You have five seconds to provide an argument against the labor theory of value. Go ahead

Can't

Attached: c7d19e2baaf7b62cdda1eedbaf8aa43c.jpg (1024x768, 86K)

fitting, since the quack probably only took 5 seconds to come up with the theory itself.

Supply and Demand

OH LOOK

Your entire retarded theory is debunked in 3 words.
Retarded child OP.

Attached: News.jpg (699x931, 275K)

you have computers there?

Why are you okay with capitalists stealing your surplus labor value then?

Left side of the equation ALWAYS equals the right.Mathematics is the most truthful philosophy in universe

Attached: Quotation-Karl-Marx-Accumulation-of-wealth-at-one-pole-is-at-the-same-81-33-27.jpg (1200x640, 121K)

Normies thinking it's valuable will add infinitly more cash value than any amount of fiddling.

Because it's not mine. I didn't pay for the very expensive means of production and I don't want any random asshole to have the ability to attain their own means of production. We'd go bankrupt.

Private property rights

And people who never actually read karl marx,he was quite precise and used math to prove his points at least in Capital

what does that have to do with the LTV?
Marx's LTV is a theory that in capitalist economies, value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor that it takes to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place.
not an argument.
how is Marx's LTV at odds with supply and demand? he explicitly recognizes it.
are you talking about market price? that's not what Marx means by value.

>You have five seconds
Fuck you faggot

I've yet to see OP refute this, looks like you beat him. Nice digs btw.

It was crafted by a Jew and is therefore a deceptive lie for the purpose of world-domination

Oh yes I remember. It’s the theory that the value of an object is directly determined by how much labor it took to produce. Seems like a self-refuting concept, I’m not sure how anyone could give it any credence

That's just retarded, it doesn't take into account a multitude of things. How did the raw materials get there? Why is there value in things beyond face value? How do you determine how much value each thing has if you toss out supply and demand? How do you forecast for that kind of value? How do you prevent scarcity because of it?

And just mere ignorance of faulty capitalist system will led to same mistakes again,because the point Marx was trying to make is that capitalist IS NOT EVIL OR BAD,but that DEVELOPED capitalism and LATE STAGE is.Capitalism has a function to create value,while at the same time creating missery for workers,but once value is created it then transforms into a monopoly which whe are living in today.So capitalism is a PHASE that LEADS to EITHER monopoly(of private controlled capitalists) or SOCIALISM(government regulates ).So you NEED capitalism to create iphones,pc,airplanes etc. all products that we have but once we have them like today,we dont need it anymore.We simply DONT NEED TO CREATE PROFIT FOR SMALL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.its really simple once you understand it

Nah he answered "see above" without an actual response being above. BTFO!

We should enjoy tecnhology that we have today,not create profits for Jeff Bezos or other maniacs at the top

I already responded to it.
how is it self-refuting?
again, what that guy said doesn't address the theory. do you think the LTV is a prescriptive theory of how things should be distributed?

>me and retard neighbor have separate plots of land, several acres
>I build a farm, make tools and kindling with the available lumber but manage it intelligently to make sure it remains a renewable resource, bread the available livestock and maintain or even increase their population.
>retarded neighbor burns all his lumber, kills all the livestock and plants nothing for the next season
>he starves to death while I prosper
>somehow my fault

Then go stop everyone from voluntarily buying shit off Amazon.

Yeah, OP responded to it, but he didn't refute it.

That it isn't a real thing.

Marx btfo /thread

mathematics is one thing. People actually behaving like equations and falling under the 'perfect logic of accurate division' category is another.
I literally forgot about this thread for a handful of minutes

For instance if I spent a year building a road in the middle of nowhere, it would not have the same value as a road built in a populated area.

It's about labor and the guy pointed out how human labor has tons of inefficiencies. You did not address that and pretend it's irrelevant.

His statement is so ignorant because it assumes that wealth isn’t created. It assumes wealth merely exists in a finite amount and some people have it and some people don’t. It’s just not true. Wealth is literally created through work, production, and trade.

>>Physical labor = Value
>>Mental labor != Value
>>Farmers and physicists die in the Gulag together

Attached: jhugvfcertgyhj.jpg (314x499, 21K)

land isn't a freely reproducible good. the theory doesn't purport to explain those types of commodities.
once again, that guy's objection doesn't address anything in the theory.
how do you mean?
how is the fact that labor has inefficiencies a criticism of the theory? does the theory state otherwise?

thank you for your response, I am yet to be convinced that it had any value. You can probably make a functional equation that will count how much produce is needed for at least 100M people, and then round it up for a sake of margine, then have this equation leave about 15-20M people die of starvation due to said roundup and common human imperfection and again, general inefficiency. My point stands still

It doesn't work.

Sounds to me like you don't even understand the theory yourself, then, or what a theory is and what purpose it serves in economics.

Stolen land that's enforced through violence? Or means of production that's purchased by stolen labor value? It's just another form of taxation.

FPBP

Labour Theory of Value (LTV):

Non arguments:

>If I dig a hole in my backyard and then fill it in I used labor but made no value! Commies BTFO!

Marx clarified (unlike adam smith) that only socially necessary labor (labor used to produce a commodity with use value) creates value. This is also the case if you spend 1000 years making a bed.

>Nature can create value as well. If an apple falls from a tree then value is created without labor

Marx also noted nature could create value.

>if labor determines price why is coca cola cheaper than bottled water?

Labor doesn't determine price. It determines value (not exchange value or use value) and correlates with the equilibrium price.

Machines cannot create value. If I make a machine that makes diamonds out of thin air then the value of a diamond falls below that of bricks now that they can be aquired with no work what so ever. Price might not fall because you can still manipulate supply and demand but value certainly does.

Some definitions.

Use value = How useful an object is.
Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless.
Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.

Some evidence of the LTV
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

The theory is absolutely retarded in general anyways. How do you account for inefficiencies into worth? Just because you produce a fuckload of stuff doesn't mean people will want it either. What is the worth of something that no one wants?

I wasn’t talking about land I was talking about a road. Similarly, if I spend a year making medicine to treat polio it’s won’t have the same value as if I spent a year making medicine for allergies or diabetes.

Kek post picture of communist santa ask /pol to argue against him. Fuck off faggot.

Attached: 1544298119867.jpg (333x493, 102K)

>kuwait
send me a copy that book is like $100 usd I can't eat beans for a good 3 months if I buy it

Meanwhile, mental labor in those not part of the 'party' is without value.

Communism requires the reduction of population to operate in the black, and thusly mass arrests, forced labor, and murder.

How many more millions need to be murdered until it was real Communism? If the Russians did not reach that level after 65,000,000, it will surely never happen.

Attached: jhtgfdsfghj.png (898x720, 353K)

More of a question, but hypothetically if something like a desk was built both by a skilled and unskilled worker in the same amount of time, how would those items be of equal value when one would be of superior quality

Value of output is always unknown until it is paid for.

Uh?
...Jews?

Higher quality isn't necessary because it is decedent. Producing at that level, under Communism, is a waste of value.

Attached: jhgfdgfghjk.jpg (800x800, 182K)

I'm sorry - I don't see anything here that addresses the theory. the theory doesn't prescribe a method of distribution.
see what have I said about the theory that's inaccurate?
>How do you account for inefficiencies into worth?
the LTV doesn't pres.
cribe how much things should be worth
> Just because you produce a fuckload of stuff doesn't mean people will want it either
does Marx say otherwise? the theory isn't about why people desire things.
where do you think roads are built?
the value of a desk isn't determined by the specific labour that went into each specific desk, but rather the socially necessary amount of labor time (meaning, the average amount of time it took an average worker to produce a desk).

sounds like you're equivocating on value. value is distinguished from market price in the LTV.

There should be a distinction between labour quality and effort. By nationalising the industries and organising trade unions and even syndicates you achieve what Marx wanted to achieve but without the unnecessary extra steps that are proven to fail time and time again, usually by means of application.

Also his theory of labour works only in industry, and nowhere else because back then factories demanded work that didn't require much skill.
In every other job there is such skill required, furthermore we live in a Post-Industrial society of automation.

Finally i'd like to say that people act less as owners of money and more as channels of money since those with money rarely save it and usually spend it on goods and products that the poor provide.

Surely there must be regulations to keep capitalism from going absolutely rogue on the people and rotting their souls as is happening now, however the flip side poises a miserable reality and Marx isn't an aesthetically pleasing man in the slightest which reflects on his philosophy.

it took you more than 5 seconds to type this, therefore you have no argument

Translation: "Only I am smart and righteous enough to run a communist system properly without corruption and mass murder."

You are an especially deluded faggot.

You have no way of proving this.

it takes more than 5 seconds to read it

>Higher quality isn't necessary because it is decedent
I meant more along the lines of the drawers open correctly, not wobbly, will last significantly longer than the lower quality one

Fair enough, that was always the one question I had about LTV. Still think commies are retarded, but at least it's a bit more thought out than the strawman of ltv I was conceptualizing

>There should be a distinction between labour quality and effort. By nationalising the industries and organising trade unions and even syndicates you achieve what Marx wanted to achieve but without the unnecessary extra steps that are proven to fail time and time again, usually by means of application.
even if the alternative to capitalism isn't possible, how would that negate capitalism's unsustainability?
>Also his theory of labour works only in industry, and nowhere else because back then factories demanded work that didn't require much skill. In every other job there is such skill required, furthermore we live in a Post-Industrial society of automation.
how does the existence of skilled labour and automation refute the theory? Marx's talks extensively about both.
>Finally i'd like to say that people act less as owners of money and more as channels of money since those with money rarely save it and usually spend it on goods and products that the poor provide.
does the theory claim otherwise?

desu sorry, I was just bored, I shouldn't shit post
I want a copy of barren metal but it's 90 USD in Mexico
help an user out, does anyone ITT have a pdf to it (or might be willing to sell me a used copy for alot cheaper?)

/thread

Marxism never worked, it was just an elaborate excuse to establish Jewish rule in the Russian Empire.

A Mexican has problems reading, surprise surprise.

>Bridges that don't collapse aren't necessary because they're decadent.

>the LTV doesn't prescribe how much things should be worth
What the Hell does the W in it stand for then?

This lazy, workshy faggot's dumb theories led directly to the deaths of the bravest, most loyal, most patriotic men of Europe, tens of millions of Ukranians, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians... if you want an argument against his theories, start with the value of each life lost directly as a result of his stupid, divisive ideas.

If I stir mud for 10 days (adding a great deal of labor) it remains worthless.
If I find a diamond on the ground (the only labor is picking it up) it still has great value.

Attached: commie book.jpg (402x600, 29K)

it doesn't make any sense
how does anyone know how much work it took to produce a good?
and what determines whether labor is 'socially necessary'?
this is a good thread because I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain this shit to me, despite asking all over the internet

Even if the method of distribution is neither prescribed not mentioned in the theory, it cannot be ignored due to the fact that it's inefficient in the making. Say the human labor is perfect and can produce anything for anyone as long as everyone takes part in the equation thanks to their free will - it would work to the point where everyone has everything that makes the labor itself useless, or unnecessary (i.e: complete automation of labor). Then, no object would have any value at all, leaving people to just either exist within their own flawless lives or make more of those automated labors at the expense of other people, turning the system completely over. In the actual reality, it would lock itself at the initial labor phase, where people are either to lazy to work their automated freedom or are forced to do so, making the system authoritarian, therefore corrupted.

Honestly it's 1.21AM for me right now and I'm having a terrible headache, don't think I'll be able to keep up longer and might just go get some rest

Diamonds aren't the best example, outside of cutting applications their only value is aesthetic. From a utilitarian standpoint they're way overvalued

To a starving person bread is more valuable than water. To a thirsty person water is more valuable than bread. The value of a good is different for different people. This is why voluntary trade is good.

It doesn’t account for modern marketing which inflate the cost of products. It doesn’t account for economic value placed on innovation. The theory of labor as described in das kapital has since been re-worked to address the speciality of equipment and technology.

Also I’m not even a trump supporter, just don’t think Marx was spot on in his theories(I assume you mean his version, not the classical liberal versions). Marx has some interesting musings and well thought out criticism of the system but ultimately I think it fails to see the whole picture.

even though I am barely awake the kek demon grants me another pair of digits itt.

I feel blessed

I should have kept mine this simple

>this theory explains value except where it doesn’t explain value

I jerk off a lot
that requires work (calories expended)
You don't want to pay me to jerk off

qed: labor has no value

The value of a good to an individual is determined by the ends that good satisfy, not the labour used to produce the good. This is why water is more valuable than gold in a desert.

what does communism have to do with the LTV, a theory of capitalism?
the theory doesn't argue that all human expenditure creatures value. it attempts to explain what determines the value of a restricted set commodities. a mudpie isn't a commodity because it doesn't have a use-value.
>how does anyone know how much work it took to produce a good?
we don't. value (as it's used in the LTV) is only theoretically quantifiable. it's postulated as a theoretical unobservable.
>and what determines whether labor is 'socially necessary'?
socially necessary just means the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity over the entire sector.

what's the labour theory of value and who does it help me kill?

>Marx's LTV is a theory that in capitalist economies, value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor that it takes to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place.
Well if that's actually the theory, it's wrong. Value is subjective and fluctuates. Scarcity, necessity and utility are more relevant to value than how much work it took to make a thing.
It takes a lot of work to tear down a house and pile the lumber in the middle of the street. But doing that destroys the value, not increase it.
And yeah yeah 'socially necessary labor.'
What makes it socially necessary? How is that determined?

it probably would help you kill some college students (by means of their act of suicide) during math exams

right. you're describing use-value (utility). the theory doesn't claim that that is determined by labor.
>It doesn’t account for modern marketing which inflate the cost of products.
yes it does. many things besides labor can have an impact on market price. the theory doesn't deny this.

but it's true? In all price a component is the pay of the worker

The point
-------------------->
your head

Thus it ignores the concept of inherent value, begs the question of pricing, and has no method to account for distribution

imagine having no reading comprehension
Oh wait

there were no iphones in marx's day. What will capitalism produce in as many years in the future?

Q predicted this

Happy Hanukkah

>value (as it's used in the LTV) is only theoretically quantifiable. it's postulated as a theoretical unobservable.

>trying to assign a fictional value to a commodity when a direct value is given by price and the willingness of they buyer to pay for it

LTV sounds scientific to the superficial because it sounds complex, but in fact it's ad hoc and arbitrary as fuck, readily giving new names and definitions to all its "exceptions". Marginalism ftw.

Attached: 1489693843108.jpg (1183x761, 723K)

You are unemployed and the faggot that founded your cult never worked in his life either.

a certain method of distribution may or may not be inefficient. that has no bearing on the theory though, so what's the relevance?
sounds like you're equivocating on value. socially necessary, as I've said elsewhere, just means the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity across the entire sector.
what do you mean by inherent value? if doesn't attempt to explain market prices. and what do you mean when you say the theory doesn't "account for distribution"?

ok retard

how is the theory ad-hoc? it makes testable predictions of novel fact.

>Use value = How useful an object is.
>Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless.
>Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.
my response to this is that your third use of the word 'value' is pretty much useless. Nobody cares about how much labor is congealed in a thing. Literally nobody.
If you feel like you're working too hard and not getting compensated justly, go find something else to do. Labor itself is a commodity. Put yourself back on the market.

Value is a nebulous meaningless concept. typical pseudoscience

by that I appear to understand that you are willing to defend the theory itself rather than think with me of a way of it's implementation in reality. I have nothing against mathematical equations and logic gates, as well as nothing against your thread idea and you in general. Assuming it's mathematical concept I would agree with the theory, but cannot see a way of it's implementation.