6 ms·

The labour theory of value is easily discredited. The market determines the value i.e. what people are willing to pay for something. The labour theory of value

The labour theory of value is easily discredited. The market determines the value i.e. what people are willing to pay for something. The labour theory of value is simply describing the cost of producing something. Whether people are willing to buy it as that price (which would be same as selling it at cost) is an entirely different matter.

clairity 7y ago
you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics).
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  > you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. It isn't about what I think. When people make purchases they will typically try to buy as cheaply as possible. If someone is looking to make a purchase they will typically go to whoever is offering it cheapest, if other people want to compete they will either have to offer it at the same price or cheaper. Are you claiming this isn't true? Because I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I used to work in a Petrol Station we were ones of the cheapest places around and we had a lot of custom. Other places that were more expensive were empty at the same time on the same days because they were more expensive. There is of course exceptions to this (Head and Shoulders Shampoo being the classic example) but they are outliers. The same with a labour market. The market rate for a C# programmer is approximately £350-450 a day in the UK. More specialist development roles pay more e.g. Angular JS developers which are typically £500-750 a day (the last time I looked). There is less Angular JS developers that are available (low supply) so to attract talent companies that wish to hire need to raise the rate. However C# developers in the UK are much more common (higher supply) so companies won't pay those high prices. Are you telling me this isn't happening? Because you can go to total jobs yourself and put C# developer Manchester and you will see difference in market rate yourself. > beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics). Not true. You are making several assumptions: 1) That there is abundance of said product (high supply). 2) People are wanting or needing to make a purchase. 3) That there isn't other competitors which have improved their processes or paying their employees less. Number 2 being the most important IMO as everything else is normally equal. If nobody wants to buy it at the cost (or higher) you will be selling it at a loss.
0x262d 7y ago
This is simply saying you disagree with the definition of the word value in LTV and want value to mean a different concept (what marxists call price or exchange-value). It's a semantic argument without real content.
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  Not at all. The cost of producing something is different from its market value. Recently because of panic buying of loo roll, there wasn't any loo roll available in the UK. On Amazon for a 12 pack of decent quality loo roll was selling at 4 times the price of what it would be normally and they became sold out. You can lament about the ridiculous panic buying. However demand outstripped supply and the price reflected this. In normal circumstances they wouldn't have sold for these prices and people would have had to sell at the regular price.
  - 0x262d 7y ago
    But that is entirely tangential to LTV. No one is denying the reality that supply and demand affect price in the short term. The argument is simply that in the long term as those equilibrate, the relative prices of commodities will tend to hover around their socially necessary labor times. Marxism/LTV distinguishes between value (socially necessary labor time) and price.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - nemo 7y ago
      How does the LTV account for the labor involved in mining copper, silver, and gold being virtually identical but their values being quite different?
      - 0x262d 7y ago

clairity 7y ago

you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics).

uk_programmer 7y ago
> you're making the normative and tautological argument that values are what they are because that's what (you think) they should be, not that there is any intrinsic reason for value to be defined only by a market. markets are great theoretical constructs, but real-world markets don't behave the way we always envision they ought to. they're subject to all sorts of external forces. It isn't about what I think. When people make purchases they will typically try to buy as cheaply as possible. If someone is looking to make a purchase they will typically go to whoever is offering it cheapest, if other people want to compete they will either have to offer it at the same price or cheaper. Are you claiming this isn't true? Because I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I used to work in a Petrol Station we were ones of the cheapest places around and we had a lot of custom. Other places that were more expensive were empty at the same time on the same days because they were more expensive. There is of course exceptions to this (Head and Shoulders Shampoo being the classic example) but they are outliers. The same with a labour market. The market rate for a C# programmer is approximately £350-450 a day in the UK. More specialist development roles pay more e.g. Angular JS developers which are typically £500-750 a day (the last time I looked). There is less Angular JS developers that are available (low supply) so to attract talent companies that wish to hire need to raise the rate. However C# developers in the UK are much more common (higher supply) so companies won't pay those high prices. Are you telling me this isn't happening? Because you can go to total jobs yourself and put C# developer Manchester and you will see difference in market rate yourself. > beyond market settling times, what the delta between labor value and market value very likely indicates is some sort of mispricing in the market, often due to some external, malign manipulation (i.e., an application of force, or power). efficient markets should tend toward the labor value of production, that is, profits are minimized to that of idiosyncratic risk (like pandemics). Not true. You are making several assumptions: 1) That there is abundance of said product (high supply). 2) People are wanting or needing to make a purchase. 3) That there isn't other competitors which have improved their processes or paying their employees less. Number 2 being the most important IMO as everything else is normally equal. If nobody wants to buy it at the cost (or higher) you will be selling it at a loss.

0x262d 7y ago

This is simply saying you disagree with the definition of the word value in LTV and want value to mean a different concept (what marxists call price or exchange-value). It's a semantic argument without real content.

uk_programmer 7y ago
Not at all. The cost of producing something is different from its market value. Recently because of panic buying of loo roll, there wasn't any loo roll available in the UK. On Amazon for a 12 pack of decent quality loo roll was selling at 4 times the price of what it would be normally and they became sold out. You can lament about the ridiculous panic buying. However demand outstripped supply and the price reflected this. In normal circumstances they wouldn't have sold for these prices and people would have had to sell at the regular price.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  But that is entirely tangential to LTV. No one is denying the reality that supply and demand affect price in the short term. The argument is simply that in the long term as those equilibrate, the relative prices of commodities will tend to hover around their socially necessary labor times. Marxism/LTV distinguishes between value (socially necessary labor time) and price.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - nemo 7y ago
    How does the LTV account for the labor involved in mining copper, silver, and gold being virtually identical but their values being quite different?
    - 0x262d 7y ago