Labor Theory Of Value

[MikeyBoy]

How would the labor theory of value explain bidding or auctions? The price is raised by the bidders. Does the bidding count as labor itself or am I missing something? I'd appreciate any ideas.

[Severian]

Price ain't exactly the same as value. Things may be bought above or below their value; it's sort of a center prices fluctuate around.

[percept¡on]

It's the Labor Theory of Value, not the Labor Theory of Price.

[ComradeRed]

Worth, i.e. exchange-value, is based on comparison to other commodities in the market, therefore the exchange-value depends on the certain place and time. It is in chapter 1, volume 1 of Das Kapital, if I remember...

[Djehuti]

Labour theory of value do take supply and demand in count, but thats just a factor in the later sale process, while the value is decided in the whole production process so to speak. The price generally circle around the value, but can be affected by alot of factors, such as supply and demand.

There is accually a law...not sure what it called...The law of the equalization of value or something like that, that says that if you sum all prices in society, it should equal the sum of all value in society, but i dont know how it is with that.

[ComradeRed]

Read chapter one of the basic principles of political economy by David Ricardo, it discusses value et al and supply and demand.

[MikeyBoy]

What does everyone think about the measurement of labor defined as time, i.e. work hours? Time is not an accurate measurement of labor as it is not even related to the work being done...Could labor be measured more accurately in Joules?

[DaCuBaN]

Could labor be measured more accurately in Joules?

YES!

Follow the link in my sig to Technocracy FAQ, and read on Energy Accounting...

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:47 AM
What does everyone think about the measurement of labor defined as time, i.e. work hours? Time is not an accurate measurement of labor as it is not even related to the work being done...Could labor be measured more accurately in Joules?
Time is actually an accurate measure of labor if you think about it.

[DaCuBaN]

Time is actually an accurate measure of labor if you think about it.

Indeed, but if used it means a rate of exchange must be used if you think about it... If we do that we may as well keep capital exchange, as it's 'easier'.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:31 AM

Indeed, but if used it means a rate of exchange must be used if you think about it... If we do that we may as well keep capital exchange, as it's 'easier'.
Marx never argued that Value (measured in labor) should be used as a medium for exchange. The LTV was just a way to demonstrate that the workers were getting ripped off.

[MikeyBoy]

Time is actually an accurate measure of labor if you think about it.

Time by astrological events or time in a broad definition? Please explain.

[Essential Insignificance]

Labour theory of value do take supply and demand in count, but thats just a factor in the later sale process, while the value is decided in the whole production process so to speak. The price generally circle around the value, but can be affected by alot of factors, such as supply and demand.

Supply and demand does play a comparatively sized part in the price of an article, but not so much the constant value--the amount of labor power personified in the article.

The process is threefold:

1.The seller vs. the seller--whom can sell the article at the lowest possible price, whilst still making a profit.

2.The buyer vs. the buyer--whom will pay the most for the article, without exceeding the value actualized in the article.

3.The buyer vs. the seller.


What does everyone think about the measurement of labor defined as time, i.e. work hours? Time is not an accurate measurement of labor as it is not even related to the work being done...Could labor be measured more accurately in Joules?

Time is an accurate measurement of labor. What needs be kept in mind is that the labor time embodied in commodities changes as the variation and productiveness of labor is transformed.

What it took a worker to produce--a good quality watch 100 years ago--would not take the same amount of time to complete at present conditions. But the relative price of the product would remain constant insofar as the socially necessary time requisite, is equal.

It's the socially necessary labor-time requite for a products value. You seem to be suggesting that an unproductive worker, whom produces five watches daily, would be worth (the watch's) more then someone else whom produces 10 daily, because it took him longer to produce.

[MikeyBoy]

It's the socially necessary labor-time requite for a products value. You seem to be suggesting that an unproductive worker, whom produces five watches daily, would be worth (the watch's) more then someone else whom produces 10 daily, because it took him longer to produce.

Hmm.

[Essential Insignificance]

"Hmm"...what!

"It's the socially necessary labor-time requite for a products value." :lol:

My mistake, can you replace "requite" with required . :lol:

On second thoughts, I think that the whole piece needs to be paraphrased.

The value of labor is always lesser then the value of the manufactured goods that it constructs. The "surfeit" value of the product over the value of the wages is the surplus value that the capitalist comes to acquire, that is... after the "safeguarding" and reproduction of human labor-power.

Now, it's the socially necessary amount of labor-time embodied into a product that determines it value. You are suggesting, I think, that a unproductive laborer's work-- objectified in a watch --would have more value embodied in it because it took longer to produce, then what it takes an average laborer to assemble, in half the time.