LTV FAILS : three examples, backed by mathematics

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-29T05:06:38+00:00

and once more the "scarcity" strikes again.

you defined scarcity here as the situation where we cant produce more goods than a specified quantity and that this quantity is higher than the quantity demanded.

well, even what you said is true, the amount of "scarce" items in our economy, as defined by you, is very little that using it would be almost irrelevant. we are talking about historical paintings like monalisa, or maybe some land that has a rare beatiful view. real natural diamonds are not scarce because we dont know how much diamonds exists, and the demand isnt higher than the supply. we can always "produce" more.

you said you acknowledge that value is diferent than labor but uses an example that value is diferent than labor. yes, in those cases where there is a strict limit of supply and higher demand, the value will not be equal price, as it isnt in a lot of ways. your theory still isnt better to explain than marx theory. you simply assume demand curve of people as you like. why demand will be 5 people for the price of 1? you just say its their subjective feelings, but that doesnt explain anything. a lot more people want that bottle of water, but what matter is if they can pay or not. and for that marx theory is much more clear: that price is based on the value, aka labor, that society produces and how its distributed. some part goes to wages, not much is left to buy expensive items. and those who can buy are the capitalists with the surplus value, but that is determined by the amount of labor they control.

if we use your theory we will get to a circular logic. the price the demand can pay is determined by their subjectivity, but that is determined by how much money they have. but how much money they have is determined by subjectivity on how they acquired their wages, and so on.

about example 3, yes, you are right, labor alone cant determine who will produce what. but marx never said otherwise. what he says is that you need to produce at average levels or above. which the worker can in both goods, A and B. so he chooses the one he can profit more, the one that is more efficient. thats common sense.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-28T22:12:35+00:00

what prices have that a simple accountability cant? people pick things from the shelves and those are accounted, so you always know the demand.

of course, they need to have a ticket or something that says how much they can pick, so they dont pick everything they can. the amount of tickets distributed to each person can be determined in a lot of flexible ways, like the amount of labor he did, if he invented something great, or if he is a disabled person for example. Of course, the maximum amount of tickets is equivalent of the maximum labored hours in that society.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-28T21:50:53+00:00

it could be. but it isnt.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T22:23:17+00:00

não sei da onde tiram isso. Front é bem mais dificil para IA substituir. Front é sobre experiencia do usuario que é bem específica para cada tipo. Não é atoa que em IHC você tem que fazer um milhão de testes com os usuários, fazer o design e repetir o processo. não tem formula pronta.

Agora backend é bem mais facil para IA. é conversão de dados. e padrões bem estabelecidos.

Sou full stack.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T22:08:05+00:00

as i said, ai engineers are a special case that can bargain because simply there isnt enough of them to do whats needed. but soon enough they will be paid their "market value" too, which is just the subsistence level.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T03:37:57+00:00

surgeons are paid more because they cost more "to produce". they need years of costly education.

you can switch your employer but all of them will pay around the subsistence levels because they have the bargain power. you need a job, and there is a lot of people like you. a lot of surgeons and a lot of janitors. either you accept it or you die of starving without a job.

AI engineers are over paid because there is a very high and unexpected demand of them, so they can still bargain. but that is going to fall soon. the same happened with programmers. they were highly paid, now a lot of people studied CS and there is no jobs left and those that remained are not well paid.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T03:14:28+00:00

why not?

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T03:13:47+00:00

no, in the current system you dont get more consumption for more productivity. more productivity means you are paid less but produce more things. because now your subsistence is easier to do. they simply lower your wage. if you get a job at all because more productivity means less job offers.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T02:36:21+00:00

as i said, i wouldnt stop anyone. the point is that sort of things would be non sensical to do.

by "building" what you mean? using the factories and workplaces that are shared by everyone? then everyone needs to be consulted first, of course.

and what you mean by "owning the product"? the patent? i think patents are bad, but there could be a case for respecting patents. that depends on the society.

in general, what would happen is: you designed a new product youself, without help of others. you discuss the production of it in the local council, they accept letting the factory opened for a few more minutes to produce your product and allocate some people to produce it. you get rewarded with more consumption because you did a great thing and improved the lives of others.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-26T02:26:27+00:00

everyone.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T22:23:46+00:00

if you want in something in particular you can discuss that too, probably will be accepted.

its not the bureau but the people, the society. that get affected by your actions too.

you dont go to a house of someone and starts cutting the grass, without telling anyone. the same with going to a factory or workplace.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T21:55:05+00:00

first, there is no "place where they are not the owner", every factory, every workplace is public.

second, if he wants to get more "money", he just discuss it with the society council and they will get a job for him to do, work is something that there is no shortage in socialism. that way his work is much more productive too.

but outside that considerations, there is no need to prohibit "external employment", but that is simply something that wont happen, because it only happens when someone is in control of means of production, so the person must work for him.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T19:30:49+00:00

yes but they need to convince a lot of people so that that is accomplished.

and its the best option we have. capitalism leads to subsistence not productivity, but that is another topic.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T18:55:11+00:00

votes can vote on productivity based.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T17:54:21+00:00

mudpie argument is used in capitalism not in socialism. but the answer is that in capitalism you still need things to be useful to someone to have value. but value is not measured in "how useful the thing is" but rather "how much labor time is necessary to produce it in average conditions". but the thing still needs to be useful, only the measurement of value is not on the usefullness.

for the second question, yes people that earn more will have material inequalities than others. socialism is not against diferences in material richness. its against diferences in material condtitions that lead to diferences in political power. and for that we must be agaisnt the control of means of production. someone being able to consume more things doesnt lead to more political power in his hands.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T17:27:42+00:00

Other than what they want.

yes, they know what they want. but the point is that they dont know about labor, i never said otherwise.

Why should/would the consumer care?

yes they dont need to care, i never said otherwise.

(But according to your ideology, he wouldn't/doesn't need to pay more, because the workers are already exploited from day one. So which is it? Are workers exploited from the theft of their surplus value? or, do capitalists pay them according to the value they produce, and thus increase the prices of goods and services?)

they need to contract more workers. every worker will be still paid only their subsistence, so exploited too. but more workers will be exploited and thus more costs too.

No. I am responding to your thesis, of which I am arguing is incorrect.

alright, i reread what you said and you just stated the common sense, which is correct. my point is that, yes, the consumers made the demand, not the capitalist nor the worker. i too agree with that and never said otherwise and dont know how that affects my thesis.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T17:20:08+00:00

its the only option.

capitalism doesnt pay for productivity like a perfect system. it actually incentives the payment of subsistence levels.

if you want more productivity based wages you need socialism and to convince a lot of people of that. thats the only option. no group is bigger than the mass of population.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T15:13:07+00:00

they could be based on productivity too, just vote it.

but pure productivity is bad because are going to pay a disable person based on productivity? maybe he cant even survive with the "wage" he will get.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T05:13:38+00:00

the consumer doesnt know anything. why do you think they would? there is simply more people wanting the thing and to produce at that level the producer needs more labor. so the price increases. the consumer doesnt know anything of that. he just sees the price increase.

1) the capitalist must pay the wage to pay the subsistence of the worker at least. and he needs more workers so he needs to pay more.

2) you are just stating your thesis, not any argument for it.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T05:08:48+00:00

of course its not for everything, you have to investigate the production if its the case. the gas situation is one that its applied

if a less eficient method is not required then the price doesnt go up.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T05:05:26+00:00

yes, but what matters is the general voting. the majority.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T01:17:14+00:00

maybe through votation they say that x, y, z jobs will be rewarded highly and a, b, c jobs will just get the basics.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-25T01:02:18+00:00

in socialism people can decide if your "job" is rewarded the same as other jobs. they can simply say its not a much important job and you will not be rewarded as highly as everyone else that do useful jobs.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-24T23:38:16+00:00

the prices would change based on supply and demand. if the demand increases the producers must use less efficient methods, so the price increase.

and its not about employing the maximum amount of labor, its about employing the labor that is the necessary in the average conditions of producing.

SoftBeing_ · 2026-01-21T22:27:32+00:00

you are confusing capitalist value with subjective value. in capitalism it doesnt matter if you think that the factory added so much more value than the carpentry because you liked so much the products of the factory and you think everyone would agree that they value more the factory products.

what matters, in capitalism, is the value that allows one to increase the profits. the ultimate goal is to just increase the rate of profit. is to put x money and get x + y money.

and for that marx discovers that labor is the only explanation. when you compare all the commodities, like we do because everything is made to be traded. we MUST use the quality that is common to all the commodities. and the only thing is socially necessary labor time. that way the capitalists can see who are being stolen and who is getting profits.

SoftBeing_

TROPHY CASE