The LTV and diamonds etc.

[Nusocialist]

How does the LTV descibe why for instance diamonds that are easier to collect are more expensive than emeralds?

[ComradeRed]

I'm really excited, just got a friendly reply from Lee Smolin on my ramblings on quantum theory, so I'll answer your question.

The answer lies in Das Kapital:
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. From here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm).

[Nusocialist]

But emeralds require more labour I believe,why are they cheaper?

[ComradeRed]

Oh my, I was so excited I didn't read your first post correctly! :blush: It's just the first time a scientist hasn't called me "crazy" in a long time.

Anyways, I don't know if Emeralds are harder to collect than diamonds; do you have to shape an emerald and do all that crap to it? Or do you do that to all gems?

[Nusocialist]

Anyways, I don't know if Emeralds are harder to collect than diamonds; do you have to shape an emerald and do all that crap to it? Or do you do that to all gems
Not sure, I was debating with a capitalist and he claimed the LTV is wrong because diamonds cost more than emeraldsbut are easier to find,refine etc.

Now he didn't prove this,but he's obivously got it from some capitalist apologist thinker and I wouldn't think they'd simply lie,but perhaps it is just made up.

[ComradeRed]

Well wait, point out that this doesn't follow from the capitalist's analysis using supply and demand. Just a quick thought, and also he has the burden of proof to prove that emeralds are rarer and harder to refine, etc. Otherwise the point's irrelevant if he can't prove it.

[Nusocialist]

Well wait, point out that this doesn't follow from the capitalist's analysis using supply and demand.
How so?
Surely supply and demand says that if people value diamonds more than emeralds they will be worth more.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 11:12 pm

Well wait, point out that this doesn't follow from the capitalist's analysis using supply and demand.
How so?
Surely supply and demand says that if people value diamonds more than emeralds they will be worth more.
That's the demand part, but you're neglecting the supply part; the supply of diamonds are high, the price will drop.

[Nusocialist]

That's the demand part, but you're neglecting the supply part; the supply of diamonds are high, the price will drop.
But it's emeralds that are harder to find and cheaper.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 11:39 pm

That's the demand part, but you're neglecting the supply part; the supply of diamonds are high, the price will drop.
But it's emeralds that are harder to find and cheaper.
Right, the supply is low yet the price is high, a counter example to the capitalist's thinking as well. If he's right, he's just as fucked; you might as well bring him down with you ;)

He may say something about the demand not being high about it, but it would have to be significantly low to such a degree that it wouldn't be profiteable to extract emeralds.