If u got a better one I’m all ears

@Malachi Do you think that the only source of value is the labor of the workers? For example, the person who came up with the idea, person who figured out how to implement it's production in an efficient way, person who organizes distribution, figures out how to direct the company, etc.? I guess what I'm getting at is who is and is not contributing "value" in your schema here? I would say that folks are organizing workers in a way that allows the business to exist profitably is adding considerable value.

It depends on if we mean Use-value or Exchange value.

How do you value an item?

I already answered with my best theory of value

I'm comfortable with the definition of whatever someone is willing to pay for it for now.

that's exchange value

I see. How would you like to define use value for the purposes of this conversation?

I fail to see why it wouldn’t Pply to normal value

a man eating spaghetti would pay more for the only fork in existence, than a man with a burrito.

Am I allowed to charge as much as I want? Or ought there be some maximum?

Nah charge as much as you want

If I made a biollion off of that sale, but only paid 10 bucks for it. Is that moral?

billion

Eventually it’ll be too much and the guy will just eat with his hands

And you’ll get nothing

so your max is defined by the market

And then a competition will come in and undercut you price wise

And so on

"only fork in existence"

There’s still metal

I think I see - you're saying that there's some kind of "usefulness" or practicality, consideration, i.e. a fancy painting might have an insane exchange value, but it's "use value" is likely to be quite low.

Is that right?

Trying to find flaw in a real system using impossible scenarios is cool it’s just not helpful

does the labor have the right to renegotiate their wages as mor spaghetti folks come along?

Rephrase if u don’t mind

I'd also like clarification

Neo liberalism is enthralled with exchange value. Marxism sees use value.

Marxism has always failed, and usually ends in starvation

Sure, but in your folk example above, if it truly was the ony fork in existence, someone clever would come up with some alternative to meet the same need. That's something I think capitalism actually does pretty well.

Is there a departure of labor from profit that in your mind would be immoral?

Specify the example you gave earlier I’m curious

And wym

you're saying making x amount of profit relative to paying workers y? CEOs who make 10000x what the lower workers make?

I actually gotta jump off again. Zoom meeting. Maybe we can pick it back up later?

I should get back to work to haha

Sure

Later all

In a functioning labor market these two lines are suppose to be inseparable.

First off that doesn’t really account with how much more efficient we’ve gotten overall. People working at new machines are more productive than workers of old, but there jobs might be easier therefor making their labor work less