Anonymous #1 3w

Either one

0

Anonymous #1 3w

If its fresh restaurant pizza i enjoy the whole thing

1

Anonymous #2 3w

What about a second whole pizza?

0

Anonymous OP 3w

how many weird scenarios do you need to come up with to realize this analogy makes no fucking sense bro

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I didn’t need any weird scenarios. People tend to enjoy food more when they’re hungry.

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

Preferences vary not just from person to person but by the state you’re in at a given time. Its one of the many reasons value is subjective.

-1

Anonymous OP 3w

You seem to think that someone not being hungry enough to not eat two whole pizzas disproves that the labor that went into it can still apply as its value, which doesn’t make any sense lol. If pricing was based on your example, an Xbox would cost differently from person to person based on how much they’d be playing it. This hypothetical doesn’t make sense lol

1

Anonymous #3 3w

In reality, pricing is based on the “value” of goods that are adjusted based on scarcity, demand and indeed labor. This means that even if I don’t value silver jewelers, there’s a collective that do that balance the price of silver out through their consumerism, and also in the level of difficult labor needed to gather silver. The product would still cost the same For me or any of those people because of those two factors.

1

Anonymous OP 3w

You’re confusing someone’s willingness to pay for a product as a decision based on how much they’d value it, not their ability to purchase it. Someone could really, really, really want an Xbox and feel the market price is far based on the labor and resources that went into it, but still may not be able to afford it. I don’t consider a person choosing essentials for survival over other things based on budget a “value” based choice. The arbitrary amount a person thinks is fair for a product is…

1

Anonymous #3 3w

…only a part of what factors into into the value of goods. It’s not all about value, but also the labor that went into it. Easy example: city construction projects. A project a city population values more, like renovating a park, may cost less but be more valued by a city while a hazard-pay requiring job that costs more, like sewer repair in a single neighborhood, could cost more but be less valued by the sheer amount required to cover more intensive labor.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I should mention I’m writing all of this within the logic of your original pizza example, which assumes literally how much a person values something in the moment impacts its economic value, which makes no damn sense lol. The first piece of pizza is objectively just as valuable as the first because one individuals immediate desires don’t meaningfully impact the overall market value of a product.

2

Anonymous #3 3w

You’re only making my point with your Xbox example. The value of an xbox is not objective, people tend to value essentials more when they are struggling.

0

Anonymous #3 3w

The amount of labor does not determine value. You wouldn’t pay more for someone to dig a hole if they did it with a spoon.

0

Anonymous #3 3w

You’re once again confusing price with value. Yes, the way one person values a good has little impact on the *price*

0

Anonymous OP 3w

The value of an Xbox is fueled by objective metrics such as the scarcity of objects and the hours of labor that go into producing it. It is also fueled by the amount of public demand for the product and therefore how much the consumer base as a whole values it, as shown by sales. I have no idea what you’re acting like only one of these factors has an impact just to stick it to Marx lol, this is a simple concept

1

Anonymous #3 3w

By objects I mean resources.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I hope that example points out how both literal market value and subjective value from a customer base influences a products worth because you seem incredibly misguided on basic economics lpl

1

Anonymous #3 3w

You keep confusing value with price. The value of an xbox has nothing to do with how many labor hours went into it. Do you know anyone who even tried to obtain that information before buying a gaming console?

0

Anonymous #3 3w

https://profwurzer.com/cost-price-and-value/?utm_source=perplexity

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Yes! The producers who manufactured the thing and priced it as such partly based on the amount of labor required to produce a unit. There are so many examples of services where the labor required influences prices, it’s incredibly silly to pretend like it’s not a factor lmao. Key example: medical care. Your insurance will pay a neurosurgeon far more for a procedure than for getting an X-Ray. That x-ray machine may cost far more in resources to run, but the neurosurgery is more expensive…

1

Anonymous #3 3w

…purely based on the intensive labor required for it. Whether the neurosurgery removed a benign tumor or the X-Ray identified a cancerous one could influence how much a patient values getting the procedure done, but the objective prive of the procedure and therefore its tangible value stays the same

1

Anonymous #3 3w

My point is that both subjective value and objective factors like labor and scarcity all play a role in the economy, not just one. I have no idea why you’re pretending like goods and services function primarily off of value when both factors require being taken into account lol

1

Anonymous #3 3w

My only point is that value is subjective and is not determined by labor input. It’s amazing how you’re still confusing value with price.

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Oh okay, so you’ve just been confused about what labor theory of value means lmao. Labor theory of value does not relate to a subjective value of a product but its literal exchange value, aka what it trades for, aka PRICE. It does not take subjectivity into account whatsoever. You and I may view subjective value as a core principle of economics, but that doesn’t mean you can’t build a system around it. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here other than that our economy functions…

1

Anonymous #3 3w

…one way while one based on Marxism would function another way. Value isn’t inherently subjective or inherently determined by labor exclusively depending on the economic system you’re operating in. I agree with one of those far more than the other but like, there is no inherent coverall scenario where value is subjective.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

When I buy a slice of pizza I do so because I value the pizza more than my money. The pizza shop values my money more than the pizza. There is no objective exchange value. If there was, exchanges would not happen.

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Yes, in a free market capitalist economy. That exchange functions differently in a communist system. Again, while I agree with one far more than the other, your scenario is not the only way an exchange of goods operates or has operated on planet earth lol

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Thats how voluntary exchange functions in every economy. Exchanges are not made unless you get something you value more out of it.

0

Anonymous OP 3w

Not under a communist system. There, a pizza’s value was based on its usefulness and the labor that produced it, not its subjective value. If one pizza place and another sell the same kind of slice but one took significantly manpower to create it, the latter would be valued more under communist thought because a human being spent more effort creating it by hand, even if the products taste the same.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

You can argue that this system robs craftsmen of their Individuality and expression, and I would agree with you there, but that doesn’t mean that system can’t be put in place and function. I don’t want it, but a market in which subjective value doesn’t play a role or plays a very minimal role can exist.

1