechanics of value, our enterprises collapse. Market valuation is by far the most consistently correct method we have discovered at matching our assigned values, to those determined by the underlying mechanics of value.

                This is to say, a person is free to develop any theory he wants, but it has no value if it doesn’t work. And if a theory is inconsistent with underlying mechanics it will not work.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >underlying mechanics of value
                The no "underlying mechanics of value". We choose what and how we value things and just use that model. However, this model can change.
                >Market valuation is by far the most consistently correct method
                There is no "correct method". Correct wrp to what? Profit? yes, quality of life for 99% of people? not so much.
                >but it has no value if it doesn’t work.
                What works and what doesn't depends on what and how we choose to value.

                Basically you're trying to come up with some "objective theory of value" or "underlying mechanics of value". There is no such things, value is subjective by definition.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I have described the mechanism of economic value, from first principles, quite clearly here:

                Ultimately, the individuals objective is to get what he wants out of the limited resources at his disposal. Those resources can be boiled down to a finite supply of capital and labour, which produce a product that people want or need, and thus has a market value. To me, that means my resources produce product, which other people value, allowing me to acquire what I desire. That’s “value” in a nutshell.

                It doesn’t make much of difference if my command over my resources is due to slavery, employment contracts, indentured servitude, or government mandate, or democratic election. The process remains the same.

                and elaborated here:

                >theory changes

                I think you’re close to understanding this. We’re talking about the distinction between “mechanics/dynamics” and “rhetoric”. We may change our theories about gravity, but our theories don’t change the mechanics of gravity. As with markets: we may choose to change how and what we price (it happens all the time), but if our arbitrary decisions are inconsistent with the underlying mechanics of markets (which we can not change), all that is accomplished is a bankruptcy, a recession, or a collapse, depending on the scale of our hubris. Best to pay very close attention to the underlying mechanics of economics, before attempting to violate them. The story of Icarus comes to mind.

                and here:

                There is a degree of subjectivity and assumption to our theory of gravity, yes, but if that theory fails to accurately model the underlying mechanics of gravity, then we fail in our attempts to build spaceships. Just as I noted before, how we assign value is subjective, but if we get it wrong by failing to align our prices with the underlying mechanics of value, our enterprises collapse. Market valuation is by far the most consistently correct method we have discovered at matching our assigned values, to those determined by the underlying mechanics of value.

                This is to say, a person is free to develop any theory he wants, but it has no value if it doesn’t work. And if a theory is inconsistent with underlying mechanics it will not work.

                . This is established, extensively studied, and it’s application yields expected real world results.

                I think you might be slipping into this fallacy where “social construct” is equated with “arbitrary”. This is a huge mistake, and a dangerous one, as it’s implication is that any theory or “social construct” can be as effective as another. If your interest/objective is gaining wisdom, and being more effective with your thinking, you must abandon this believe about arbitrary.

                We did not reach space by changing the physical constants in our theories to suit the limitations of our engineering. We improved our engineering to overcome the limitations of known physical constants.

                This lesson is every bit as important for one who would improve humanity as it is for engineers. You must figure out what’s true, then find a way to solve your problem taking this truth into account. It’s the only way.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > This is established, extensively studied, and it’s application yields expected real world results.
                I have no idea what this supposed to mean. Value is a social construct. It changes with every person or a group of people (ie society). That's just a fact.
                >We did not reach space by changing the physical constants in our theories to suit the limitations of our engineering.
                ok? We reached space by doing experiments and figure out which one yielded the results that we wanted (getting into space). Our theory was "correct" wrt the result that we wanted.
                >This lesson is every bit as important for one who would improve humanity as it is for engineers.
                Except the notion of "improving humanity" is different for each society.
                >You must figure out what’s true, then find a way to solve your problem taking this truth into account. It’s the only way.
                yes I agree, however this has nothing to do with the fact that value is fundamentally a subjective concept.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >changing the physical constants in our theories to suit the limitations of our engineering
                Nah, but we do up that safety factor to a 3.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You’re missing the point. Consider two identical groups of workers, putting in identical effort, over an equal period of time. Their difference in output is will largely be the result of management strategy and tactics.

                That is, a bad management philosophy will generate bad results from identical inputs. That’s the distinction I’m making. Good managers don’t work harder, they work smarter.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ok. I don't disagree. Management is still a type of labour though.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What if an AI is doing the managing?

                Haha, look, no need to split hairs on this. Marx had a very specific definition of labor, which he used in the labor theory of value. The whole theory is shit, and Marx was a fart-sniffer. End of story.

                Practically speaking, that is, ignoring communist word games, yes, management is labor.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who is programming the AI?
                >Haha, look, no need to split hairs on this.
                I'm not splitting hairs.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Implying communism isn’t state backed violence

              I can tell you are boosted, homosexual

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't imply that.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You ignore the cost of the burgers, the cost of the establishment, losses of product, the re-purchasing of new product, and all other overhead. You assist in bringing in $1000 of revenue per hour (which isn't even close to accurate btw) and $950 of that at least is just to cover expenses, probably more.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't even understand the theory you're trying to critique you fucking retard. Marx's theory of value is different from Ricardo's theory of value.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok then go to the sahara and dig a ditch 500 feet wide, 5000 feet long and 70 feet deep.
      That's a lot of labor.

      But no value.

      LOL MARX is just as dumb as his followers.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        stupid argument, no one is digging a huge hole in the middle of the sahara, on the other hand look at any value added product, where do you think the extra value comes from?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're an idiot, like your clown hero Karl Mordechai, the israelite-hating giga israelite.

          Nobody is buying leftover clothes from the 80'ies anymore (not at the same prices, even adjusted for inflation) because fashion decides its value more so than the labor that went into it.
          Consequently if you make clothes that nobody likes, they won't sell (people think they have no value), and they will sell if people like them, even though the material costs and labor hours may be the same.

          Since you "believe" in Marx, I don't expect you to understand anything or be capable of forming any logical argument. Marx himself couldn't even distinguish between cause and effect, or his imagination and reality.

          What a sod.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            t. idiot who does not understand the difference between price and value

            read a book for once maybe

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Difference between price and value
              Nothing has intrinsic value. Value is a social construct determined by how much a society wants something. If nobody wants those clothes, they have no value

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I believe Marx called this "use value", without it there is no exchange value (price).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                how is air, food, water, shelter, clothing not considered intrinsic valuable since they allow us to live? and and sustains life?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes because there's no use for you stupid hole, once it becomes a useful product then your labour matters goddam brainlet

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lol. You could fire 50% of all workers and 80% of management in most large companies in Western Europe without any loss of value. Bump that shit up to 85% and 95% in the government sector.
      People go to work, and maybe they work, but no value is created from it. Everyone's got colleagues that create more additional work than value, and modern management is just fucking useless.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >what are you paying for?
      A product that I want. I don't care how much labor went into it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay you monkey brained retard. Two products, both with similarly priced inputs. Let's say a blanket. One is machine-made in a factory, the other painstakingly hand-stitched. Which is gonna cost more? Labor definitely affects the value of the end product. Products that require more labor to create will be priced higher to compensate said labor.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >accuses someone of being a monkey brained retard
          >argues from a position of theory for the sake of prolonging an idiotic argument

          you are lost, the lot of you

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    marx was right

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If it wouldn't generate value then the labor wouldn't exist

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well too bad labor has been replaced by automation and outsourcing to poor countries. So can we bury his worthless philosophies with his body?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Marx wasn't even the one who came up with that

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Marx and his idiotic made-up nonsense.
    Expounded upon in Full.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Saved, that was a good read.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    His entire philosophy and all modern versions of it rest on this idiotic proposition

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, that's correct. Literally anything has value because we say so! lol

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was Adam Smith that put forward the idea that labor creates value.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As far as I know Socrates already toyed with the idea.

      Thermodynamics is also an exchange of values.
      Work doesn't come from thin air.

      Some believe that recent developements in understanding energy efficiency in steam engines inspired Marx to formualte his theory of value.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kill yourself homosexual
    >i made this thread the third time because i...i did Okay i'm op and my name is a homosexual
    kill yourself shill
    i don't care if your thread gets deleted if it gets deleted it means it's trash
    stop been a homosexual OP

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No
      >meme flag
      Seethe harder

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that nigga never had a job in his life his family was rich

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Haha his family wasn't even rich. He literally had a capitalist, Friedrich Engels, owner of textile factories, to pay his expenses. He lived like that

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can spend 30 years building a Karl Marx statue made of shit, carefully carving every inch and giving extra attention to details such as his beard and suit. But I doubt anyone would pay for that shit...statue.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pay me to workout then.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Labor, that is, human effort translated into product, is a “value add” process, not value in an of itself. Management is responsible for the efficient allocation and implementation of labor and other value added processes. The vast majority of economic progress depends on the effectiveness of management.

    If labor simply equaled value, than China and India would each have a nearly 10 to 1 advantage over the US, as the number of man hours worked in those nations dwarfs ours. But in reality they are decades behind in productivity.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Taking usefulness and marketability out of the equasion...

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Economics is a dead end. We won't solve our problem with old books from the 18th. New problems require new solutions.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Capitalist bros.... does nature prove us wrong?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you do not work you do not eat. Civilization, including economy, starts with food. Farmers and hunters work is about survival. We could all just go back to farming our own food, pray that our fields don't come up with disease or fail, and everyone in the world can just be a farmer.

      Or *some* of us can be farmers, while other specialize in different things other than food, and in exchange for the farmers food we do things for him, like building a good house, or playing music, or harnessing electricity.

      So you get grain from the farmer in exchange for favors. Your time is not spend toiling in the field but toiling on an instrument, or ranching sheep for wool and making clothes, or mining ores to make tools.

      Grain becomes money, but food goes bad. Use metals instead, they're stable. Eventually it gets to paper money which is a receipt for metal. Money doesn't mean anything in itself, it's just a tool which ultimately means you get to buy food instead of farming for yourself, and if you provide enough value for others that you have more food than you need, you can give your money to others for their talents so that they may buy more food, and so on and so on.

      This allows civilization to exist by division of labor and prevents your life from becoming a side quest.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a world of nothing but investors and owners wouldn't collapse in 5 minutes, because, because, because......

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Labour does what the fuck it's told and has no fucking clue what "value" is.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you just invest money and thing gets done
    >here is our 500 thousand dollar home that builds itself
    >wait do you mean you need hundreds of man hours spent to make surplus value, if everybody was a crypto trader the world would run just fine, now where is my food, water and shelter, people shouldn't earn a living wage because their labour is useless, just my company would fall in 4 seconds without labour being put into it.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hitler said so too.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Labor isn't a value, labor is a cost and always has been.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Value (in context of classical political economy): cost of something at market equilibrium

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >value of labor is defined by our wages
    >importing 3rd worlders and having women work stifle this value of labor in an unnecessarily competitive job market
    Marx sounds about right

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >pay someone to dig a hole in your yard
    >they dig out your entire yard and sell the top soil and want paid x50 more for all the extra holes
    >government enforces it because you created an expectation of getting paid and now I have to pay him perpetually to dig out my yard

    communism!

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BR:

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't understand how Marxism works.

    >Marx is genius, we will worship Marx, and have universities that study Marx's holy scripture to appreciate how true it is and bask in its glory!
    >But I think Marx is full of shit, here's my thorough arguments on how he's mistaken...
    >Oops, you just got shot in the back of the head! Oops, your entire family got put into labor camp!
    >Marx is genius, we will worship Marx...

    Communism is a dogmatic, religious teaching. It runs on physical power to punish infidels. Communism can't work without physical power, it goes limp and becomes laughing stock.
    Abrahamic religions are good analogy. Today, you can take israeli Tanakh and fucking rip it to shreds with your critical analysis, taking no prisoners, and Judeo-christians won't do shit to you other than screeching that you wear silly hat. But try that during golden age of Inquisition.
    If anything Marxism should be considered Abrahamic religion.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Silver Separatist

    >check
    "work will set you free"

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Adam Smith also said so

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Anyone who sells something for more than they paid for it is already a crook."
    - Otto Weininger

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >buy thing
      >transport thing
      If more money was not charged, transporting it would not be profitable and it might not be available at that location

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What about selling your house? Is it worth more than you paid for it if you didn't do anything to it in the way of improvements? Why or why not?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ahhh, this is a good example/thought experiment.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ahhh, this is a good example/thought experiment.

          There is less land and less housing available, meaning the value of your land goes up. If the population were decimated land values would likely decrease since there's more to go around.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >itt: autism general
    Great job op

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WASTED.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Right back at you homosexual

    • 2 weeks ago
      Luiznon

      witnessed

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice digits, Anon.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      High intestinal permeability.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Marx confirmed Autist.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You homosexual

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Labor does create value, but it's not the only thing that does and labor theory is retarded. Value is always a subjective thing, what this item is worth to you, and what someone else is willing to sell it for. If you spend 10 years working on shitty macaroni art that doesn't make it worth 1 million dollars, or 1 million dollars worth of food or other items. If you work 10 years growing grapes, making fine wine, and aging it, and nobody in the world drinks wine, then your wine is worth shit. If people do want your wine then it's up to them how much they're willing to pay. It's also up to you how much you're willing to let go of that wine for, adding up your expenses to produce it, and your normal living expenses for profit. Or maybe the wine is cursed and you just want to get rid of it, you might sell it for less than what you put into it. This is called supply and demand.

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Try to create an economy where nobody, including robots moves. Good luck.

    Contrast this with trying to have an economy not run by demonic pedophiles and fake money on computers.

    One of these is possible. The other very much is not.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Don't understand a theory
    >Still say that you hate it

    The labor theory of value states that in a given market the expected exchange value of a commodity, for which there needs to be some demand, is determined by the total amount of labor necessary to create it. So for example, if in a given market 10000 chairs are produced with n1 amount of labor at value x1 and n2 amount of materials at value x2, then one would expect the exchange value of a chair to be (x1+x2)/10000. Furthermore, since the materials themselves were produced with labor, let's call it x3 which equals x2 in value, then the average price is also equal to (x1+x3)/10000.

    What confuses many people is that the total amount of labor is not a straightforward computation, where for example a slower worker would produce value at an equal rate. What the theory proposes, is that all labor is convertible to some unit of basic labor by a scaling called intensity. So for example an hour of a twice as fast worker is twice as valuable as an hour of basic labor. Some formulations also cover education under intensity.

    Then, if in the above example we wanted to figure out x1 and x3, we would scale the input of every worker by their intensity, take the sum of the results, and then see how valuable the sum of basic labor would be.

    Of course, in order for this theory to hold, the commodities produced must be:
    1. Mass produced commodities.
    2. Something for which there is actual demand.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >making up digits in the bank and handing out creates value, goyim! Because I say so!

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't understand i spent years making a mountain out of poopoo surely society places the same value on my labor as I do..I demand 10 billion dollars for years of work

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related is all you need to know about Marx and Communism (Judaism lite).

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >believing in labor theory of value in a world where you can sell bathwater

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Labor is a theory of cost not value.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thats how hitler took the germany out of brothel status, work and product of german folk no?

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    naggers don’t work
    Why do they get money

Your email address will not be published.