4 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot 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 agoBut 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 agoHow 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 agogold is more rare, right? so therefore finding it and concentrating it is part of the labor cost of obtaining it? I'm not an expert on this topic but that seems like a reasonable guess.
- uk_programmer 7y agoMaybe. But if it wasn't deemed valuable than it wouldn't matter how much it costs to mine. Oil in some regions of the world literally seeps out of the ground (known as petroleum seep) and until the 19th century it wasn't really deemed to be something of value.
- 0x262d 7y agosure, and if you did want to buy that oil, the absolute floor of the price you could pay (unless there was a demand surplus on the market) would be the labor required to go pick it up in a can and carry it to the market. and competition would drive the price down to that level as suppliers compete. so this seems like a vindication of the LTV as I understand it.
- uk_programmer 7y agoPretend there was a new power source was invented tomorrow that didn't require oil, was as energy dense, was as portable and was 100 times cheaper. The value of oil would decrease and you might not be able to sell it at the cost or at all. Oil would become worthless again as cars, powerstations would be replaced with ones that used this new energy source. There wouldn't be any demand for it. There would still be a labour cost associated into extracting oil that was never sold. Even if you didn't accept that as realistic. Sure competition would drive down the price. However people would be finding ways to produce it for cheaper. They may pay people less, they might find way of producing it with less people involved. LTV can't explain any of this. The labour market itself is driven by market forces.
- 7y ago