"Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B17754EA5655mpubliusnospamcomcas@69.16.185.247...>> Could you name me a good or service that doesn't require labour. Can
>> you point to an example of capital that didn't require labour?
>
> We're not arguing about whether production of goods requires labor. We're
> arguing about whether the market value of a good is due, entirely or in
> major part, to the labor invested in it.
>
> But yes, goods can have a market value even if no labor is invested in
> them. E.g., a diamond-laden meteorite which lands in my back yard. Or do
> you hold that its value is due to the effort I exert in picking it up and
> carrying it to a gem dealer?
------------------------------------------------------
I'd hold that you might get some money for it, but the market value of
finished stones will differ from the price you get. In essence the buyer
values the labour put into the finished stone. If they didn't they'd but the
unfinished stone for a lesser price. Or do you hold that a raw diamond
doesn't cost significantly less than a finished diamond?
---------------------------------------------------------
>
>>> If it becomes difficult or impossible to continue to produce that
>>> good, for
>>> any reason, then the market value may rise far above that minimum. It
>>> may also be set far above that minimum by its producers because it
>>> has no effective competition (only a Lambourghini is a Lambourgini).
>>> When either of those conditions obtain, the amount of labor invested
>>> becomes irrelevant
>>> to the market price.
>
>> Not really. It becomes less of a factor, but its cost is still there.
>> Whenever you buy a good or service you are paying for the labour and
>> resources that went into it. Granted some items can be marked up
>> rediculously and people still buy it. Bottled water is a good example.
>
> No one is denying that labor is a cost factor. What is being denied is
> that
> it is the major determinant of market value.
----------------------
You did above. You claimed it had little or no influence.
----------------------
>
>>> Moreover, the "cost of labor" is a misnomer. One does not pay --- or
>>> does not pay very much --- for the human physical effort exerted in
>>> producing a product (as your carpenter example shows). One pays for
>>> the intelligence and skill with which those physical exertions are
>>> deployed. The "labor theory of value" should be called the
>>> "intelligence and skills" theory of value. Then we can account for
>>> the widely variable rates paid for the human
>>> contributions to the production of goods, and rid ourselves of the
>>> misleading connotations of Marx's "socially nececessary,
>>> undifferentiated labor time."
>
>> Ahh, I see, you don't think intelligence and skill are labour, but
>> they are. It's really simple, there are three basic factors of
>> production: land, labour, and capital.
>
> That is indeed the 18th century analysis of production factors, when
> "labor" referred to human draft animals who pulled oars and plows, swung
> hammers and shovels, toted barges and lifted bales. You should read some
> more modern stuff, e.g., Paul Romer. The real factors are natural
> materials, knowledge and imagination, and capital. Labor is a minor
> component.
>
-------------------------------------
The books I read on the subject were written in the late 1980's. What
meaningfully changes by pulling knowledge and imagination out of labour?
Without labour there would be no finished good, no service. The consumer
realizes that or doesn't. But at bottom when the consumer gives money for
the good the labour component is in there. And it's just as important as the
land and capital, despite its varying cost.
