But seriously, can ANYONE here provide an argument against the labor theory of value?

I'm looking for an argument against the theory - do you have one?

Please tell me how it will be enforced without it being codified into law, and how that codified law won’t be susceptible to manipulation and corruption.

as I said, the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory, so it doesn't propose anything to be "enforced." it's a descriptive theory of capitalist economies.

It seems to imply that the richest countries should be the ones where people work the longest hours. That is not the case empirically. Mexico is not richer or more developed than Denmark.

>time
That falls apart though when you consider the fact that pushing papers can take a lot of time, just as much time to weld something or mine ore, ect. Time alone can’t be used to justify the cost of something. Plus depending on your level of skill you may be able to perform a task faster than someone else. According to Marx then being less efficient makes your work more valuable. That’s counterproductive.

You’re acting like the labor theory of value was a commie invention even though smith, Ricardo, franklin, et al had already proposed it over 100 years before Marx was born

Ya the Subjective Theory of value, which you know, has the advantage of actually being true and accepted by all economists for the past 100 years

Except Danes will work on their own property when they aren't at work.
Mexicans will sit on their asses and drink bear.

First you say it’s subjective and then you say it’s true. Make up your mind

Subjective is from the buyer and seller side. True is that all wealth is subjective.

If a person made a chair and a robot made a chair, only the chair made by the person would hold value based on Karl Marx's LTV.

In Das Kapital Marx states a coat is worth the same has 20 rolls of cloth. However this isn't true 20 rolls of cloth would be worth more if i wanted to make a tent or a sail, human labor is of less value then what the potential of an item holds.

Attached: beer-king.jpg (634x358, 31K)

it doesn't imply that. the values of commodities will differ depending on place, as well as time. even WITHIN a single economy, Marx notes that the rate of profit is equalized across industries.
Marx recognizes that skilled labor produces more value than unskilled labor. he expressly states that it is the average amount of UNSKILLED labour that it takes to reproduce commodities that determines their value. and the LTV isn't attempting to "justify the cost" of anything.
when did I say Marx invented the LTV? his is the most refined and notable version of it, though.

>only the chair made by the person would hold value based on Karl Marx's LTV.
That's not a terrible way to think of it, however. After all, the goal is to enrich people, why pay where people are not suffering the labor?

Hello retard who didn't know the Marginalist revolution happened over 100 years ago, please join the rest of us here in 2018

You don’t even know how he “refined” I’d, do You?

Sorry, dumbass, adults don’t think social “science” is actually science

great, so what's the argument that it better explains reality versus the LTV?
>If a person made a chair and a robot made a chair, only the chair made by the person would hold value based on Karl Marx's LTV.
no. the value of both coats would be determined by the average amount of labor-time that it takes to produce coats across the entire industry.

"Value" is a spook.

Yes, but so are you.

Attached: 1538577649677.png (684x828, 121K)

have I said anything that suggests that? kindly explain where I'm wrong.

I dug a hole no one wanted pay me nigger

Attached: 1544389615799.png (400x400, 233K)

no. the value of both coats would be determined by the average amount of labor-time that it takes to produce coats across the entire industry.

No it wouldn’t. Even Marx stated that ltov didn’t describe the actual value. It’s so cute when you kids get halfway through the first chapter of Capital and then anoint yourselves experts

Not all labor is equal. Some people labor at more skilled jobs, thus, the value they create is higher

So you can explain marx’s Spin on it? Go ahead then

Is that his servant girl, the one he "raped" by his own standards?

Dumb Fuck i just told you, you can pretend the Marginalist revolution didn't happen,and you can also pretend America isn't a country, it's not our fault you are retarded.

Mud pies.

>No it wouldn’t. Even Marx stated that ltov didn’t describe the actual value.
ha, exactly where does he say this? my definition of his concept SNLT isn't at all controversial.
does Marx say that ALL labor inherently creates value?

>it's accepted by a bunch of people so it's right.

>manufacturing lines
>accountants
>other forms of labor that have no tangible physical result and do not result in the direct formation of value

You’re an idiot. Declining marginal utility doesn’t describe value, it describes cost

>does Marx say that ALL labor inherently creates value
And this undoes the core theory, and puts in you with the capitalists, at the least.

>But seriously, can ANYONE here provide an argument against the labor theory of value?

If I spend 100 hours working on something that nobody would ever pay for, how can it be worth anything?

>push button
>machine carves $500 component out of a block of aluminum
>I deserve $500 because I pushed a button
Retard.

Attached: Ds3x52EUwAEog5x.jpg (567x378, 37K)

Marx explains this in the 2nd chapter of Das Kapital, iirc. Every criticism i see here of the LTV is the result of massive ignorance.

Th entire field of economics and actual reality of every day life, also it's true because it's true

that's right. Marx agrees. as I said, it is the average amount of UNSKILLED labor that determined a commodity's value
not sure what you're asking me to do.
what does marginalism better explain versus the LTV?
are mud-pies a commodity? do they have a use-value? no? so the LTV doesn't attempt to explain their value or lack thereof.

>no. the value of both coats would be determined by the average amount of labor-time that it takes to produce coats across the entire industry.
If you’d made it past chapter one, you’d know. Go ahead and explain Marx’s contribution the ltov

>how can it be worth anything?
Only if it was worth something to you to give up rights to it.
>entire field of economics
Um, I think OP is begging to differ.
>actual reality of every day life, also it's true because it's true
speaking of begging.

Besides all the theoretical BS, I'll just give you an example from Socialist Romania:
At one point it was one of the biggest producers (or exporters?) of steel in the world. The problem was the country didn't really have much in terms of local raw materials, so that had to be imported, and on top of it, the steel wasn't of very high quality and the demand wasn't up the the pumped up production either, so it wasn't being sold abroad for enough, and there wasn't much incentive to change the situation since tens of thousands of workers looked productive; all in all, such heavy industry was at some point more than 30% of the GDP, until it all came crashing down when it couldn't keep up with the costs and debt it took to build it all anymore.

Attached: 48712389417234.jpg (1023x575, 86K)

The diamond water paradox was solved by the Marginalist Revolution, you're welcome, read a book faggot

Spook

Attached: spooky.png (450x450, 303K)

>it is the average amount of UNSKILLED labor that determined a commodity's value
Yea, commodities are, by definition, raw goods. That doesn't seem to help when we start talking about refinement from iron ore to, say, the difference between spokes on a bike, or rebar for a sidewalk.

Economics is entirely subjective. It’s not a science, it’s politically driven, and you’re an idiot for placing such faith in it

how does it "undo" the core theory?
value is determined by the average amount of labor time is takes to produce a commodity, not the specific time that you take.
the LTV isn't a theory of what workers should be paid.

It's an A prior Logical Deductive science, Von Mises proved that almost 100 years ago, do try to keep up faggot

Labor Theory is the dumbed down version of Cost Theory, which was replaced by Subjective Theory in the 1890's. Stop using science that's literally over a century out of date.

> no. the value of both coats would be determined by the average amount of labor-time that it takes to produce coats across the entire industry.

Thanks for proving you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Marx’s contribution to the labor theory of value was specifically what laborers should get paid- enough for the to stay alive and capable of working for one day

so you can't show me where he claims that the LTV doesn't describe actual value (whatever that means)? I, for one, am shocked.
how does any of this address the LTV?
the diamond-water paradox is a paradox of subjective value theories, not of the LTV.
>Yea, commodities are, by definition, raw goods
no they aren't. raw goods go into the production of commodities.
the LTV is not at all a dumbed down version of cost theory. what do subjective value theories better explain about reality versus the LTV?

RAKED.com

Who determines what is skilled?
Who determines what has value?
In both cases, the market.
In your view, the market should be a consultation of the masses (or until they are sufficiently "educated" a consultation of the vanguard). In either event, the value is placed subjectively, and based on those who desire the good. Sneakily, the Russians regularly proved that even in Communism the value is also based on those who make it, by simply not working at their full capacity when they didn't get acceptable wages.
Kinda went downhill from that point.

>A prior Logical Deductive science
It's a thought experiment that's always right if you experiment with the same thoughts.
Durp.

It’s not a science at all retard. It doesn’t use scientific method because it can’t. It’s shit like you that really shows the decline of our educational system

>Marx’s contribution to the labor theory of value was specifically what laborers should get paid- enough for the to stay alive and capable of working for one day
no. that's what he says IS ALREADY the case in capitalist economies. the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory. I thought you've read Capital - you should know this. no?

It’s funny we never needed any of you lazy rich to survive. Just people. We didn’t need a government, just morale and a tribe of good people. Now after I’ve done nothing but give and be good, I see how you are nothing but takers. Malibu and Paradise. You will have neither.

Attached: 1544151916318.jpg (238x211, 12K)

>how does any of this address the LTV?
It's literally an example of LTV being applied in real life you fucking university mongoloid twat.

It took me 2 years to build a hut
An experienced worker took 3 days in building it
My hut isn't hundreds of times more expensive than the other.

> so you can't show me where he claims that the LTV doesn't describe actual value (whatever that means)
It’s in capital, dumb shift. You’ve just proven that you haven’t even read it even though you’re pretending to be an expert on the theories presented in it

>Marx’s contribution to the labor theory of value was specifically what laborers should get paid- enough for the to stay alive and capable of working for one day
And you just outed yourself as someone who never read Marx. Wiki articles and youtube videos are not always a good source, bro!

>In your view, the market should be a consultation of the masses (or until they are sufficiently "educated" a consultation of the vanguard).
again, the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory about how things SHOULD be valued.
see above.
that's right. Marx agrees.
yeah, I was looking for a specific passage. I already know that he says no such thing in Capital.

What is the value of this monkey's commodity to the rest of the monkey community?
Is it more or less than the monkey which waits until it is given? What if it wasn't going to be given?
amazon.com/Monkey-Steals-Banana-from-Man/dp/B076VRQKPF

Attached: 1544106456758.jpg (390x310, 17K)

Wrong. You’re a narcissistic retard and you should shut up. The problem with the labor theory of value was- if the value of a good is equal to the labor required to produce it, then where does profit come from? Marx solved that problem by declaring the value of a worker was the cost to keep that worker alive and capable of work for one day, not the value of the goods the worker produced in one day. Marx solved one problem and created another

Another brain dead retard that read the cliff notes

>again, the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory about how things SHOULD be valued.
IT'S A REAL LIFE FUCKING EXAMPLE YOU ABSOLUTE CRETIN

Your labor means nothing to me and has no value so I will give you nothing for it and just take it from you.

Attached: 1469053458749.png (274x340, 16K)

The Economist describes a study in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review which people were given a regular dollar or a Susan B. Anthony dollar, and asked to estimate the cost of napkins, candy, etc.

>People offered the banknote believed, on average, that they could use it to buy 83 paperclips, 72 napkins or 46 sweets. Those offered the coin thought 39 paperclips, 51 napkins or 27 sweets. In other words, the note was believed to be almost twice as valuable as the coin.

Similar results were obtained using two one-dollar bills vs. one two-dollar bill.
This shouldn't be surprising, however, when this exact (reverse) principle explains why casinos use chips, arcades use tokens-- and why credit card debt is so easy to get into.
The authors explain this to be a funcition of familiarity-- familiarity holds more value.

But there's a little more to it.
The mistake is to interpret these results as indicating, e.g, the dollar bill above is believed to be able to buy 83 paperclips or 72 napkins, etc-- that the dollar bill is believed by people to have a certain value. False.
To prove this, ask someone how many paperclips would it take to buy 72 napkins? The answer should be 83. But most likely, they'll just look at you blankly. They have no idea what the exchange rate is. Notice how with the Susan B dollar, opposite to the paper dollar, paperclips were worth less than the napkins.
There's a difference between use value and exchange value. Napkins and paperclips have considerable use value that you feel, instinctively, but nearly no exchange value (i.e. you don't trade them for other stuff.) Money is the exact opposite. Trying to convert exchange value for use value in a back and forth line is hard enough; trying to do it in a triangle with three objects is nearly impossible.

what?
>The problem with the labor theory of value was- if the value of a good is equal to the labor required to produce it, then where does profit come from?
surplus-value.
>Marx solved that problem by declaring the value of a worker was the cost to keep that worker alive and capable of work for one day, not the value of the goods the worker produced in one day
roughly. that's the value of the worker's labor-power, not the "value of the worker," whatever that means. anyway, what's the problem that's created here?
a real-life example of what? the LTV isn't a model meant to be implemented. why are you yelling?

(((The Economist)))
The Rothschild family press

>labor theory of value
>marx measures it using time
>everybody takes as long as possible to do as little work as possible to maximize their effort to compensation ratio
we learned this from labour unions. It is in your best interest to screw the pooch as much as possible under this system.

Attached: 1517665960975.jpg (620x809, 53K)

SPOOKY.

>surplus-value.
You don’t get it. All you’ve done is used a different term for profit. You need to quit feigning expertise until you come to understand the material

Attached: 1480036798600.jpg (480x360, 15K)

Surgeon spends entire life learning his skill, 3 hour operation, saves your life. Pay 75,000 dollars for 3 hours of work.

Tyrone the affirmative action recruit from Guatemala does same surgery. He forgets to wash his hands and ass before he opens you up. Surgery goes well, but you die from post op infection. 3 hours work still worth 75,000 dollars?

Attached: 1513780681744.jpg (1026x1108, 419K)

>There's a difference between use value and exchange value. Napkins and paperclips have considerable use value that you feel, instinctively, but nearly no exchange value (i.e. you don't trade them for other stuff.) Money is the exact opposite. Trying to convert exchange value for use value in a back and forth line is hard enough; trying to do it in a triangle with three objects is nearly impossible.
how does any of this contradict the theory? does Marx disagree?
again, it's not a "system." read the thread before posting, please.
that's right, surplus-value is where profit originates. what's the problem?
how does the existence of bad workers contradict the theory?

> roughly. that's the value of the worker's labor-power,

The problem is that marx has just alienated the worker from his work product. Marx has declared that the value of the product has no relation to the value of the worker. And yet you commies never see it coming when communist societies make slaves of the population

You dumb fucking nigger. Tell me what you would do when commrade Jamal and commrade Cletus come to ykur house and tell you that you now hove to share your dwellings with 6 new people you don't know and you can only keep three personal possesions that are small enough to fit on your hand. Everything else is now common propety of the people. Btw capitalisim is a term invented by marx to seperate and deconstruct a part of human nature which is bartering. The art and act of transaction needed to be destroyed just like everything else that is human nature in order for marx to bring about this lakadaisical fantasy. The family unit needed to be destroyed in order to guarentee loyalty only to the party and state

Attached: 1544276210903.jpg (792x960, 131K)

>again, the LTV isn't a prescriptive theory about how things SHOULD be valued.
Maybe, but as you said, "unskilled" commodities define the value of the item.
What is "unskilled"?
To the monkey, the ability to rob the banana bush right next to the farmer's home, braving traps and dogs, is highly skilled.
To the caveman, the ability to smelt metal is highly skilled.
To be honest, the ability to dig a hole in the ground and extract large volumes of ore, without dying of collapse or gas-suffocation, is highly skilled.
At some point, as you said, it must go to defining "unskilled." Which is either the majority, or a king/vanguard.

Then how do nogs who run with a ball make more than doctors who spent 10 years in med school.

>again, it's not a "system."
Value is a system, as is organized. so in other words it's a fantastical pipe dream that can never be practically applied to reality

organized labour*

More people will pay to watch men beat each other than heal each other.
I give you .. Nowhere, frankly the thought turns my stomach on a place where you can place bets on which patient survives.

Everything you have, everything you created, everything you do is now mine.

Attached: 1495216828657.jpg (650x807, 113K)

The amount of labor that is necessary to produce, say, a cheeseburger is monumental. The simple idea of having that cow, processing the milk, killing the cow, having the farm to produce the lettuce, pickles, tomato, etc is gigantic. Yet you can buy a burger just like this for $3.00 by value of economic theory and not a Marxist economic principle. By the principle by Marx, a burger, immensely valuable because of it's ability to sustain your life, should be worth $50 at least for your product.

Because of this, your labor theory is rendered inefficient by the bourgeois who are able to produce a burger for 16 times less than what it is actually worth.

Attached: file.png (1261x937, 1.77M)

THE JEWS ARE WAGING :

>CULTURAL
(socialism/communism/Anti-Westernism)
>RELIGIOUS
(Anti-Christianity/atheism/paganism)
>DEMOGRAPHIC
(trannyfaggotry/race mixing/ "childless" lifestyle)

W A R
A
R

ON US.

>AND ALL 3 WITH MIGRATION
(by importing foreign heathen shitskins)

>CONSTITUTING POLITICAL WARFARE
(Divide and Conquer between :
-Europeans of North & South
-Americans & Europeans
-Coast Americans & Flyover Americans
-Generational rift, Boomers, X&Z
-White women & men )

GET ARMED

scarcity although being an abstract idea is real and skill that require a set of skills are worth more than someone moving rocks from point A to point B and even if the learning of these skills was free the rigor and effort required to learn skills are make them scarce in there own rights

thats my counter
>ITT: fags who has no idea what they speak about