Results 41 to 60 of 67
Yes, there is: it is the cost of the constituent parts that determines, on the one hand, whether or not capitalist manufacture will occur.
The constituent cost of materials is alienable from the cost of labor in this equation, since it is merely the object of labor. The subject, which makes the product, is labor, or the laborer.
The market is driven by this: specifically, the average wage rate*hours socially necessary for a production process + cost of materials form the very basis of cost. When a new process of manufacture is introduced, the socially necessary labor time goes down - and this can bring the commodity below the value of its constituent parts. If labor always costs more than the salability of the commodity, its manufacture will be reduced to the point that demand-supply drives its value up enough to be viable - if not, than there is only negligible or no moneyed demand for the product.
In no part of this equation does labor cease to be the primary factor in pricing. In fact, shifts in the cost of materials are also driven by the same shifts in labor value. Even the relative scarcity of natural resources is an issue of the cost of acquisition, in which that acquisition is only achievable via labor.
How does the LTV account for Land?
Well whats the land good for? Growing things? Building a house? What gives it its value is the labor.
No labor went into the creation of land, yet it still has value.
It only has value in relation to the labor that can or will go into it. Even a natural park involves the labor of "keeping people from developing it."
Even value of the color blue is merely the value of seeing (labor) the color blue. I can give you the most beautiful blue ball, but if you put it in a dark room it loses all value.
There simply is no way to remove labor from the process of valuation, as evaluating something in and of itself is a laborious process.
You have it backwards. Land is not valuable because people use labor to keep others off of it. People try to keep others off land because they perceive it as valuable.
This doesn't make any sense, as a ball does not lose all value when you put it in a dark room. It is very very easy to remove labor from value. Value is agent dependent. Simple as that.
I could agree with this actually, as it's really not saying anything different. It's value is only expressed through some kind of labor.
I'm not talking about people's valuation of balls. The ball is irrelevant. It's the valuation of blue. If you put pure blue in a vial and put it in a dark room, it has no value because you can't see it.
I don't particularly think the LTV is a correct method of evaluating prices, per se. (Nor do I regard it as necessary for class awareness or revolutionary "justification") I'm not particularly sure the LTV was talking about pricing to begin with though. But I certainly can see with my plain eyes that value (in terms of pricing) is not purely subjective either.
Shooma addict, what land without any labor attached to it has marketable value??? National parks are nationalized and non profit, they don't have any marketable value. What land in the real world has marketable value without labor or the prospect of labor attached to it?
It's deeper than that though. The act of exchange itself is a laborious process that is taken into account by the entrepreneur before even deciding the exchange value. As I said, there is simply no way to untie human productivity from labor.
Land without labor attached to it is perceived as valuable and attributed an estimated dollar value even though no labor was involved in producing it. Take for example a pristine forest with a fresh water lake.
No, it has a price. When it's undeveloped, that price is minuscule.
follow me on twitter
https://twitter.com/thug_lessons
Undeveloped land is still valued by people, and its market price depends on what resources are on the land. No labor involved.
I didn't read the rest of this thread.
That's the ltv in a very short nutshell. Sorry if that comic is too small to read for some people.
Where is a pristine forets with a fresh water lake being sold, and not turned into something with intertwined by labor?
The best answer to this is to look at how Marx explains rent. A piece of land does not have any value intrinsically, because without exclusive rights of private property anyone is free to use it as they wish. It is only when land is claimed that it can be sold, or, in other words, it must be monopolized. It's this monopoly that allows even undeveloped land to be sold, not its natural resources alone.
follow me on twitter
https://twitter.com/thug_lessons
You're confusing value and use-value pretty badly here.
The use-value of the ball remains the same as it always was, putting it in a dark room is irrelevant. This subjective evaluation you mention - the judgement of use value - is not really much to do with the labour process of valorisation.
I may be. But once again, it's not about the ball. It's about the blue.
How do people find value in blue? They have to see it, with their eyes. Blue (arguably) does not even exist in a sightless world.
No, it's not about the blue or the ball. It's about the specific use-value embodied physically in this kind of blue ball. And sure, blue doesn't "exist" in a sightless world. That makes the ball a different use-value to a blind person. But it doesn't necessarily affect its value.
Yes, a ball does have a different use value to a blind person, just as a seeing stick has different value to a blind person too.
