DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Bill-Watson** · 07-05-2007, 08:01 PM

However, if you are deciding to make a product, you must consider your costs which will include labour time. If you are making product A, which takes 100 hours, and product B which takes 10 hours, product A has more something in it than product B. In Marxist economics, this something represents value, and while it might not tell us anything about how much someone wants to pay for it, it does tell us something about its intrinsic worth from a production point of view. How much a product cost to make has no relevance what so ever to me.

What if I suddenly find a way to more efficiently make product A. Does it lower its intristic value?

What if product A took 100 hours to make, and product B took 10 hours to make, but they are the same. The factory of product A has lazier workers or a less efficient way of producing things.

According to your suggestion, the creators of product A should be rewarded, because it cost them more (in terms of labour) to make, even though they are inefficient. Why should I promote that? Why should i care at all?

There is no such thing as objective intristic value.

How much would you pay for a stolen picture of your deceased grandparents? Does it have to do with its intristic value, or does it have to do with your own needs and desires?

The cost of making a thing (it terms of capital or labour) is meaningful to the creator only. This obviously has an effect on the things eventual "cost" to the consumer, because a producer sets a price that will generate profit.

To take an artistic example, if a painter throws a can of paint at a canvas most people will know in their hearts that not much work has gone into it, however much the fashionistas say it is worth. Most people will recognise the intrinsic value of a skillfully-created painting that has taken hundreds of hours. How about this:
person A is very talented and skilled.
It takes him a day to create a beautiful copy of the mona lisa.

person B is a lesser artist.
It takes him a year to create a goofy looking copy of the mona lisa.

Do you think anyone will pay more for person B's copy?

07-05-2007, 08:01 PM	#8
Bill-Watson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	However, if you are deciding to make a product, you must consider your costs which will include labour time. If you are making product A, which takes 100 hours, and product B which takes 10 hours, product A has more something in it than product B. In Marxist economics, this something represents value, and while it might not tell us anything about how much someone wants to pay for it, it does tell us something about its intrinsic worth from a production point of view. How much a product cost to make has no relevance what so ever to me. What if I suddenly find a way to more efficiently make product A. Does it lower its intristic value? What if product A took 100 hours to make, and product B took 10 hours to make, but they are the same. The factory of product A has lazier workers or a less efficient way of producing things. According to your suggestion, the creators of product A should be rewarded, because it cost them more (in terms of labour) to make, even though they are inefficient. Why should I promote that? Why should i care at all? There is no such thing as objective intristic value. How much would you pay for a stolen picture of your deceased grandparents? Does it have to do with its intristic value, or does it have to do with your own needs and desires? The cost of making a thing (it terms of capital or labour) is meaningful to the creator only. This obviously has an effect on the things eventual "cost" to the consumer, because a producer sets a price that will generate profit. To take an artistic example, if a painter throws a can of paint at a canvas most people will know in their hearts that not much work has gone into it, however much the fashionistas say it is worth. Most people will recognise the intrinsic value of a skillfully-created painting that has taken hundreds of hours. How about this: person A is very talented and skilled. It takes him a day to create a beautiful copy of the mona lisa. person B is a lesser artist. It takes him a year to create a goofy looking copy of the mona lisa. Do you think anyone will pay more for person B's copy?
	Quote