6 ms·

That has little to do with 'scacity'. Also - it's entirely possible that you make spectacular wine with the same effort I make bad wine. They are somehow 'equ

That has little to do with 'scacity'. Also - it's entirely possible that you make spectacular wine with the same effort I make bad wine. They are somehow 'equal' in value? It's just ridiculous. Labour theory of value just doesn't have a lot of meaning.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
If your example isn't scarcity I don't know what to tell you, if better wine is "scarce" those labors are what is needed to make better wine. Explain how it is possible, and how the situation does not immediately solve itself with you stopping doing something you hate and are bad at. As many have pointed out, "value" is subjective. Your terrible wine may be loved by someone. Or you may really enjoy making wine. As wine has zero intrinsic value, it is a luxury good, it's very possible for both wines to be just as valuable. It has plenty of meaning, it just doesn't explain "profit."
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  One wine being generally better than another, is not about 'scarcity'. Yes - of course people will have differing opinions - but aggregate market demand can be different for something made with the same amount of labour - that is not an issue of scarcity. i.e. 'most people' can view one wine as better than the other with equal amounts of labour. Again - surely you can, if you want get into issues of 'scarcity' i.e. you can talk about production volumes etc. but that's kind of a second order issue.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    I also found the wine example peculiar, as good wine and scarce wine aren't often the same, but I kept with it as it was brought up. Mistakenly I thought you had brought it up, sorry. "Aggregate market demands" are capitalism, where wine is a status symbol and "good" wine generally refers to price. You are continuing to view this only in the eyes of capitalism and considering "value" to include "profit."
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      ""Aggregate market demands" are capitalism, where wine is a status symbol and "good" wine generally refers to price" No - what I meant by 'aggregate market demand' was really just 'average price / perception of value' - and 'good' does not refer to 'price' - good wine literally is better. I am not equating value and profit. I am equating value and price. Some goods are generally better than others (i.e. most people will think one is better than the other) and require the same labour - this is my point - and it's unrelated to scarcity.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        Like I said, someone else brought up the wine example and I just continued it despite finding it clumsy. Price is value plus profit, thats the only reason to distinguish between the two.
        fvdessen 9y ago
        I think my original point about wine was misunderstood. Good wine is not good because it is scarce, it is good because it is good, but it is more expensive because it is scarce. If you could produce infinite quantities of Chateau-Petrus, it would be extremely cheap. But since it depends on being produced at a specific location, with a specific know-how, the quantities are limited. In this case, the amount of labour involved has little effect on the price of the wine.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        First, and this isn't really relevant, price and scarcity play a much bigger role in what is considered "good wine" than you're saying. Back on topic, "expensive" and "price" again add the concept of profit to the value produced. The only value of wine is enjoyment, so even Petrus wine has little more value than similar wines. That increase in value is largely labor from learning the trade and long running slow maintenance. The only part that is scarce is the soil composition, something that could be recreated with a large amount of labor. Similarly, discovering that that area produced quality wine was labor intensive as well.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

If your example isn't scarcity I don't know what to tell you, if better wine is "scarce" those labors are what is needed to make better wine. Explain how it is possible, and how the situation does not immediately solve itself with you stopping doing something you hate and are bad at. As many have pointed out, "value" is subjective. Your terrible wine may be loved by someone. Or you may really enjoy making wine. As wine has zero intrinsic value, it is a luxury good, it's very possible for both wines to be just as valuable. It has plenty of meaning, it just doesn't explain "profit."

alexasmyths 9y ago
One wine being generally better than another, is not about 'scarcity'. Yes - of course people will have differing opinions - but aggregate market demand can be different for something made with the same amount of labour - that is not an issue of scarcity. i.e. 'most people' can view one wine as better than the other with equal amounts of labour. Again - surely you can, if you want get into issues of 'scarcity' i.e. you can talk about production volumes etc. but that's kind of a second order issue.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  I also found the wine example peculiar, as good wine and scarce wine aren't often the same, but I kept with it as it was brought up. Mistakenly I thought you had brought it up, sorry. "Aggregate market demands" are capitalism, where wine is a status symbol and "good" wine generally refers to price. You are continuing to view this only in the eyes of capitalism and considering "value" to include "profit."
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    ""Aggregate market demands" are capitalism, where wine is a status symbol and "good" wine generally refers to price" No - what I meant by 'aggregate market demand' was really just 'average price / perception of value' - and 'good' does not refer to 'price' - good wine literally is better. I am not equating value and profit. I am equating value and price. Some goods are generally better than others (i.e. most people will think one is better than the other) and require the same labour - this is my point - and it's unrelated to scarcity.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Like I said, someone else brought up the wine example and I just continued it despite finding it clumsy. Price is value plus profit, thats the only reason to distinguish between the two.
      - fvdessen 9y ago
        I think my original point about wine was misunderstood. Good wine is not good because it is scarce, it is good because it is good, but it is more expensive because it is scarce. If you could produce infinite quantities of Chateau-Petrus, it would be extremely cheap. But since it depends on being produced at a specific location, with a specific know-how, the quantities are limited. In this case, the amount of labour involved has little effect on the price of the wine.
        boomboomsubban 9y ago
        First, and this isn't really relevant, price and scarcity play a much bigger role in what is considered "good wine" than you're saying. Back on topic, "expensive" and "price" again add the concept of profit to the value produced. The only value of wine is enjoyment, so even Petrus wine has little more value than similar wines. That increase in value is largely labor from learning the trade and long running slow maintenance. The only part that is scarce is the soil composition, something that could be recreated with a large amount of labor. Similarly, discovering that that area produced quality wine was labor intensive as well.