Put on your They Live Shades - It's ReNeduaction Camp Today's Topic: Value

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Put on your They Live Shades - It's ReNeduaction Camp Today's Topic: Value

«‹›2 »

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

Refreshments tonight include homemade salsa and guacamole , the discussion: who's chips are those? NACHOS!

Topics in this thread shall include the following (please feel free to ask any and all questions or to opine regarding the following topics)

Use Value vs Exchange Value

Why is water so cheap and useless diamonds so expensive??

How does total wealth increase? Where does it come from?

What does the price of a commodity represent?

In what way is a $10 widget the same as a $10 gurf?

What is profit?

What do Marxists mean be "exploitation"?

Rather than posting walls of texts at people, I want this to be a town hall style back and forth dialogue so to speak. I would like to engage in some real discussion here rather than act like a preacher.

I would like to start by asking this general question: why does a finished product always cost more than the sum of it's parts?

For example, why does is a shirt on average always more expensive than a half lb of cotton? Why is a chair always more expensive than the equal amount of raw wood? Why does a cake always cost more than a cup of flour, sugar, 2 eggs, etc.?

If the end result is essentially identical to the parts, just rearranged in a particular way, why is one always valued more than the other?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 06:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 06:25

nigga crab pollock: Mar 26, 2010; by Lowtax

because when u sell something the invisible hand of the free market creates wealth

# ? Oct 26, 2016 06:26

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

everyone is welcome to post here and to discuss or debate or share things or even joke around a little but i ask that you please be respectful and follow the guidelines of the thread and you will be shown the upmost respect and hospitality

# ? Oct 26, 2016 06:26

ProfessorMurder: Aug 27, 2003; I can wet the bed in the shape of Abraham Lincoln

There is skill and labor involved in creating the product.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 06:27

lol if you: Jun 29, 2004; I am going to remove your penis, in thin slices, like salami, just for starters.

wipe down the rim of the drat bowl god drat

# ? Oct 26, 2016 06:28

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

ProfessorMurder posted:

There is skill and labor involved in creating the product.

Yes sir there is, there is labor involved. When I buy a shirt, as opposed to a pile of cotton, the extra cost that I pay for, the difference between the price of the cotton and the price of the shirt, is value generated by labor.

This is true of all commodities or services, when you buy a commodity, you must pay for the labor costs that went into creating and transporting the product to you.

This is why the most precious commodity on earth: water, is so cheap, while the utterly useless commodity that serves no purpose whatsoever, diamonds have such strange value differences:

Water is, on average, abundant. Generally speaking, water is relatively easy to get, it takes little labor time and skill to acquire it, whereas diamonds are very difficult to acquire, and require immense amounts of labor and time to acquire.

So while water actually has a far greater use value than diamonds, diamonds have the greater exchange value

This means that the market price of a commodity is based on the exchange value of a commodity, rather than the use value.

If it's cold outside a jacket has immense use value to you while copper wire may have little use value for you in your current situation. however, the copper wire can be exchanged for $100 and that $100 can be exchanged for a jacket.

this means what qualitatively, the jacket and the copper wire have nothing in common, but quantitatively, they have the same amount of labor value put into them.

the only way we can say two qualitatively different commodities are interchangeable is if we assume that their common element is something external to the physical properties of that item. that is to say, there is nothing about the material of the jacket itself or the material of the wire itself which makes them equivalent, they are equivalent to each other only in relation to how much labor time went into producing them.

the fact that commodities can be exchanged for money, means that money is a universal signifier for abstract labor itself. money is dead abstract labor.

this will become more clear when we discuss topics of exploitation and profit.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 07:12

Luxury Communism: Aug 22, 2015; by Lowtax

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Yes sir there is, there is labor involved. When I buy a shirt, as opposed to a pile of cotton, the extra cost that I pay for, the difference between the price of the cotton and the price of the shirt, is value generated by labor.

This is true of all commodities or services, when you buy a commodity, you must pay for the labor costs that went into creating and transporting the product to you.

This is why the most precious commodity on earth: water, is so cheap, while the utterly useless commodity that serves no purpose whatsoever, diamonds have such strange value differences:

Water is, on average, abundant. Generally speaking, water is relatively easy to get, it takes little labor time and skill to acquire it, whereas diamonds are very difficult to acquire, and require immense amounts of labor and time to acquire.

So while water actually has a far greater use value than diamonds, diamonds have the greater exchange value

This means that the market price of a commodity is based on the exchange value of a commodity, rather than the use value.

If it's cold outside a jacket has immense use value to you while copper wire may have little use value for you in your current situation. however, the copper wire can be exchanged for $100 and that $100 can be exchanged for a jacket.

this means what qualitatively, the jacket and the copper wire have nothing in common, but quantitatively, they have the same amount of labor value put into them.

the only way we can say two qualitatively different commodities are interchangeable is if we assume that their common element is something external to the physical properties of that item. that is to say, there is nothing about the material of the jacket itself or the material of the wire itself which makes them equivalent, they are equivalent to each other only in relation to how much labor time went into producing them.

the fact that commodities can be exchanged for money, means that money is a universal signifier for abstract labor itself. money is dead abstract labor.

this will become more clear when we discuss topics of exploitation and profit.

I'm not sure how you're making the jump from "market price represents exchange value" to "money represents labor value". How are those two methods of determining value different, then?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 08:02

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

Luxury Communism posted:

I'm not sure how you're making the jump from "market price represents exchange value" to "money represents labor value". How are those two methods of determining value different, then?

Excellent question

They are not different

The market price is the same as the exchange value, so when we say $100 of cotton = $100 of iron = $100 of wheat, we are saying that there is something about these which are equivalent. Since they are qualitatively different, it cannot be their use value that unites them, but their exchange value.

So what is the source of this exchange value? It's the labor that goes into producing the commodity.

Therefore market value represented by a dollar value and exchanged with money is the abstracted form of the exchange value of the commodity.

Since exchange value is generated by labor and measured in labor time, the dollar value thus represents abstract labor itself

I admit I am nowhere close to being as clear and direct as Marx is, but please continue to press and critique any areas of confusion

# ? Oct 26, 2016 08:12

Luxury Communism: Aug 22, 2015; by Lowtax

Commie NedFlanders posted:

Excellent question

They are not different

The market price is the same as the exchange value, so when we say $100 of cotton = $100 of iron = $100 of wheat, we are saying that there is something about these which are equivalent. Since they are qualitatively different, it cannot be their use value that unites them, but their exchange value.

So what is the source of this exchange value? It's the labor that goes into producing the commodity.

Therefore market value represented by a dollar value and exchanged with money is the abstracted form of the exchange value of the commodity.

Since exchange value is generated by labor and measured in labor time, the dollar value thus represents abstract labor itself

I admit I am nowhere close to being as clear and direct as Marx is, but please continue to press and critique any areas of confusion

Exchange values fluctuate, but labor time remains constant. Furthermore, for things like raw commodities and cultural artifacts, the market price is almost entirely detached from labor time.

I agree for your textbook extreme-value-adding (i.e. neglectable mineral costs) widget factory the market price under idealized conditions will tend towards the marginal labor cost of production, but the equivalence only holds here, and even here, tenuously.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 08:47

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

Luxury Communism posted:

Exchange values fluctuate, but labor time remains constant. Furthermore, for things like raw commodities and cultural artifacts, the market price is almost entirely detached from labor time.

I agree for your textbook extreme-value-adding (i.e. neglectable mineral costs) widget factory the market price under idealized conditions will tend towards the marginal labor cost of production, but the equivalence only holds here, and even here, tenuously.

the marxist concept of exchange value is an average of prices over time and place, which accounts for these fluctuations, which is why it can be said that consistently, on average, a finished commodity always has a greater exchange value than the sum of the constituent parts

# ? Oct 26, 2016 08:52

Luxury Communism: Aug 22, 2015; by Lowtax

Commie NedFlanders posted:

the marxist concept of exchange value is an average of prices over time and place, which accounts for these fluctuations, which is why it can be said that consistently, on average, a finished commodity always has a greater exchange value than the sum of the constituent parts

Surely it must be so, otherwise the assemblage would be a destruction of value. For a profit-seeking entity, this could only be a catastrophic error.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 08:57

Zorodius: Feb 11, 2007; EA GAMES' MASTERPIECE 'MADDEN 2018 G.O.A.T. EDITION' IS A GLORIOUS TRIUMPH OF ART AND TECHNOLOGY. IT BRINGS GAMEDAY RIGHT TO THE PLAYER AND WHOEVER SAYS OTHERWISE CAN, YOU GUESSED IT...
SUCK THE SHIT STRAIGHT OUT OF MY OWN ASSHOLE.

BUY IT.

Now, here's a strange fact: I take valuable components, like food, and add labor and digestion to turn them into precious poop, but no one wants to buy it, or even hear me out when I try to negotiate with grocers for shelf space.

What became of all that value?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:00

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

it went to china

DON'T.

EAT.

FOOD.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:01

les enfants Terrific!: Dec 12, 2008

i'm just here for the attendance participation part of the grade. can i sit in the back?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:04

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

I want to steal Harvey's idea for a Das Kapital broadway musical

The wool character dances with the loom character and out comes a jacket

the background is made up of giant wretched, spindly people moving back and forth rhythmically:

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:06

naem: May 29, 2011

I'm the two state factories producing sunglasses one of which you can't see out of

I'm the gulag your family get sent to if you acknowledge the glasses

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:21

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

an im stalin!

take this, freedom!

# ? Oct 26, 2016 09:37

super sweet best pal: Nov 18, 2009

Zorodius posted:

Now, here's a strange fact: I take valuable components, like food, and add labor and digestion to turn them into precious poop, but no one wants to buy it, or even hear me out when I try to negotiate with grocers for shelf space.

What became of all that value?

It was converted into upkeep for your existence.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 10:06

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

super sweet best pal posted:

It was converted into upkeep for your existence.

need to find a way to skip our upkeep phase somehow

# ? Oct 26, 2016 10:06

super sweet best pal: Nov 18, 2009

Do that and you'll solve most of the world's problems.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 10:07

Woden: May 6, 2006

Commie NedFlanders posted:

I would like to start by asking this general question: why does a finished product always cost more than the sum of it's parts?

For example, why does is a shirt on average always more expensive than a half lb of cotton? Why is a chair always more expensive than the equal amount of raw wood? Why does a cake always cost more than a cup of flour, sugar, 2 eggs, etc.?

If the end result is essentially identical to the parts, just rearranged in a particular way, why is one always valued more than the other?

Entropy, the more order a product has the more intrinsic value it has.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 10:34

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

now how do we commoditise entropy

# ? Oct 26, 2016 11:26

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

ill trade you my collapsing life for your eggs

# ? Oct 26, 2016 11:26

Sponge Baathist: Jan 30, 2010; by FactsAreUseless

I'm gonna corner the bubblegum market before rear end kickings become more valuable

# ? Oct 26, 2016 11:37

OMFG FURRY: Jul 10, 2006; [snarky comment]

Woden posted:

Entropy, the more order a product has the more intrinsic value it has.

so why are synthetic diamonds consider lesser

# ? Oct 26, 2016 12:06

misty mountaintop: Jun 2, 2015; by Hand Knit

Seems like the value of an item isn't dependent on the actual labor that went into it or the actual use that it has but rather the value as perceived by the consumer.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 12:11

100 HOGS AGREE: Oct 13, 2007; Grimey Drawer

OMFG FURRY posted:

so why are synthetic diamonds consider lesser

marketing

# ? Oct 26, 2016 12:11

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

misty mountaintop posted:

Seems like the value of an item isn't dependent on the actual labor that went into it or the actual use that it has but rather the value as perceived by the consumer.

this common confusion comes from conflating Use Value, which is subjective and qualitative, with Exchange Value, which is objective and quantitative

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:05

Falun Bong Refugee: Dec 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

I don't trust that salsa and guac. It looks like it's gone off.

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:09

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

Woden posted:

Entropy, the more order a product has the more intrinsic value it has.

false.

consider a beehive complete with bees: extremely complex, delicate, ecosystem with tons of order - exchange value is very little

Oil : black sludge that requires tons of extra refining to be useful - exchange value is very high

the order theory doesn't account for this, but the labor theory, how much labor goes into producing said commodity, fits perfectly

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:08

VectorSigma: Jan 20, 2004; Transform
and
Freak Out

robots can be both capital and labor. now what

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:09

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

VectorSigma posted:

robots can be both capital and labor. now what

like slaves?

# ? Oct 26, 2016 17:12

misty mountaintop: Jun 2, 2015; by Hand Knit

Commie NedFlanders posted:

this common confusion comes from conflating Use Value, which is subjective and qualitative, with Exchange Value, which is objective and quantitative

I thought exchange value was based on labor value? But that's somehow not the case, right, because two products that require different amounts of labor can be sold for the same price.

# ? Oct 27, 2016 01:51

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

I started off in economics

# ? Oct 27, 2016 02:18

Nefarious 2.0: Apr 22, 2008; Offense is overrated anyway.

in on the ground floor of a dumpster fire of a thread

# ? Oct 27, 2016 02:33

let it mellow: Jun 1, 2000; Dinosaur Gum

water is good because you can use it to make beer, diamonds are good because you can trade them for beer, this thread is bad because it requires beer to read

# ? Oct 27, 2016 02:39

dookifex_maximus: Aug 10, 2016; by zen death robot

hey guys let him finish he hasnt even gotten to the part about exploitation

# ? Oct 27, 2016 02:41

let it mellow: Jun 1, 2000; Dinosaur Gum

Commie NedFlanders posted:

This means that the market price of a commodity is based on the exchange value of a commodity, rather than the use value

If it's cold outside a jacket has immense use value to you while copper wire may have little use value for you in your current situation. however, the copper wire can be exchanged for $100 and that $100 can be exchanged for a jacket.

this means what qualitatively, the jacket and the copper wire have nothing in common, but quantitatively, they have the same amount of labor value put into them.

the only way we can say two qualitatively different commodities are interchangeable is if we assume that their common element is something external to the physical properties of that item. that is to say, there is nothing about the material of the jacket itself or the material of the wire itself which makes them equivalent, they are equivalent to each other only in relation to how much labor time went into producing them.

so, like, in this example are we taking about a jacket for a big fat dude vs a couple feet of speaker wire to connect an amp to a receiver or a jacket for a toddler vs wiring movie theater speakers

or are we talking a cheap windbreaker vs 6 gauge wire or a kick rear end high end ski jacket vs thermostat wire

the metaphor makes no goddamn sense!!!' gently caress

# ? Oct 27, 2016 02:55

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

misty mountaintop posted:

I thought exchange value was based on labor value? But that's somehow not the case, right, because two products that require different amounts of labor can be sold for the same price.

A liter of water 💦 in a given society may be sold for more less depending on the time, place, buyer, and seller. However, if we look at all liters of water sold and compare their prices we will conclude that they tend to average out at a fairly stable rate, let's say $1.69 some areas and at some times like near a natural stream or during a rain storm will require little labor and therefore less value, other places and conditions say a tall rocky hill or a drought will do the opposite. But if we take an aggregate perspective and average out the different values we see a certain price.

If we compare this to say.....printer ink we will find the the same thing, different times and places will cause individual selling prices to fluctuate, but on AVERAGE, looking as a whole we will see consistent patterns, the most obvious being that the printer ink will cost more because it takes way more labor time to produce a liter of printer ink than a liter of water

# ? Oct 27, 2016 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 06:25

Commie NedFlanders: Mar 8, 2014

OMFG FURRY posted:

so why are synthetic diamonds consider lesser

Commodity fetishism, the illusion that the exchange value of an object represents some quality inherent to the object rather than a relation of production

# ? Oct 27, 2016 03:38

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Put on your They Live Shades - It's ReNeduaction Camp Today's Topic: Value

«‹›2 »