Basically it is nonsense.
Is this statement true?
We value shoe shiners because we value shiny shoes. We don't value shiny shoes because we value shoe shiners.
bzfgt:"Price — at any given snapshot of spot conditions in time — will reflect the subjective utility of the marginal unit, without regard to production cost." This is an absurd claim. Nobody can make money selling items below the cost of production.
This is an absurd claim. Nobody can make money selling items below the cost of production.
Sure but "value" does not care whether you can make money. That's up to the businessman. Products end up being sold below production cost all the time. Prices will only reflect the subjective utility of the marginal unit, without regard to production cost. (Of course what customers perceive to be a fair price depends on production cost.) We can make some prediction about the natural equilibrium value, to which we think the price of goods will gravitate. But that would merely be an interesting intellectual exercise. The second we conceded that prices are set by supply and demand, instead of existing intrinsically in the object, we're making a statistical observation, not a statement about value.
Maybe the two sides of this discussion could clarify something for me.
What exactly is the LTV attempting to explain? Is it to be used as a foundation from which to understand the formation of all prices in an economy? Or is it trying to decribe the process which capitalists use to determine what they should (want to) sell thier products for?
It dosent seem like everyone is on the same page here.
1. Why the worker is always ripped off, supposedly.
2. Yes.
3. No.
Search my blog for info on LTV, if you wish
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer