Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.
What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.
Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.
The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.
Where's the controversy in that?
Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.
What is your point?
I do understand. if someone trades something of less value and floods the market because of that cheaper value, to offer up a like for like product with labor of greater talent, will make your product more valuable and less likely to trade due to the higher value. So there is indeed a way to undercut other labor.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.The "theory" is as weak construction to justify government control of our economic decisions.
What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.
Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.
The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.
Where's the controversy in that?
Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.
Some are more equal than others. I did get him to admit that. But if all labor hours aren't equal, how do we measure their value objectively?
All this is just to justify the premise that the market can "get it wrong", and that government should have the final say in determining what something is worth.
An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?Shear ignorance of the theory, such that you exhibit, is the means to government control of our economic decisions.
What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.
Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.
The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.
Where's the controversy in that?
Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.
Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.
The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.
Where's the controversy in that?
Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
the value is what I want the value to be.You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?What am I missing smart guy? So far, you've told me that Ishtar has the same intrinsic value as Lawrence of Arabia, and that turd polishing is just as valuable as medicine production. Did I miss anything?It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.
Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.
The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.
Where's the controversy in that?
Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
That's a nonsense answer given that you just acknowledged not all hours of labor are worth the same.
You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".
then the market let's me decide if I'm correct. i adjust accordingly. it's how we get wages today.the value is what I want the value to be.You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
In the production of commodities an hour of labor is worth an hour of labor, objectively.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
That's a nonsense answer given that you just acknowledged not all hours of labor are worth the same.
You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".
You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?The value is the average time to produce the table.
How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?
adding a 25% tariff on it.You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?
We've already explained why. You don't even bother to dispute what we've posted. You just restate your bogus theory or appeal to some authority like Adam Smith.In the production of commodities an hour of labor is worth an hour of labor, objectively.An hour of labor is valued as an hour of labor.Not all labor is equal.so are some tables made better than others using labor? Do some laborers have more talent therefore they offer more value?
What is your point?
Because you said that intrinsic value can be measure in accumulated labor hours. But you're just kicking the can if you say those labor hours aren't all equal in value. It just changes the question "How do we measure the intrinsic value of a product?" to "How do we measure the value of an hour of labor?"
So how do you? What is the intrinsic value of an hour of labor?
That's a nonsense answer given that you just acknowledged not all hours of labor are worth the same.
You're claiming that labor has intrinsic value, irrespective of its utility - and further, that capitalists profit by paying employees less than this intrinsic value. Yet you can't provide an objective measure of that value, which kind of submarines the "theory".
Labor itself is a commodity.
The value of a commodity is equal to the accumulated hours for producing the commodity.
That includes the accumulated hours for the component parts of production, including the time to develop the labor skills required.
Therefore not all labor is equal. Different labor requires different skill sets.
Stop wasting my time. You obviously have no clue about Marx's theory and have no intention of getting one. All you are doing is trying to pin me in a corner to prove you are right about something you are completely ignorant of.
If you know the theory to be wrong just cite Marx and explain why.
The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.You've never read Marx, tool.What am I making up?How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.
That is how the system works now.
You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.
The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.
We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?
