Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Tehon]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

Lol yes it is facilitated by the government but funded and utilized by tax payers. Since we agree it is facilitated by the government, how is The US not socialist? You have yet to explain that.

People are hired. The actual entities of those services are produced.

I already explained it several times. US businesses aren't Socially owned. That's an undeniable fact. If they were, they wouldn't need to lobby our bloated government to knock out competition, because they'd already be a monopoly.

Unless they're created in a lab, the government isn't producing them, nor is any business, people are therefor not a product. The government would need to OWN the people, like any actual Socialist paradise.

 

[Billy000]

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

Lol yes it is facilitated by the government but funded and utilized by tax payers. Since we agree it is facilitated by the government, how is The US not socialist? You have yet to explain that.

People are hired. The actual entities of those services are produced.

I already explained it several times. US businesses aren't Socially owned. That's an undeniable fact. If they were, they wouldn't need to lobby our bloated government to knock out competition, because they'd already be a monopoly.

Unless they're created in a lab, the government isn't producing them, nor is any business, people are therefor not a product. The government would need to OWN the people, like any actual Socialist paradise.

Lol it Doesn’t matter if the government “owns” businesses. This is still a government that enforces laws and provides services funded by its people. That’s socialism and you know it.

This is so dumb. You are just pretending “production” has narrow definition in a specific context. This is you making stuff up as you go along. Police and fire are entities funded and utilized by people and facilitated by the government. That makes them products.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

Lol yes it is facilitated by the government but funded and utilized by tax payers. Since we agree it is facilitated by the government, how is The US not socialist? You have yet to explain that.

People are hired. The actual entities of those services are produced.

I already explained it several times. US businesses aren't Socially owned. That's an undeniable fact. If they were, they wouldn't need to lobby our bloated government to knock out competition, because they'd already be a monopoly.

Unless they're created in a lab, the government isn't producing them, nor is any business, people are therefor not a product. The government would need to OWN the people, like any actual Socialist paradise.

Lol it Doesn’t matter if the government “owns” businesses. This is still a government that enforces laws and provides services funded by its people. That’s socialism and you know it.

This is so dumb. You are just pretending “production” has narrow definition in a specific context. This is you making stuff up as you go along. Police and fire are entities funded and utilized by people and facilitated by the government. That makes them products.

It's not Socialism for reasons I've underlined multiple times already, and which you've stated with the quotation. If you didn't agree with the quotation from wikipedia, you shouldn't have cited it.

Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find any place that defines it as loosely as you do.

No, I'm stating what production actually is, and pointing out the infrastructure is not the same thing, because it isn't. You have an actual Marxist telling that you're wrong as well.

Being funded and utilized by the people doesn't make them products, they are employees, which is not the same thing at all. Products are manufactured, Firemen and Policemen are not manufactured, making them factually not products, they are also not for sale, as their services are what is being sold, not themselves. People can not be a product, unless they are slaves, which is illegal in the United States.

 

[jc456]

Dude, there is no way we’re going near your hell!

Yep, Fair wages, cheap education and Healthcare, good vacations paid parental leave would be just terrible horrible, Super Dupe.

Just for the heck of it, how do all these things get paid for?

By taxing the rich their fair share and having a healthy middle class d u h.

How do you tax the rich and get a middle class? This seems to be the selling point of you left wing idiots but everywhere it's tried the middle class becomes the poor class.

That's what we have here now... Our inequality is the worst of all the successful countries, and our upward Mobility is also the worst now after 35 years of GOP Pander to the rich and screw everybody else. Open your eyes. also are median income is lower than anywhere else. It's a disgrace.

So why would anyone come here? Dude your so nuts you hold em

 

[jc456]

Taxing the rich their fair share pays for all that?

Slowly but surely. And a healthy middle class and working class helps too.

Hate to burst your bubble but if the rich pay "their fair share", which would have to be damn high to pay for all your freebies, kinda discourages most from wanting to be rich.

Every other modern country does it, Dupe. And there are plenty of rich people in Germany and Sweden and France and Canada and Australia and Japan... Just not as obscene LOL.

Good thing you have the freedom to move to one of those countries.

No you don't. I owned a bar in Spain and couldn't do it thing unless I married a Spanish woman...

So you don’t think Americans have those same rights? Hahahaha

 

[bripat9643]

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

Lol yes it is facilitated by the government but funded and utilized by tax payers. Since we agree it is facilitated by the government, how is The US not socialist? You have yet to explain that.

People are hired. The actual entities of those services are produced.

I already explained it several times. US businesses aren't Socially owned. That's an undeniable fact. If they were, they wouldn't need to lobby our bloated government to knock out competition, because they'd already be a monopoly.

Unless they're created in a lab, the government isn't producing them, nor is any business, people are therefor not a product. The government would need to OWN the people, like any actual Socialist paradise.

Lol it Doesn’t matter if the government “owns” businesses. This is still a government that enforces laws and provides services funded by its people. That’s socialism and you know it.

That isn't socialism, dumbass. What you're saying is that in order to have capitalism, you can't have government. Any 8-year-old would call that idea stupid.

This is so dumb. You are just pretending “production” has narrow definition in a specific context. This is you making stuff up as you go along. Police and fire are entities funded and utilized by people and facilitated by the government. That makes them products.

"Production" doesn't refer to the law, moron. Every definition is narrow if it's meaninful. You wan't to make it so broad that it's meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

I notice you elided the first part of my post. I assume that's because you had no answer for it.

The concept of "intrinsic value" is a myth. In practice, instrinsic value means the value that can be obtained by exchanging an object in the market. "Intrinsic value" is therefor really nothing more than market price. There is no other way that value can be measured, so any claims that it's something different from market price are pure moonshine.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

But, of course, you can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" is. Is it the price of the orange before the freeze? After it? Neither? Apparently, like a soul, you know the orange has an intrinsic value, but you can't demonstrate what it is. You just know its there.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

It's actually not above my head. I'm just immune to bullshit and logical fallacies. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he wasn't right about everything. His belief in the labor theory of value was just as erroneous as yours. What you have done here is called "the appeal to authority." You can't make your case using logic and facts, so you quote some supposed authority on the matter and presume that settles the matter.

As I have shown, the price of a product can differ greatly from one day to the next. If value is price, then it definintely isn't determine by the sumation of all the labor that went into a product. If value isn't price, then what is it? How is value calculated? You have yet to explain that. You can't escape by quoting Adam Smith. Economics didn't stop advancing after Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations."

 

[francoHFW]

Yep, Fair wages, cheap education and Healthcare, good vacations paid parental leave would be just terrible horrible, Super Dupe.

Just for the heck of it, how do all these things get paid for?

By taxing the rich their fair share and having a healthy middle class d u h.

How do you tax the rich and get a middle class? This seems to be the selling point of you left wing idiots but everywhere it's tried the middle class becomes the poor class.

That's what we have here now... Our inequality is the worst of all the successful countries, and our upward Mobility is also the worst now after 35 years of GOP Pander to the rich and screw everybody else. Open your eyes. also are median income is lower than anywhere else. It's a disgrace.

So why would anyone come here? Dude your so nuts you hold em

From Mexico or El Salvador? They're shitholes full of gangs caused by our appetite for drugs. People from Norway and New Zealand not so much!

 

[Tehon]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

I notice you elided the first part of my post. I assume that's because you had no answer for it.

The concept of "intrinsic value" is a myth. In practice, instrinsic value means the value that can be obtained by exchanging an object in the market. "Intrinsic value" is therefor really nothing more than market price. There is no other way that value can be measured, so any claims that it's something different from market price are pure moonshine.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

But, of course, you can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" is. Is it the price of the orange before the freeze? After it? Neither? Apparently, like a soul, you know the orange has an intrinsic value, but you can't demonstrate what it is. You just know its there.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

It's actually not above my head. I'm just immune to bullshit and logical fallacies. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he wasn't right about everything. His belief in the labor theory of value was just as erroneous as yours. What you have done here is called "the appeal to authority." You can't make your case using logic and facts, so you quote some supposed authority on the matter and presume that settles the matter.

As I have shown, the price of a product can differ greatly from one day to the next. If value is price, then it definintely isn't determine by the sumation of all the labor that went into a product. If value isn't price, then what is it? How is value calculated? You have yet to explain that. You can't escape by quoting Adam Smith. Economics didn't stop advancing after Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations."

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

On Monday the price reflected the value of the labor input in producing a pound of oranges. The hard freeze destroys half the orange crop resulting in a shortened supply. This creates a situation where the purchaser is willing to pay more to ensure he receives his pound of oranges amidst a shortened supply. The labor input (intrinsic value) didn't change, the short supply caused by a natural event on Monday night created an increased demand thereby raising the purchase price of the pound of oranges on Tuesday.

The use value is reflected in the buyer willing to pay a higher price to ensure he receives his pound of oranges.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

I notice you elided the first part of my post. I assume that's because you had no answer for it.

The concept of "intrinsic value" is a myth. In practice, instrinsic value means the value that can be obtained by exchanging an object in the market. "Intrinsic value" is therefor really nothing more than market price. There is no other way that value can be measured, so any claims that it's something different from market price are pure moonshine.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

But, of course, you can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" is. Is it the price of the orange before the freeze? After it? Neither? Apparently, like a soul, you know the orange has an intrinsic value, but you can't demonstrate what it is. You just know its there.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

It's actually not above my head. I'm just immune to bullshit and logical fallacies. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he wasn't right about everything. His belief in the labor theory of value was just as erroneous as yours. What you have done here is called "the appeal to authority." You can't make your case using logic and facts, so you quote some supposed authority on the matter and presume that settles the matter.

As I have shown, the price of a product can differ greatly from one day to the next. If value is price, then it definintely isn't determine by the sumation of all the labor that went into a product. If value isn't price, then what is it? How is value calculated? You have yet to explain that. You can't escape by quoting Adam Smith. Economics didn't stop advancing after Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations."

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

On Monday the price reflected the value of the labor input in producing a pound of oranges. The hard freeze destroys half the orange crop resulting in an increased demand. This creates a situation where the purchaser is willing to pay more to ensure he receives his pound of oranges amidst a shortened supply. The labor input (intrinsic value) didn't change, the short supply caused by a natural event on Monday night created an increased demand thereby raising the purchase price of the pound of oranges on Tuesday.

The use value is reflected in the buyer willing to pay a higher price to ensure he receives his pound of oranges.

You have not shown that "value" was equal to the labor input at any point. You have simply assumed it. If one farmer has better land and better climate, his labor input is less for the same quantity and quality of oranges as another farmer whose labor input is greater. In Saudi Arabia, they can pump oil out of the ground for $0.50/bbl. In West Texas, the cost is more like $35/bbl. Yet, they both sell their oil for the same price. How can the value depend on the quantity of labor when the amount of labor required is so vastly different for the exact same product?

 

[Tehon]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

I notice you elided the first part of my post. I assume that's because you had no answer for it.

The concept of "intrinsic value" is a myth. In practice, instrinsic value means the value that can be obtained by exchanging an object in the market. "Intrinsic value" is therefor really nothing more than market price. There is no other way that value can be measured, so any claims that it's something different from market price are pure moonshine.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

But, of course, you can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" is. Is it the price of the orange before the freeze? After it? Neither? Apparently, like a soul, you know the orange has an intrinsic value, but you can't demonstrate what it is. You just know its there.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

It's actually not above my head. I'm just immune to bullshit and logical fallacies. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he wasn't right about everything. His belief in the labor theory of value was just as erroneous as yours. What you have done here is called "the appeal to authority." You can't make your case using logic and facts, so you quote some supposed authority on the matter and presume that settles the matter.

As I have shown, the price of a product can differ greatly from one day to the next. If value is price, then it definintely isn't determine by the sumation of all the labor that went into a product. If value isn't price, then what is it? How is value calculated? You have yet to explain that. You can't escape by quoting Adam Smith. Economics didn't stop advancing after Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations."

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

On Monday the price reflected the value of the labor input in producing a pound of oranges. The hard freeze destroys half the orange crop resulting in an increased demand. This creates a situation where the purchaser is willing to pay more to ensure he receives his pound of oranges amidst a shortened supply. The labor input (intrinsic value) didn't change, the short supply caused by a natural event on Monday night created an increased demand thereby raising the purchase price of the pound of oranges on Tuesday.

The use value is reflected in the buyer willing to pay a higher price to ensure he receives his pound of oranges.

You have not shown that "value" was equal to the labor input at any point. You have simply assumed it. If one farmer has better land and better climate, his labor input is less for the same quantity and quality of oranges as another farmer whose labor input is greater. In Saudi Arabia, they can pump oil out of the ground for $0.50/bbl. In West Texas, the cost is more like $35/bbl. Yet, they both sell their oil for the same price. How can the value depend on the quantity of labor when the amount of labor required is so vastly different for the exact same product?

I am not versed in the procedures for producing oil so from my perspective this is a dead end street as far as understanding the value of labor.
But I do know that they are not the exact same product.
Crude Oil: Brent Crude Versus WTI
Not even in Saudi Arabia.
http://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/types_of_saudi_arabian_crude_oils.pdf

As far as the labor input for producing oranges on different land with different climate. The difference in labor input for each location would be reflected in the price each producer was asking.


The price of a commodity reflects the labor value but labor value isn't the only factor in determining the price. That is what your first example illustrated.

 

[bripat9643]

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

What a stupid question.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

Use value is subjective. Intrinsic value is not.

I notice you elided the first part of my post. I assume that's because you had no answer for it.

The concept of "intrinsic value" is a myth. In practice, instrinsic value means the value that can be obtained by exchanging an object in the market. "Intrinsic value" is therefor really nothing more than market price. There is no other way that value can be measured, so any claims that it's something different from market price are pure moonshine.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

There could be any number of factors that would affect the selling price, none of which alters the intrinsic value of the orange as a commodity.

But, of course, you can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" is. Is it the price of the orange before the freeze? After it? Neither? Apparently, like a soul, you know the orange has an intrinsic value, but you can't demonstrate what it is. You just know its there.

I know this is way over your head. And you certainly aren't going to listen to a self proclaimed Marxist. Try reading Adam Smith. Maybe that will help you to understand. Good luck!

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 5-7 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.5, Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities

It's actually not above my head. I'm just immune to bullshit and logical fallacies. Adam Smith was a brilliant man, but he wasn't right about everything. His belief in the labor theory of value was just as erroneous as yours. What you have done here is called "the appeal to authority." You can't make your case using logic and facts, so you quote some supposed authority on the matter and presume that settles the matter.

As I have shown, the price of a product can differ greatly from one day to the next. If value is price, then it definintely isn't determine by the sumation of all the labor that went into a product. If value isn't price, then what is it? How is value calculated? You have yet to explain that. You can't escape by quoting Adam Smith. Economics didn't stop advancing after Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations."

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

On Monday the price reflected the value of the labor input in producing a pound of oranges. The hard freeze destroys half the orange crop resulting in an increased demand. This creates a situation where the purchaser is willing to pay more to ensure he receives his pound of oranges amidst a shortened supply. The labor input (intrinsic value) didn't change, the short supply caused by a natural event on Monday night created an increased demand thereby raising the purchase price of the pound of oranges on Tuesday.

The use value is reflected in the buyer willing to pay a higher price to ensure he receives his pound of oranges.

You have not shown that "value" was equal to the labor input at any point. You have simply assumed it. If one farmer has better land and better climate, his labor input is less for the same quantity and quality of oranges as another farmer whose labor input is greater. In Saudi Arabia, they can pump oil out of the ground for $0.50/bbl. In West Texas, the cost is more like $35/bbl. Yet, they both sell their oil for the same price. How can the value depend on the quantity of labor when the amount of labor required is so vastly different for the exact same product?

I am not versed in the procedures for producing oil so from my perspective this is a dead end street as far as understanding the value of labor.
But I do know that they are not the exact same product.
Crude Oil: Brent Crude Versus WTI
Not even in Saudi Arabia.
http://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/types_of_saudi_arabian_crude_oils.pdf

As far as the labor input for producing oranges on different land with different climate. The difference in labor input for each location would be reflected in the price each producer was asking.


The price of a commodity reflects the labor value but labor value isn't the only factor in determining the price. That is what your first example illustrated.

You don't need to know how oil is produced to understand the example. All you need to know is that it's much cheaper to pump out of the ground in Saudi Arabia than in Texas. In Saudi Arabia, you can practically strike oil simply by poking your finger into the ground. In West Texas, you have to drill down 15,000 feet and use frakking to get oil to flow.

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

Simply look at a chart for the price of gold over time. It fluctuates wildly. In recent years it has ranged all the way from $500/oz to $2000/oz. What price reflects the labor value of gold? You don't know, and you can't tell me. You simply can't tell me what the "intrinsic value" of gold is. That's because the theory of "intrinsic value" and "labor theory of value" are pure moonshine. There is no such thing. There is only the market price.

 

[Tehon]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Right has succeeded in stealing from the middle class and convincing them that it's making them free of Socialism.

you sir (and i use the term sir loosely with you) are a fucking liar. All during Obamas terms(because enough stupid people voted for him the 2nd time) he not only lied to you all the time(except to fundamentally transform America) but he robbed the middle class blind, while giving the likes of Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos(Liberal elites) billions of our tax dollars. What is worse, is you believe he did you a favor. But once again, i have to show the picture of liberals and why they get reamed up the ass. Blow job and fuck at the same time.

 

[dblack]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

 

[Tehon]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

 

[jc456]

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem. And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

I have to pay $1650/month. Fuck Obama and fuck the ACA.

That's how much it actually costs. Now you can go back to the scam GOP plan and go bankrupt and lose everything if you get sick, with no solution to bring down costs.

Where does the money come from?

 

[bripat9643]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

 

[Tehon]

You claim that sometimes the price of an orange reflects the labor value put into it, and sometimes it doesn't. How do you know when it does and when it doesn't? If you have 10 farmers, one has a cost of $0.90/lb for his oranges. The next has a cost of $1.10/lb. $1.20/lb for the next. And so on and so on. So what is the value of an orange? The fact is there is no way to tell. No matter what the cost for each farmer is, all the oranges sell for the same price for the same quality and size of oranges. That's the market price.

I said the price of an orange always reflects the labor value in it. I said that there are other factors that also affect the price of an orange. You need to stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Market price is determined by supply and demand. If supply and demand are in equilibrium then that is the closest that the market price would get to the intrinsic value of producing the orange.
How Demand and Supply Determine Market Price

I can go out in my yard and cut down a tree, mill the wood, build a piece of furniture. If that piece of furniture is of use to someone else and I wish to exchange with them for something they have likewise built from their own labor then the exchange rate would be comparably based on the value of the labor.

If instead I decide to sell the furniture on the open market then the value that was created from improving a fallen tree is subject to forces outside of my control. But this in no way detracts from the fact that I created value by improving the fallen tree using only my labor. If not for my labor there would be nothing of use to exchange and has to be reflected in the price.

Why is it important? I mean, there's a reason you want to inject the concept of "intrinsic value", right? What's your angle?

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.