That… that’s not what LTV is. Please tell me you know that’s not what LTV is? Because that’s nearly the exact opposite of Marx’s theory of the value of labor.
:smarmy:
No one takes labor theories of value seriously. It’s hammering a square peg into a round hole to try and support the proposition that the person who does the most valuable work is responsible for the value of the outputs, but you don’t need to fudge the economics to come to that conclusion…
it’s not the labor that determines the value of the outputs, it’s the value of the outputs that determine the value of the labor. Which is the subjective or marginal theory of value, a clear and straightforward rejection of the labor theory of value.
About a million Leftist theorists and economists have improved on Marx’s very limited understanding of microeconomics, and anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theories in toto is a dunce.
:deng-smile:
if you truly believe exchange value is not subjective and marginal on a microeconomic level…. well… I’m not sure I can help you on that one, but I would happily sell you two right shoes and one left.
:wojak-nooo: :stalin-gun-1: :stalin-gun-2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/p3i8bq/comment/h8rciby/
" Marx’s very limited understanding of microeconomics, and anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theories in toto is a dunce"
shit like this is why I will continue to tell people to read capital. because nobody is fucking doing it and believes this shit. while Marx builds off the work of Adam Smith and Ricardo who already FUCKING SAY THIS SHIT that it is the labour power that imbues a good with any worth, he adds to that with a clear bottom up break down of every facet of capitalism from the starting point of the analysis of a simple commodity. you don't even have to read all of capital to get this, chapter 1 pretty much just lays all of the good shit out entirely
But have you considered that if I sockpuppet as an incomprehensible leftist (but one that knows better than you) and point to a vague blob of leftist economists that totally rekt Marx's Labour Theory of Value I'll sound like the intellectual? 😎
this is why we need a democratic centralist vanguard party
no see the artificial scarcity of shiny rocks makes sense as to why they are worth so much!, where the idea that people putting effort into make goods is their value? that's just absurd and made up based on nothing material at all
When you think you understand economics but don’t know the difference between price and value
le mud pie argument is still being used by libs who think they understand Marx
Tell me you benefit from capitalism without telling me you benefit from capitalism
marx failed to consider supply and demand, what a fucking imbecile
definitely didnt use a commonly-understood-at-the-time definition of value that is explicitly not the fucking same as price
i think the recent example of video cards has been quite interesting to see how much people actually believe in marginalism when it directly and obviously affects them (especially on g*mer infested shitholes like reddit) - nobody except a few of the smarmiest libertarian losers has been saying "oh well this is just what theyre worth now, marginal utility has decided", everyone intrinsically realises that theres a less volatile value underneath that is not adequately represented by the price, and if you ask most people about a "fair" price youll get an answer that mostly talks about the cost of labour (and materials - advanced ones might also meditate on why those materials have that particular value) in the supply chain to create them
P_K made a similar argument on the chapo subreddit before being banned. Maybe it's one of his alt accounts or something?
Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/comments/p3i8bq/comment/h8rciby/
