Wines and Spirits

[Marvs Cicero]

I was wondering how do you explain the fact that a bottle of wine gains value even after labor has ceased being applied to it?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, this is going to be rich, the proletariat discussing the elitist subject of wine...

[Osman Ghazi]

Well, it doesn't cease to exist as it ages does it? It has to be kept somewhere, that place has to be kept cold. That requires labour.

And CI, since when were the people on this board proletarians? And, you also have to consider that it is possible to buy a bottle of wine for like $8. I mean, winos drink wine, but they aren't exactly an elite.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 20 2004, 07:07 PM
Well, it doesn't cease to exist as it ages does it? It has to be kept somewhere, that place has to be kept cold. That requires labour.

And CI, since when were the people on this board proletarians? And, you also have to consider that it is possible to buy a bottle of wine for like $8. I mean, winos drink wine, but they aren't exactly an elite.
I agreee, Ozman, I was just kidding around.

[Marvs Cicero]

Well, it doesn't cease to exist as it ages does it? It has to be kept somewhere, that place has to be kept cold. That requires labour.

Wine isn't "kept cold", it's stored at room tempature.

No it doesn't require any new labor at all. For example I could buy a bottle of wine stick it on my shelf and several years later I will be able to sell it at a much higher price then I bought it for. I added no labor to it during this entire time yet it's value increased.

It has a greater value because the supply of aged wine relitive to the demand of it is much smaller then that of non-aged wine.

Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed PERIOD

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 20 2004, 07:25 PM

Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed PERIOD
It should.

[dopediana]

the little bacteria or whatever cause the wine to ferment. you´re exploiting the natural processes of mashed up grapes. you should be ashamed of yourselves for considering such an idea.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I assume you think this pedomorphic taunt will be the "end all" to communist theory right?

Unfortunately it's not.

Many products gain in value in bourgeois economics as they age. This is relative to the capitalist theory of "supply and demand" in an "open market". If you are not familiar with this theory then I suggest you pick up a book; preferably one with many pictures in it.

Since you have yet to figure it out, Socialist economic theory and Communist theory do not follow the these archaic laws.




Oh, this is going to be rich, the proletariat discussing the elitist subject of wine...



Why?

Because you think Communists don't drink wine? On the contrary son, I'm sure I drink more "elitist" label wines then you and Cicero combined.



Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed PERIOD

If that were the case, why is "labour" one of the "factors of production" in capitalist economics? :lol:

Are you saying that capitalist economics is wrong?

Welcome to the real word kid.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Wine is considered to get better with age. The characteristics that are inputs to the enjoyment of the wine drinking experience (defined by taste. aroma, color, body, etc.) get better the longer the wine ages, thus, better aged wine is more enjoyable, and thus more valuable.

It's known in economics as the law of marginal utility.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's known in economics as the law of marginal utility.




You are confused about the meaning of "marginal" utility.

Marginal utility applies (according to "Austrian" thought) to the value of an additional bottle of wine to an individual that already possesses one or more bottles of the very same wine.

The word "utility" is used in classical economics to describe what you are talking about.

In other words, yes it is considered a "utility" but it is not a "marginal utility".

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 11:03 PM

You are confused about the meaning of "marginal" utility.

Marginal utility applies (according to "Austrian" thought) to the value of an additional bottle of wine to an individual that already possesses one or more bottles of the very same wine.

The word "utility" is used in classical economics to describe what you are talking about.

In other words, yes it is considered a "utility" but it is not a "marginal utility".
Actually, RAF, you are right. However, I am in fact refering to the Law of Marginal Utility in the same sense that you refer to.

I should have been more specific in that I meant each additional year of aging adds another "util" (the measure of additional units of marginal utility) to a bottle of wine. As each year passes, the bottle gains more percieved utility, "marginally".

Both my example and your's are apt. My example refers to percieved utility before consumption, yours refers to perceived utility during consumption.

[Marvs Cicero]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 10:52 PM
I assume you think this pedomorphic taunt will be the "end all" to communist theory right?

Unfortunately it's not.

Many products gain in value in bourgeois economics as they age. This is relative to the capitalist theory of "supply and demand" in an "open market". If you are not familiar with this theory then I suggest you pick up a book; preferably one with many pictures in it.

Since you have yet to figure it out, Socialist economic theory and Communist theory do not follow the these archaic laws.





Why?

Because you think Communists don't drink wine? On the contrary son, I'm sure I drink more "elitist" label wines then you and Cicero combined.




If that were the case, why is "labour" one of the "factors of production" in capitalist economics? :lol:

Are you saying that capitalist economics is wrong?

Welcome to the real word kid.
The Labor Theory of Value that Marx subscribed to was speaking of how value was created in a Capitalist Society. It's the basis of the Marxist Exploitation Theory, in other words, it's the basis of his entire philosophy.

Afterall how can you blame the Capitalists for steeling the "surplus-value" and justify the loot and plunder in your "Glorius Revolutions" if the value did not orginate from the workers?

Aged wine has a greater value then wine that isn't aged, how can you explain this?

By the way, insults do not count as answers.

[Osman Ghazi]

Wine isn't "kept cold", it's stored at room tempature.


I'll admit I'm no expert on wine but I at least thought it is kept cold. My father, who makes his own wine stores it in a coldroom, and how come people often keep it in wine cellars(i.e. cold rooms)?


No it doesn't require any new labor at all. For example I could buy a bottle of wine stick it on my shelf and several years later I will be able to sell it at a much higher price then I bought it for.

Again, you had to have the house to start with (which may or may not have required your labour), but labour was required nonetheless. Storage facilities are the same way. The labour was to create a storage facility.

[Marvs Cicero]

Again, you had to have the house to start with (which may or may not have required your labour), but labour was required nonetheless. Storage facilities are the same way. The labour was to create a storage facility.


Let me give an example...

Say you buy the wine in 2005 and you keep it till 2010, here are the values during this time period...

2005: $100

2006: $120

2007: $140

2008: $160

2009: $180

2010: $200

Do you mean to say that the house somehow over this time period periodicly zaps the wine with the "labor value" instilled into it from the laborers who made it?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Osman, wine is not kept cold. Folks keep wine in cellars fro the convenient lack of lighting and stable temperature. It doesn't necessarily need to be cold, though. White wine is served cold, but it's not kept cold.



By the way, insults do not count as answers.


Well, FUCK YOU!
:P

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marvs Cicero
Aged wine has a greater value then wine that isn't aged, how can you explain this?

I think what you're getting at here, Marv, has to do with how the "use value" of any commodity is reflected in the "exchange value" (price) of that commodity.

And it is a very thorny problem in Marxist economics...to which, thus far, no entirely satisfactory answer has been developed.

But let's look at your example: why does (some) wine increase in price as it ages? (A bottle of Night Train or Thunderbird does not increase in price with age. :lol:)

Part of the "status" of any ruling class is the claim of "refined taste" -- supposedly the ability to perceive and appreciate the "superior" as opposed to the "inferior" commodity.

Thus commodities that are designed to appeal to the ruling class ("luxuries") must make the claim of "superiority" regardless of merit.

"Age" is one way to do that...and it does not have to be valid. Consider the flourishing industry of fake antiques and paintings...if it "looks old", then it "must be worth a lot".

Now, consider wine. I used to live fairly close to "wine country" (northern California) and developed something of a taste for the "ordinary" reds produced there (say $10-15 a bottle).

But the vintners also produced "limited editions" for the luxury market at $50 to $100 a bottle. Same vineyards, same climate, same grapes...same everything except the labels.

Could you really "taste the difference"? There were always those who claimed they could...and others who vehemently denied it.

But one thing was not in dispute: those who paid $100 for a bottle of wine were clearly superior in their own minds to those who paid a mere $15.

So what was the real commodity here? A bottle of wine or an artificial boost to someone's self-esteem?

I could be wrong about this, but I don't think Marx ever anticipated such a radical "disconnect" between use value and exchange value.

And frankly, it shocks me as well. The fact that people are willing to pay an outlandish premium for a "designer label" on anything strikes me as "uber-stupidity".

$5,000 for a wristwatch? $12,000 for a dress? $200,000 for a car? $15,000,000 for a house?

I can only suggest that this sort of megalomania will ultimately contribute to the economic fall of capitalism itself.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Osman Ghazi]

Let me give an example...

Say you buy the wine in 2005 and you keep it till 2010, here are the values during this time period...

2005: $100

2006: $120

2007: $140

2008: $160

2009: $180

2010: $200

Do you mean to say that the house somehow over this time period periodicly zaps the wine with the "labor value" instilled into it from the laborers who made it?


Let's get one thing straight: I don't 'believe' in the LTV because I won't believe in anything that I can't prove. (That's not entirely true, but the same can be said of every single human.) Neither will I try to tell you that I fully understand the LTV, because, quite frankly, I don't. I may have a slight grasp on it, but that is all. What I am trying to do is answer your question. (How does the LTV explain wine?)

So, as I understand it, labour is necessary to store the bottles(creating a place to store them), which is a necessary stage in the production of an aged bottle of wine. That is how the LTV tries to explain it. I haven't examined the math myself, because that isn't my forte.

There are others that are hard to explain, like diamonds or gold (apparently, their high cost is a reflection of the effort expended on trying to locate them.)

Redstar's explanation is also quite apt. There are only two reasons you would buy a bottle of wine: to drink it (i.e. to quench one's thirst, a little weak I know) or to get drunk. But there are three reasons to buy an expensive bottle of wine: the first two, and the fact that it is a status symbol. I mean, it doesn't take much more labour to create a BMW but it costs more than your average car.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The Labor Theory of Value that Marx subscribed to was speaking of how value was created in a Capitalist Society. It's the basis of the Marxist Exploitation Theory, in other words, it's the basis of his entire philosophy.


I can give two fucks about the LTV; it's pretty much nonsense.


Afterall how can you blame the Capitalists for steeling (sic) the "surplus-value" and justify the loot and plunder in your "Glorius Revolutions" if the value did not orginate from the workers?


:lol: A horse is a horse, of course, of course.



Aged wine has a greater value then wine that isn't aged, how can you explain this?



I already did, you just could not understand it.

You also failed (as usual) to respond to this:


If that were the case [your claim that labour has nothing to do with value, ever], why is "labour" one of the "factors of production" in capitalist economics?

Are you saying that capitalist economics is wrong?

Welcome to the real word kid.

No more dodging son. Answer the question.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2004, 10:52 PM


Why?

Because you think Communists don't drink wine? On the contrary son, I'm sure I drink more "elitist" label wines then you and Cicero combined.





Think again, player, I'm from Northern California, wine capital of the USA and among the greatest wine regions on earth.

I consume quite a bit of wine.

And wine needs not be "elitist label" to be good.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 20 2004, 07:25 PM

Wine isn't "kept cold", it's stored at room tempature.

No it doesn't require any new labor at all. For example I could buy a bottle of wine stick it on my shelf and several years later I will be able to sell it at a much higher price then I bought it for. I added no labor to it during this entire time yet it's value increased.

It has a greater value because the supply of aged wine relitive to the demand of it is much smaller then that of non-aged wine.

Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed PERIOD

Wine isn't "kept cold", it's stored at room tempature.

Not exactly, the "room" is usually a cellar that is several degrees cooler that your average room temperature. Wine is aged in cool-dry rooms. Not "cold", but definitely "cool".

[Funky Monk]

Too right,i occasionally drink the £2 stuff from the local offie, fantstic stuff

[Marvs Cicero]

If that were the case [your claim that labour has nothing to do with value, ever], why is "labour" one of the "factors of production" in capitalist economics?

Are you saying that capitalist economics is wrong?

Welcome to the real word kid.

Labor (at least for now) is required to make most things which have value. There is nothing about that fact which nessecitates the idea of labor being the source of value.


I can give two fucks about the LTV; it's pretty much nonsense.


The Marxist Variant of the Labor Theory of Value is the basis for Marx's philosophy, so how exactly do you justify your beliefs if you do not subscribe to this particular theory?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 21 2004, 06:30 PM







Labor (at least for now) is required to make most things which have value. There is nothing about that fact which nessecitites the idea of labor being the source of value.

This statement has nothing do do with your claim that "Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed (sic) PERIOD."

Seeing that you have difficulty spelling even the most common words in the English language, I will let you off the hook son.

You know absolutely nothing about Capitalist economics. You know it, I know it, the board knows it.

Ta.


The Marxist Variant of the Labor Theory of Value is the basis for Marx's philosophy, so how exactly do you justify your beliefs if you do not subscribe to this particular theory?

What exactly are my beliefs son?

Please....enlighten us all with your wisdom. :lol:

[Marvs Cicero]

This statement has nothing do do with your claim that "Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed (sic) PERIOD."


You said and I quote "If that were the case [your claim that labour has nothing to do with value, ever], why is "labour" one of the "factors of production" in capitalist economics?

Are you saying that capitalist economics is wrong? "

Your were implying that since labor is required to produce an object that has value, that the value is created by the laborer. I was responding to your claim.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistant with my two statements.


Seeing that you have difficulty spelling even the most common words in the English language, I will let you off the hook son.

My spelling is unimportant to this conversation.



You know absolutely nothing about Capitalist economics. You know it, I know it, the board knows it.


This is not a response either.



What exactly are my beliefs son?

Please....enlighten us all with your wisdom. :lol:

Let's see, your a moderator at a marxist forum, what other conclusion should I draw besides you being a marxist?

[DaCuBaN]

wine is considered to get better with age. The characteristics that are inputs to the enjoyment of the wine drinking experience (defined by taste. aroma, color, body, etc.) get better the longer the wine ages, thus, better aged wine is more enjoyable, and thus more valuable.

Bollocks, if you ask me. It's part of the culture attached to wine drinking: The appreciation experienced in the case of wines is just another sign of the flawed nature of capital economics: It hasn't gained any value, it is simply that people will pay more under such a system for an item that they consider to be "rare".

It's also highly amusing.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:42 PM

Bollocks, if you ask me. It's part of the culture attached to wine drinking: The appreciation experienced in the case of wines is just another sign of the flawed nature of capital economics: It hasn't gained any value, it is simply that people will pay more under such a system for an item that they consider to be "rare".

It's also highly amusing.
You'd feel different if you appreciated wine.

[DaCuBaN]

You'd feel different if you appreciated wine.

You've got me there: I'm a weed man, not a wine buff. I'd probably appreciate it a whole lot more if I actually appreciated alcohol, rather than submitting myself to the consumption of it for social purposes.

In short, I only drink at all as life gets rather lonely in Scotland if you're a tee-totaller.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Your were implying that since labor is required to produce an object that has value, that the value is created by the laborer. I was responding to your claim.



You must have me mixed up with someone else as I have never in this thread (a discussion about bourgeois economics) made this claim. This is not without regard however considering your relative confusion on the subject.

Care to quote me on it?

Now, since you attepted to dodge the question again I will repeat myself; this time with small words and a map.

You said:


"Value has nothing to do with how much labor is applyed (sic) PERIOD."

As you are confused as to what the word "nothing" means, I will describe it for you:

Nothing:

1 : not any thing : no thing
2 : no part
3 : one of no interest, value, or consequence

Now, since "nothing" refers to the absence of any "thing", and you stated that labour has "nothing" to do with value "period", we can conclude that you believe labour is not a factor in value, whether that value is calculated by bourgeois or leftist methods.

Now, my question to you is this:

How can you argue capitalist economic theory when "labour" itself is one of the main factors of production in bourgeois economics while you "think" that it is not?

Without it, there can be NO VALUE.

Get it through your thick skull kid.


My spelling is unimportant to this conversation.



Of course it isn't dear. :lol:


Let's see, your a moderator at a marxist forum, what other conclusion should I draw besides you being a marxist?

Actually, I am a moderator on a leftist forum. That aside, I happen to be a "Communist"; can you say "CAAHHMMUUNIIST" little one?

[redtrigger]

the little bacteria or whatever cause the wine to ferment. you´re exploiting the natural processes of mashed up grapes. you should be ashamed of yourselves for considering such an idea.

I mean no disrecpect, but why are you advocating the rights of the grapes? :huh:

[BuyOurEverything]

Um, I hate to break it to you guys but aging wine does require labour. Ever been to a wine factory? First, you need land to build a wharehouse on, then you need to build the wharehouse. Even then, you still need people to guard the wharehouse, orginize the wine, keep records on it, inspect it, etc. Unless you're just going to dump a couple thousand bottles of wine in a ditch and come back in ten years for them, you need labour. This entire discussion is moot.

[Osman Ghazi]

That is what I said in the second post but this neo-classical won't listen. Apparently it doesn't take labour to maintain a house either, it 'just sits there'.

[gaf]

don't let wine inlighted.the best one is kept in a cool dark place(12,15degrees centigrade) and the oldest one are not the best,..

[gaf]

don't let wine inlighted.the best one is kept in a cool dark place(12,15degrees centigrade) and the oldest one are not the best,..

and wine is like ideas it doesn't mature if you don't proof it