Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Has somebody been reading my discussion with Saeko and Potemkin on TLTE? Eh @B0ycey .
B0ycey wrote:I thought I would give you a platform. Interesting topics don't belong on TLTE.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:You should link the conversation from TLTE (both pages) in the OP for other posters to reference for context. Just edit you OP and add.
How thoughtful of you.
Whats your opinion?
B0ycey wrote:Value is down to necessity.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:But if you REALLY need something wouldn't you be willing to pay more for it?
Sure. And that is down to supply and demand. If the supply is plenty, the value remains the same but the price will shorten. If the supply is weak, the price will rise but the value is the same.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So you wouldn't value a bottle of water more if you were dying of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in lake Tahoe?
B0ycey wrote:I need water if I was in the Sahara or if I was by a lake. It is that valuable to me. But as the supply is lacking in the Sahara, I would definately pay more for it in the desert.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I asked you if water was more valuable to you if you were DYING of thirst in the Sahara than if you were swimming in a fresh water lake.
B0ycey wrote:I guess it does as value is down to necessity. So yes, it does become more valuable the more my life depends on it as it happens.
B0ycey wrote:But the price is still down to demand.
B0ycey wrote:If I have a thousand saleman offering a bottle of water at the same time, the price will shorten considerably regardless if my life depends on it or not.
annatar1914 wrote:whatever it actually turns out to be, is provided by the labor that went into it's creation or use whether made by one person or several.
These are bad objections though, as (1) the labor theory of value seems to ignore marginal utility which would imply that product value is imputed to it by the consumer, for an Iphone, in spite of the labor that went into it, is quite worthless on a desert island with no service or wifi; whereas, a puddle of water is worth more than the finest gold array.
1b. Some of this confusion seems to come from the mutation of Marxist thought out of earlier classical economists regarding the notion of intrinsic value and the idea that labor is what increases a product's marketability. Locke argued that "labor" was part of what made something appropriated (previously unclaimed) into "private-property;" however, this does not imply that something made into property by labor would then have market value purely in virtue of the labor put into it.
For instance, if I scoop some unclaimed shit out of an open latrine and fashion it into a sculpture of George W. Bush; that input of labor into the unclaimed resource material makes that shit-statue of Bush my property; however, its value is determined by the market (potential and actual consumers), if no one wants to buy my shit-statue of President Bush, then the statue is essentially worthless (entirely lacking market value) in spite of how much labor I may have put into making it.
This is how value actually works in economics.
(2) The objection that the laborer cannot withdraw from the market is just as spurious as the argument that an owner cannot withdraw from the labor market and your argument seems to apply wildly different standards which appear to equivocate on what it means to "withdraw." For the employer, you use the term "withdraw" in a practical and local sense, but in regards to the laborer, you use the the term "withdraw" in a universal or absolute (total) sense.
If labor is an international matter (a global reality), then hiring foreigners does not seem to be an argument that can support the claim that an employer can actually withdraw from the market (whereas a laborer can't), quite the opposite in fact, for by hiring foreigners an employer isn't really withdrawing from the labor market now is he?; Thus, in the same manner that an employer could simply "hire" someone else; likewise a laborer could simply "work for someone else" or even go into business for himself or become a self-sustaining farmer et al.
2b. However, if we were to speak in absolute and not "practical terms" neither the employer nor the laborer could withdraw from the market entirely without having to change their actual job titles. If an employer is not going to employ laborers anymore then he is no longer able to be an employer, and if a laborer is not going to work for an employer anymore than he is hardly a laborer anymore. Whether this implies starvation for either of them is entirely dependent on whether they pursue alternatives, if not, both may very well die and that would be a perfectly reasonable and fair market result given their decisions.
Godstud wrote:You value a friendship, but you can't really put a price on it.
Terrible position. You really need to purge this communist streak that lingers.
I addressed this view in TLTE:
I also responded to Saeko's responses on this point as well, you should check it out.
I would like to see your argument for labor theory of value from Scripture....I have a couple of texts in mind that seem to contradict it right off the bat.
annatar1914 wrote:Is that ok?
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Of course, no problem. Responding to you on there is on my to-do list.
annatar1914 wrote:Good, because the fate of the world depends on our conversation
annatar1914 wrote:I'm only slightly being facetious, as to negotiate the coming series of crises, people need to be made aware of what's at stake.
I don't think he could survive Stalinism. Why […]
You're such a great feminist-communist stereotype,[…]
I don't know about the others, but at least Honda[…]
a trace gas has increased from .025% to .04% ove[…]