Labor Theory Of Value

Lasalle claimed this, Marx argued against this. I'm gonna sage not just cause I disagree, but because you're incorrect too.

By this logic if everybody could get away with being such a stupid nigger as yourself, they would, but here you are, being the stupidest nigger on the board.

Can you answer any of the other questions? How do you determine what is socially necessary? How can you ignore scarcity as well?

They literally do understand it implicitly you fucking retard have you ever taken a business economics course? They don't use the same terms but for anyone who isn't a retard from /liberty/ who can only posit apriori assumptions as a defense mechanism for the fact that the entirety of neoclassical econ is fucking horseshit based on fairy tales that has no predictive power and can't be empirically verified.

Socially necessary refers to the average labor required to produce a particular commodity. The LTV applies to commodities, things that are on the market. Also Marx doesn't say that supply and demand effect price. It might do you well to read Marx or actually any classical economist before trying to argue against them.

1. the LTV describes the law of value of commodities in capitalism
2. in a socialist society the worker would receive a quantity of goods that corresponds roughly to the labor they expend working, minus deductions for things like investment and public goods
3. socially-necessary refers to socially-necessary labor-time required to produce a good, which is a market average of production cost.
4. industries could produce according to consumer demand, but they would not be owned by shareholders or capitalists. they would produce only for the purpose of fulfilling consumer needs and not to collect a profit. all savings and surplus produced by individual enterprises would be re-absorbed into the overall economy and then redistributed into sectors that need investment.
5. enterprises would have to find some decision-making process on how to organize production. it's likely that some people would be chosen as managers (via some method).


see above.
uh, you wouldn't?

good answers.

the LTV is only used in determining the values of items that are freely reproducible, and the exchange value will fluctuate around that value. it doesn't apply for works of art or trademarked corn fructose beverages, but for the products that constitute the vast majority of exchanges under capitalism like 4140 steel sheets, brass grommets, yards of Nylon, Bushels of Durum flour, Ethyl methylphenylglycidate, or Isobutylene. production shortfalls and consumer demand is pressure on the exchange value, not the labor value.

now fuck off and study this:
core-econ.org/

LTV deals with the average socially necessary time it takes for something to produce. Value in this respect does not refer primarily to prices but is a theoretical measuring unit that represents the amount of unskilled labor time to produce a good. You make the mistake of saying Marx's definition of value is market price and then using that as an argument for why he's wrong. If I say you're faggot, do I mean your gay or something else? It would only make sense to use my definition of the word rather then yours, otherwise the context and meaning is lost and you would miss the point.

Attached: e8b598357a1c31ae4e0aca07584d300ae2f66965d787ad349241fe78125f223a.png (1486x137 73.16 KB, 14.55K)

Meant to write "don't effect price".

Dunning–Kruger, the post.