: : I mean, what if you were retarded and paid $100 for a candy-bar. Would that REALLY make that candy-bar 'worth' $100?: Would you, a calculator, some knowledge of candy manufacture and a mean average (!) of the time it takes workers to make them be able to calculate the 'real' worth of a candy bar? After said calculation would your figure mean anything to anyone involved in the exchange of candy bars for other goods? Would you try to calculate the degree of 'exploitation' taking place by assuming that whichever exchange price a given candy bar achieves then the amount by which that is over all the pre calculated costs must be the sum of exploitation whether its sold for ? or ?00?
-_-; Well, at least that sounds a LOT simpler than having to measure people's depth of hunger through medical process to give "objectively subjective" basis of price for a lump of bread, which I recall, is what you suggested in defending your own theory of "Objectively Subjective" theory of Value?
: This round of discussions about the LTV, at least from me, was not in order to dismiss LTV as a pertinent theory in economics but to express that it cannot be used to calculate meaningful figures regarding 'exploitation' nor have much to say with regard to what people want to exchange things for and why.
It wasn't a bad set of discussions, except we got stuck somewhere, namely, at the incredibly vague and surrealistic point where you continue to argue that the measurement of value can be set upon SUBJECTIVE whims, through an OBJECTIVE process.
The way I see it, the debators didn't even get close to talking about the level where production lies. We're all stuck on this SUBJECTIVITY-OBJECTIVITY melee. I mean, nobody even got up to the point HOW exploitation is formed, because we're bounded here.
You said these debates were not aimed at dismissing the LTV. But the thing is, if the LTV cannot be used to calculate meaningful figures regarding 'exploitation, why do we need to maintain it in the first place? I mean, your whole purpose is obviously proving how the value system in Capitalist economy DOES NOT exploit people, no? Why would you NOT dismiss LTV when it's whole existence threatens the very heart of current economics?
Again I say this is one of your typical INCOMPATIBILTY glitches.
You know, things which are OBJECTIVELY SUBJECTIVE...
Discrediting the LTV, but not dismissing it....
Putting two mutually incompatible logic in the same sentence...
...
Guess WHY modern economists got rid of the LTV in such a hurry, even when it was what their own Great Teachers believed in?
