4 ms·

Value is a negotiation between cost and desire. Communists want to know the actual cost to make something. Prices erase this data.

nwah1 3y ago
Prices sometimes erase that data, when neoclassical economic rents are high. Which can be because the thing in question is just an item of speculative value, or it could be because of market asymmetries. Otherwise, in a free market with many buyers and sellers, the economic profit of a given commodity will tend towards zero. And that means that it offers a very close approximation of the minimum possible incentive for people to produce that commodity. And incenting people to undertake the production process is part of the true cost of production, as all other forms of human effort and risk-taking are.
- orthecreedence 3y ago
  If we're just talking about prices as a singular aggregate number, then they erase vast amounts of data, whether they converge on cost or not. What it took to produce something isn't 34 currency. It took 2 hours of labor mill worker time, 3 hours of truck driver time, 6kg lumber, 6 minutes of oil refining, 3L diesel fuel, etc etc etc. Those are actual costs...and even those are still aggregate, but as separate buckets at least. The beauty of information like this is you can price things at PoS based on known information...how harmful are fossil fuels when used at-scale in production? Very? Ok, create a democratically-imposed pigouvian tax on them. Try doing that in a state where people have to claw over each other's backs just to make ends meet and the government is in the pocket of the oil industry. But yeah, if you just want to know what something costs in currency, then yes, I agree that price converges over time to cost in competitive markets. This is exactly what Marx argued, yet everyone screams about him being wrong for some reason. It's one thing he got right.
Jensson 3y ago
There is no objective cost to things, the amounts you need to offer to entice individuals to do that work isn't a solved problem. If the person is tired today and wont work unless you pay him a thousand dollars, then it costs a thousand dollars today. If the person is already fully booked, then you have to pay more than the previous customers plus pay those customers for the inconvenience you cause by taking their spot in that system, to be fair, so now it got very expensive. How do you avoid this in your system? Do you enslave people and force them to work? Soviet did that, you weren't allowed to not work, you had to work, nobody was free.
- orthecreedence 3y ago
  > There is no objective cost to things What? How do you produce things? Do you will them into existence? That's great for you, most everyone else uses resources and labor to produce things. These represent objective costs. > If the person is tired today and wont work unless you pay him a thousand dollars, then it costs a thousand dollars today. Or you don't hire them today. > How do you avoid this in your system? A labor market. > Do you enslave people and force them to work? Soviet did that, you weren't allowed to not work, you had to work, nobody was free. ...calm down.
  - jiofj 3y ago
    >These represent objective costs. That's the point, they don't. Nothing has an objective cost. What's the objective cost of one hour of work painting a house? Of one kilogram of rice?
    - orthecreedence 3y ago
      > What's the objective cost of one hour of work painting a house? You answered your own question. It cost one hour of house-painting labor. You have an action and a measurable duration. It doesn't get much more objective. How much you or someone values that labor is subjective, but the labor itself objectively happened.
      - mercenario 3y ago
        How do you compare the value of these things with other things? In capitalism that is the role of price system. How 1 hour of house painting compares to 1 hour of dog walking, with 1 hour of a neurosurgeon, 1 hour of dish washing, of 1 hour of playing football, etc?
      - jiofj 3y ago
        This could be the case before the invention of currency.

nwah1 3y ago

Prices sometimes erase that data, when neoclassical economic rents are high. Which can be because the thing in question is just an item of speculative value, or it could be because of market asymmetries. Otherwise, in a free market with many buyers and sellers, the economic profit of a given commodity will tend towards zero. And that means that it offers a very close approximation of the minimum possible incentive for people to produce that commodity. And incenting people to undertake the production process is part of the true cost of production, as all other forms of human effort and risk-taking are.

orthecreedence 3y ago
If we're just talking about prices as a singular aggregate number, then they erase vast amounts of data, whether they converge on cost or not. What it took to produce something isn't 34 currency. It took 2 hours of labor mill worker time, 3 hours of truck driver time, 6kg lumber, 6 minutes of oil refining, 3L diesel fuel, etc etc etc. Those are actual costs...and even those are still aggregate, but as separate buckets at least. The beauty of information like this is you can price things at PoS based on known information...how harmful are fossil fuels when used at-scale in production? Very? Ok, create a democratically-imposed pigouvian tax on them. Try doing that in a state where people have to claw over each other's backs just to make ends meet and the government is in the pocket of the oil industry. But yeah, if you just want to know what something costs in currency, then yes, I agree that price converges over time to cost in competitive markets. This is exactly what Marx argued, yet everyone screams about him being wrong for some reason. It's one thing he got right.

Jensson 3y ago

There is no objective cost to things, the amounts you need to offer to entice individuals to do that work isn't a solved problem. If the person is tired today and wont work unless you pay him a thousand dollars, then it costs a thousand dollars today. If the person is already fully booked, then you have to pay more than the previous customers plus pay those customers for the inconvenience you cause by taking their spot in that system, to be fair, so now it got very expensive. How do you avoid this in your system? Do you enslave people and force them to work? Soviet did that, you weren't allowed to not work, you had to work, nobody was free.

orthecreedence 3y ago
> There is no objective cost to things What? How do you produce things? Do you will them into existence? That's great for you, most everyone else uses resources and labor to produce things. These represent objective costs. > If the person is tired today and wont work unless you pay him a thousand dollars, then it costs a thousand dollars today. Or you don't hire them today. > How do you avoid this in your system? A labor market. > Do you enslave people and force them to work? Soviet did that, you weren't allowed to not work, you had to work, nobody was free. ...calm down.
- jiofj 3y ago
  >These represent objective costs. That's the point, they don't. Nothing has an objective cost. What's the objective cost of one hour of work painting a house? Of one kilogram of rice?
  - orthecreedence 3y ago
    > What's the objective cost of one hour of work painting a house? You answered your own question. It cost one hour of house-painting labor. You have an action and a measurable duration. It doesn't get much more objective. How much you or someone values that labor is subjective, but the labor itself objectively happened.
    - mercenario 3y ago
      How do you compare the value of these things with other things? In capitalism that is the role of price system. How 1 hour of house painting compares to 1 hour of dog walking, with 1 hour of a neurosurgeon, 1 hour of dish washing, of 1 hour of playing football, etc?
    - jiofj 3y ago
      This could be the case before the invention of currency.