What exactly is the labor theory of value? What is labor time?

>>1795320

LTV says that the value of something is determined by the average amount of labor it takes to produce it.

It's really easy to disprove it but don't point this out to marxists or they'll get really spazzy

>>1795402
Value in use, not value in exchange

>>1795402
>t. someone who can't disprove it

>>1795320
LTV is not marxist. It's classic economics.

>>1796506
Right. Smith was a big fan.

>>1796142

Not according to Das Kapital, where he very explicitly claims that Use Value has no real relation with Exchange Value, and the latter is determined by LTV

>>1796498

Not him, but it's easy enough to disprove. Why don't you take the real estate market, where prices are far more determined by land location than they are by construction or materials used in the house.

Basically the same attitude as that fat kid with learning difficulties who picked on the kid with sticky out ears for getting an A+ on a test, except among grown adults and given a pseudointellectual gloss. They look at someone mining coal or picking beans, then they look at someone sitting in front of a computer all day and don't understand what it is they are doing, in their minds the proletariat are the only ones doing anything useful while the people in offices are using some sort of capitalist magic to exploit them. That is their literal thought process. An extreme example would be the Khmer Rouge murdering people who have had an education. Labor time is just another crude oversimplification, they see economists using math so they grab the nearest metric and fixate on that, ignoring everything else. It is cargo cult economics.

You can't really quantify intellectual labor, you need to have the same expertise to determine if a capitalist or scientist is really doing something useful and you would have to be an expert in all things to cover the entire economy. Any other metric besides exchange value loses all value after this point.

>>1796961
LTOV doesn't really work with non reproducible goods (like ones dependent on land), it's a theory of commodities.

>>1797127
>(...) in their minds the proletariat are the only ones doing anything useful while the people in offices are using some sort of capitalist magic to exploit them. That is their literal thought process.
No, you're retarded. LTOV was defended by economists long before marxian exploitation was a thing.

>>1796961
It's still dependant upon labor. If your home is worth less than an otherwise identical home just because it's next to a retention pond or something it would take labor to alter that value (landscaping), and is still based upon the scarcity of natural resources (like open spaces) and our ability to manipulate those resources.

That or you're just conflating value with price.

>>1798029
The conecpt of buyers and sellers is to hard for you guys to understand?
The house is worth whatever the buyers are ready to pay for the house, and what price the sellers are ready to sell it for...
I wouldnt buy a 1 room apartment for 100000000000000000000000$, but people would love to sell it to me for that price.
No one would pay me to shit post on /his, but i would probably find a buyer for my accounting skills...

>>1798083
>The house is worth whatever the buyers are ready to pay for the house

"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

File: image.jpg (85KB, 581x363px)

85KB, 581x363px

>>1798188
Fuck off with that bullshit u autist fag, value is a concept humans have created, gold is useless, but valueble because its a high demand for it.
Now instead of being a smart ass tell me why im wrong u cocksuck

>>1798218
A: "This house is "valuable" not because of the amount of difficult work that was put in to create it, since houses don't grow on trees, but because of how much an agent is willing to "buy" it with "money"

"Yes, you see even it takes many weeks worth of backbreaking labor to create this house that doesn't mean it can't be less valuable than that plank of wood over there that took 2 minutes to cut. Only the money number matters. And the exchanged money number has no relation whatsoever to the amount of work. Maybe a house is worth less than a beam of wood, we just don't know until someone sell and buys it"

B: "But how do we know that is what value/worth is and not anything to do with labor for sure?"

A: "Because that is what the buyer is willing to pay for the house"

B: "Why does the buyer pay that particular number value then?"

A: "because that is what the house is worth"

>>1798289
>>1798188
Nice strawman.
Stop trying to force this meme.

>>1798289
B: "Why does the buyer pay that particular number value then?"
A: "because that is what the buyer thinks is a decent price based upon the options he has and how much he wants the house"
FTFY

The buyers doesn't care how much labor went into it nor do they usually know. It could've appeared out of thin air and it wouldn't matter to them. The seller also doesn't care how much labor went into it; if he hired immigrant workers who worked faster and cheaper than the alternative he would decrease the asking price, not increase it.

>>1798958
>if he hired immigrant workers who worked faster and cheaper than the alternative he would decrease the asking price, not increase it
That's what the ltov says m8.

>>1798979
No, they worked harder by working quicker and they are cheaper because they're poor mexicans. They put in an equal or greater amount of labor yet because they sell their labor cheaper then it is cheaper, even if they're better, more skilled workers.

>>1799034
>i know absolutely nothing about the ltov but i'll still tell you about it
The ltov doesn't predict prices, but even assuming that prices = values, a decrease in the socially necessary labor time (aka skillful mexicans replacing less skilled labor in your example) will result in a decrease in prices according to the ltov. This is not debatable.

>>1798218
gold is a good conductor of electricity, so thats a value

File: 14291641_1247005628705490_2655051920188129182_n.jpg (32KB, 480x389px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 480x389px

>>1797159

I'm not a communist, but even land and resources need some type of labor or human interaction before they become valuable.

Land has to be surveyed before its value is known.

I mean you can speculate on lands value without surveying it, but technically even speculation is a labor in itself (ask anyone who works on the futures market if they actually do labor or not).

I mean you could if you were really stretching it buy land without any surveying or any speculation but competently at random and still in theory get value out of the land.

But to do so would be really financially risky and bad for your business.

Which is to say... If you want to make money you need labor.

And by labor, I'm talking about anything that requires not just physical labor but mental.

I know some would disagree but speculation and stock trading requires actual work to make sure you do not lose money on your investment.

>>1799153
>even land and resources need some type of labor or human interaction before they become valuable
That's debatable, but besides the point anyway: it's not what the ltov tries to explain.

File: 14440625_1026655677446620_7087560732354543143_n.jpg (50KB, 480x480px)

50KB, 480x480px

>>1799065

Gold usually requires labor to refine it into its current form.

I suppose you could be lucky and find some naturally occurring gold nuggets laying about, but usually you need to dig or pan that shit in a stream.

Still if you found gold laying about chances are you had to hike to get to it, then you had to labor to carry it to someone who was willing to trade for it, so its still technically labor even though it was not much.

>>1799057
How is value any different from its price? How is it not synonymous? Isn't its value whatever someone says it is?

If I picked a piece of land and just repeatedly dug holes and filled them back up over and over, wouldn't I be adding value to the land because of my labor? Yet obviously no one would think that.

>>1799278
Again, you don't know shit about the ltov. I'm okay with explaining shit to you as long as you realize this.

>How is it not synonymous? Isn't its value whatever someone says it is?
It is in modern economics, but wasn't in classical economic theories. You can think about value as kind of a long term equilibrium price, if that makes it easier for you.

>If I picked a piece of land and just repeatedly dug holes and filled them back up over and over, wouldn't I be adding value to the land because of my labor? Yet obviously no one would think that.
In the ltov, labor must be useful to create value (obviously).

>>1799065
FALSE, why do people believe gold is a good electricity conductor, are people that stupid?
Its a fucking meme, google it, silver is the best conductor, then comes copper, gold is a awful conductor...

>>1799324
>In the ltov, labor must be useful to create value (obviously).
who decides if its valueble?
Labor is labor, valueble labour is the kind of labour the buyers pay more for, therefore the buyers/sellers decide value

>>1798289
If I spend 100000 hours of backbreaking labour collecting my own faeces, preserving each individual turd in homemade formaldehyde, before molding and sculpting them with my bare hands into a giant statue of an even larger turd, it doesn't give it value.

Value is a human construct, and describes a level of usefulness to a person. Usefulness is subjective, as different people have different concepts of worth, which also vary with circumstance, and so value requires an agent to determine. If I'm in the middle of the wilderness in a thunderstorm and I stumble across the turd statue and a naturally forming cave, only one of them is going to be of value to me. Spoiler: it's not the one which required labour.

>>1799324
>labor must be useful to create value (obviously).

So then it's "usefulness," not labor, that creates value.

Prices comes from a relationship between supply and demand, labor is just an activity, and usually, its the items that are labor intensive that are low in supply, thus most people have a wrong perception about how prices is mainly affected by labor but in reality, the item that is labor intensive is just low in supply.

if there's an item that is labor intensive yet high in supply (like lets say pencils) then the price of pencils should be cheap, but if we're using ltov, pencils should be extremely expensive.

>>1800760
Usefulness is not really the accurate term here, Its demand. If there's a big demand for faeces then the value for it will rise unless ofcourse if you can poo at the same rate as the consumers consume your shit or if there are other people competing against you on much shit they can give to people which in those cases, the value will go down.

>>1800659
>>1800806
>who decides if its valueble?
>So then it's "usefulness," not labor, that creates value.
No. Think of usefulness in the ltov in the following way:
>Is the commodity useful? If not, its value is zero. If yes, its value is equivalent to the average amount of time it takes to produce in a society.

>>1801696
>but if we're using ltov, pencils should be extremely expensive.
This is wrong.

>>1801733
and why is it wrong? pencils are extremely useful, millions are sold daily and they are also extremely labor intensive to make, you need tree cutter, graphite miners, logistics, plant workers, chemical bleachers, packagers, brand sponsors, advertisers, managers, sales associates, etc.

>>1801782
Being more labor intensive than capital intensive doesn't imply less value in the ltov, since machines "pass" their values into the commodities they create. Also, listing a ton of different workers doesn't say anything if you can make a ridiculous amount of pens per minute.

>>1801832
> if you can make a ridiculous amount of pens per minute.

yet you are using supply as an argument for itov now.
what is it then? does the relationship between supply and demand determines an item's or skill's value? or is it itov? and who said that the production of pencil was more labor intensive than capital intensive? no one said that.

>>1801945
>what is it then? does the relationship between supply and demand determines an item's or skill's value? or is it itov?
Perhaps, dear anon, you don't understand the ltov. According to it, value is determined by the amount of "socially necessary labour time" needed to create it. If a lot of pens can be created in a short frame of time, the "socially necessary labour time" needed for each is very low, thus having low value. If that is what you understand by supply and demand, i'm sad to tell you that you are on classical economic's side and just using the terminology wrong.

>and who said that the production of pencil was more labor intensive than capital intensive? no one said that.
What the hell were you trying to say with "if there's an item that is labor intensive yet high in supply (like lets say pencils) (...)" then?.
This is what labor intensive means, in case you were just babbling randomly:
> Industry or process where a larger portion of total costs is due to labor as compared with the portion for costs incurred in purchase, maintenance, and depreciation of capital equipment. Agriculture, construction, and coal-mining industries are examples of labor intensive industries. See also capital intensive.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/labor-intensive.html

>>1801993
first of all, I have gripes with the term "socially necessary labour time"

what determines whether it is socially necessary? demand? isn't this just a rephrase of what demand is in accordance to supply? and even then, and what's an unnecessary good anyway? there's no objective benchmark for what is necessary, which would be more true when it viewed societally, human's don't really need spices to survive, a society's continued existence doesn't really rely on air conditioning too, the fur/silk trade in europe isn't really integral to european existence, yet all of those things saw price fluctuations irregardless of whether they were "necessary" or "not"


I wasn't talking about how an item is labor intensive relative to the capital invested, I was talking about how an item's value is less dependent on the net total value of labor compared to all expense (which you people proport to be the main indicator of value) to what the product's supply and demand really is.

>>1802107
>what determines whether it is socially necessary? demand?
Socially necessary is related to production, not demand. It means the necessary amount of time to produce something in a given society, given a technological and skill level.

>and even then, and what's an unnecessary (...)
See above. You misunderstood the term.

>>1802140
why put the adjective socially then? why not just say supply? when you put the adjective socially, you imply that there's a society has something to do with it, yet your definition only consists of time necessary for production. given a technological and skill level.

So you dropped the socially adjective then. another gripe I have with your more recent definition

>given a technological and skill level.
so if a individual with a primitive way of doing it, is capable of creating an exact same replica of a product at the same rate as an individual who is using a more advance way, which product will have a higher value?

>>1802207
>when you put the adjective socially, you imply that there's a society has something to do with it
It does. I just said "It means the necessary amount of time to produce something in a given society". See the word society there?

>yet your definition only consists of time necessary for production. given a technological and skill level
Given the SOCIETY technological and skill level, not the individual one.
See the wikipedia page if you still don't understand the concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time

>so if a individual with a primitive way of doing it, is capable of creating an exact same replica of a product at the same rate as an individual who is using a more advance way, which product will have a higher value?
Are you fucking with me, anon? That is why the word "socially" is there. They create value according to the society average technological and skill levels, their individual skill is irrelevant. If someone produces a product in 10 times the time needed in a society, the value would equate only 1/10 of his time spent.

>>1802234
"It does. I just said "It means the necessary amount of time to produce something in a given society"" You fail to even show how society even accurate dictates what is necessary or not.

your entire argument is
>i'll just post my definition over and over again.

>Are you fucking with me, anon? That is why the word "socially" is there. They create value according to the society average technological and skill levels, their individual skill is irrelevant. If someone produces a product in 10 times the time needed in a society, the value would equate only 1/10 of his time spent.

again the context of the question isn't even agaisnt them being in the same society, One could be an old hat doing it traditional and other is an industrialists. yet both of their operations are producing the same product under the same time, with the same quality. in that regard. Your "under a given technological and skill level" doesn't really apply to prices. since due to the similarity of production rates for both operations, they would be able to bid their products under a similar range.

>>1797159
Non-meme economists treat it as a thought experiment while Marx seems to treat it like one of the laws of physics.

>Because, in the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labour time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of Nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.

>>1802296
>You fail to even show how society even accurate dictates what is necessary or not.
You are fucking retarded. What is not what necessary means, fucking hell. Read the wikipedia page.

>>1802418
>Marx did not define this concept in computationally rigorous terms, allowing for flexibility in using it in specific instances to relate average levels of labour productivity to social needs

the most frustrating thing about socialists trying to go to economics, if you can't start with a strong foundation then how will you make a sound economic theory.
>modelling the determination of value by socially necessary labour time mathematically is a difficult exercise if not probably impossible.

also in that entire wiki page, not one addressed how "necessary" comes into play within its definition.

>definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity.

>>1796498
>I'll take supply and demand for 500, Alex

File: 1404874258822.jpg (134KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 500x640px

>Marxaboos acting like they understand anything about modern economics

>>1795320

>What exactly is the labor theory of value?
Complete bullshit that used to be relevant but has become almost entirely irrelevant in the West.

>>1802488
wow you're a moron

I can't wrap my head around this. It makes no sense.
Can someone explain it better for dumb people like me. Because I just see it as complete horseshit.
There are so many variables to take in that I just don't see this ever working.

The only thing I can think of how he wants to explain it is.
Why are we focusing on going to space instead of fixing our own planet?
The value of our planet has to be higher then going to space right?
Isn't that a complete waste when factored into his labor theory?

>>1802488
>>Marx did not define this concept in computationally rigorous terms
>the most frustrating thing about socialists trying to go to economics, if you can't start with a strong foundation then how will you make a sound economic theory.
You do realize that the same is true for smith and ricardo right? In fact, the subjective theory of value isn't rigorous either.

>>1803627
>classical economics weren't aware of supply and demand
I'll take retarded for 500.

>>1803804
not really, Ricardo's comparative advantages is actually a solidified theory with mathematical solutions to back up its claims. this is also true when talking about GDP, specialization theorem, and absolute advantage, which all three has historical economical evidence backing its validity and mathematics that governs the behavior of what the theorem proports to present. all three are adam smith's works.

>>1803764
go job, you showed me.

>>1803826
>not really, Ricardo's comparative advantages is (...)
We are talking about the law of value.

Couldn't someone do exactly what capitalism did and find a country that places a 'cheaper value' on labor. I.E China
Or am I completely missing it?

>>1803847
I thought that was a snipe against this statement
>>the most frustrating thing about socialists trying to go to economics, if you can't start with a strong foundation then how will you make a sound economic theory.
you then talked about ricardo, who's work was based on his own theorem "comparative advantages" so I needed to address that.
secondly, even adam smith's theory of value has theoretical math from which we can use to determine whether or not an item value would behave.

> In the cost/value theory the value of a commodity depends on the payments to all the factors of production: land and capital in addition to labor. In Smith's system, the term profits includes both profits as they are understood today and interest. The total cost of producing a beaver is then equal to wages, profits, and rent, TCb = Wb + Pb + Kb; likewise for a deer, TCd = Wd + Pp + R-d- The relative price for beaver and deer would then be given by the ratio of TCb/TCd- Where Smith assumed that average costs do not increase with increases in output, this calculation gives the same relative prices whether total costs or average costs are used. Where Smith assumed that average costs change with output, prices depend upon both demand and supply. However, in his analysis of the determination of long-run natural prices, Smith emphasized supply and cost of production, even when the supply curve was not assumed to be perfectly elastic. Where competition prevails, he maintained, the self-interest of the businessman, laborer, and landlord will result in natural prices that equal cost of production

>>1803880
sorry. "determine how an item's value would behave"

>>1803880
>I thought that was a snipe against this statement
That statement was in response to the wikipedia page saying that the marxian ltov was not "computationally rigorous". But since no value theory is "computationally rigorous", his rant about socialists makes no sense.

>secondly, even adam smith's theory of value has theoretical math from which we can use to determine whether or not an item value would behave
Smith's ltov is far less rigorous than that of ricardo or marx. I don't think this is disputed at all, in fact he kind of abandons/changes his theory mid wealth of nations. He starts by saying that:
>The value of any commodity to the person who possesses it [and wishes to exchange it] is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.
This, of course, is as lacking in "computationally rigorous" as marx, not to mention contradictory to a system of prices determined by factors of production, which is what you quote.
He later combined both explanations by saying the following:
>“The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour, which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profits.”
Which means that prices of commodities are composed by the retributions to factors of production but that commodity values are defined by labor hours it can acquire. This is, again, anything but rigorous.

All that being said, the theory of smith has problems all over the place, much more than ricardo and marx theories. Which is logical, since they built upon his theory.

If I work on a canvas for enough time, can I sell it for more than a few hasty paint splotches that sold for millions?

>b-b-but what if i spend a lot of time producing this one thing?
>b-b-but what about supply and demand
>b-b-but what about wages
Is it really so hard to read the wikipedia entry to a subject before going to a thread to discuss it?

Why is the LTV even important in Socialism or Communism? Can't the same arguments be made without believing in the LTV?

>>1804583
LTV is literally the cornerstone of socialism according to marx. If workers create all value why should the guy who owns the factory pay them less than what they're creating and pocket the difference as a profit?

>>1804583
It isn't.

>>1804618
>LTV is literally the cornerstone of socialism according to marx.
Citation needed.

Objective value does not exist.

>>1804618
If the argument is that the owner is a useless parasite than it doesn't really matter if the value comes from labor or not since the workers are the ones creating the shit in the first place.