: Here it broken down for you to (not) mull over (but disregard anyway);: 1.According to you the candy bar still has 'value' because it has been given unto it by labor
: 2.according to those customers who would buy it at below costs but not at its exchange value, its (the value is) less than the sum of the exchange values of the inputs.
: 3. So sum of inputs = $5. Customer wont buy it for more than $3.
OK, my guess in this post was correct:
Customers obviously would be more than happy to buy anything BELOW cost.But the capitalist who does so (or makes a product lacking in use value) will soon go bankrupt and leave the market to those who sell commodities (possessing a use-value) ABOVE their investment costs.
Which is why I said: Marx's LTV is quite consistent---but it is also complicated. There are many qualifications and special catagories.
To which you replied: Which is *why* it isnt a useful model for the above.
That is to suggest that any concept which requires SOME THOUGHT (and actually reading a book) is not 'useful.'
RD has been ATTEMPTING to explain to you the LTV since the beginning of time---and you JUST DON'T GET IT.
Well, all the power to RD and his continuing exertions.
I'm giving up on you, however.
Gee:
Please link everest again - you look more humorlessly obtuse every time you do it - and you dont know why.
Stoller:
I do it because Everest is NOT A CITATION, it's a dodge.
: Well, I do accept that tone is difficult to read into a written message but really....that you still think the above!
How about Mcspot mediating on this issue? Is the post linked directly above a dodge---or is it an ACTUAL citation?
--
McSpotlight: We're not here to mediate; merely to moderate.
