- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Labor Theory of Value
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:23 am to 4cubbies
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:23 am to 4cubbies
quote:
It's interesting that Smith is considered the Father of Capitalism when he held ideas like that.
I would respond with serious feedback, but when seeing your lack of understanding as to what Capitalism means at the very basic level, anything I would say would be disregarded.
Of course I also know that through my first attempts at serious discourse with you.
We all know.
Stop posting.
1
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:27 am to TerryDawg03
quote:
On the surface, this sounds like it’s potentially conflating cost and value, which are two very different things.
This seems to be the case.
quote:
Based on the title of the book, I’d imagine that the assumptions behind the statement lean in a certain direction.
She came up with "structural injustices" which are injustices/unfairness perpetuated by almost unwilling participants in society. People just going about their daily lives trying to survive and thrive unwittingly perpetuate injustices for others like a landlord raising rents to market prices might price out an elderly tennant on a fixed income.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:28 am to UtahCajun
quote:
I would respond with serious feedback,
Why would you suddenly start doing this today?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:29 am to thetempleowl
quote:
If I spend hours tinkering in a workshop trying to discover a better widget, and fail, I wasted my time and labor.
Not necessarily...
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
- Thomas Edison
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:29 am to 4cubbies
quote:
It seems just totally obsolete now.
It was obsolete back then. It was just less obvious that it was obsolete back then.
BTW, what happened? You told me all your required Marxist reading was finished. How did this assignment pop up and suck you back in?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:31 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Every commodity's value is a function of the labor time necessary for its production.
the Free Market's response to this statement:
A commodity's value is a function of what buyers are willing to pay. How much time was spent making it is irrelevant.
Here's an example: A fungus wipes out half the apple trees in the world. Due to reduced supply, the price of apples skyrockets. For the apple tree farms that are not affected by the fungus, they are utilizing the same amount of labor they did before the fungus wiped out competitors, yet they are able to sell their apples for a much higher price than usual.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:31 am to 4cubbies
Want to know what I think. You are dumb as a rock. Not even smart enough to be a bag of rocks.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:31 am to 4cubbies
quote:
five Faces of Oppression
The white womans fascination with oppressor fantasies.
You're addicted to Karl Marx and his idiotic ideals.
quote:
The labor theory of value pervades almost every facet of Marxian economic analysis (Gordon, 2021). Das Kapital, for instance, was primarily focused on the tension between the working class’s labor power and the capitalists’ ownership of the means of production.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:31 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Why would you suddenly start doing this today
Seriously? I tried several times before I totally wrote you off as an idiot. The idiot that I know you are still stands.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:33 am to 4cubbies
quote:
The toil and trouble of acquiring it isn't the same as the toil and trouble to produce it.
And neither equals any objective measure of value, which is why it was an obsolete (or better said, a relatively useless) concept even back then.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:37 am to 4cubbies
It is interesting to think about how Marx would view the world today.
I don't think he could understand the material abundance of the west combined with how few people are actually involved in making goods.
That might be a reason that the LTV is not used by economists much anymore?
I don't think he could understand the material abundance of the west combined with how few people are actually involved in making goods.
That might be a reason that the LTV is not used by economists much anymore?
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:39 am to 4cubbies
This is a conservative post. 16 downvotes and a STFU.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:40 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Iris Marion Young
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:45 am to 4cubbies
quote:
For example, take Adam Smith. In Wealth of Nations, he writes:
"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it… Labour was the first price, the original purchase money that was paid for all things."
Smith isn’t talking about market price at all. He’s grounding value in labor commanded or saved. It’s all about production cost, not about how much consumers desire something. It's interesting that Smith is considered the Father of Capitalism when he held ideas like that.
Well..you're assigning a Marxist lens to Smith's quote here, instead of viewing this quote in the context of the overarching message of the WON, which is that relationships (exchange) and the division of labor drive value. IOW, the division of labor drives the exchange, and that is what creates value.
Yet, Smith still struggled with the concept of human preferences, which he determined to be the exchange value and the use value. He writes about it diamond-water paradox:
"The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called ‘value in use:’ the other, ‘value in exchange.’ The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful that water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it."
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:45 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm dictating this post to another illegal who is transcribing it for me btw.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:46 am to Jbird
quote:
Powermullah will be along shortly to knight for her.
I really think he believes that if she’ll hook up with a homeless guy, maybe even he has a shot.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:47 am to baybeefeetz
quote:
This is a conservative post. 16 downvotes and a STFU.
Yeah.
Well, populists don't evaluate based on ideas, principles, etc.
Everything gets reduced down to whether someone is on your "team" or the "other team." That's it. Populism has only one principle: Us vs Them.
And cubs is well known here to be "Them."
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:47 am to 4cubbies
quote:
In her section on exploitation, she makes this claim:
“Every commodity's value is a function of the labor time necessary for its production.”
Does she define exploitation? If it’s slavery defined as non consensual labor compelled under threat of violence, then I’m smoking what she’s rolling so far.
But if she’s one of those idiots eager to refer to people who willingly accept low wages in exchange for their labor, then I cannot value anything she has to say.
Labor time needed for production varies according to an individual’s determination of what they need and want in return.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:48 am to 4cubbies
First off scarcity and supply are the same thing. If something is scarce, you haven’t supplied enough of it. LTV is an overly simplistic approach that doesn’t take demand side into the equation. Smith was correct when he said that labor cost is only the beginning to pricing. What someone is willing to pay for it determines final market price. Commies don’t like this type of thought though.
Posted on 12/4/25 at 10:50 am to Godfather1
quote:Even Hamas boy shoot!
I really think he believes that if she’ll hook up with a homeless guy, maybe even he has a shot.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News