[codemac]

Exactly, which is why Marx uses the concept of a labor value, use value, and exchange value.

Labor is what's gone in, use is the inherent/intrinsic value in the object, and exchange value is what people will trade in exchange for it. That's a bad summary, and there's a lot more to the dialectic examination of them.

Reading Capital (along with David Harvey's lectures) is worth it if you find these things interesting, it's a deep analysis of markets and capital.

[owlmirror]

It still ignores scarcity and arbitrarily picks one specific limiting resource in the production process as essential. Labor theory of value might be interesting from a philosophical standpoint but really has no practical application when it comes to understanding the market. And it introduces a major can of worms when it presumes stuff like intrinsic value.

[boomboomsubban]

It doesn't ignore scarcity, scarce goods are inherently more labor intensive. And it doesn't presume intrinsic value, the labor necessary is a subjective concept so the value must be as well.

You're probably right about it's use in understanding a capitalist market, Marx spends no shortage of time on how capitalists warp that basic idea.

[fvdessen]

How are scarce goods more labour intensive ? It doesn't take any more labour to make a good wine than a bad one.

[boomboomsubban]

Then why are bad wines made? Making better wine requires more training, more time, better tools, and/or better grapes. All four require more labor.

[alexasmyths]

That has little to do with 'scacity'.

Also - it's entirely possible that you make spectacular wine with the same effort I make bad wine.

They are somehow 'equal' in value?

It's just ridiculous. Labour theory of value just doesn't have a lot of meaning.

[boomboomsubban]

If your example isn't scarcity I don't know what to tell you, if better wine is "scarce" those labors are what is needed to make better wine.

Explain how it is possible, and how the situation does not immediately solve itself with you stopping doing something you hate and are bad at.

As many have pointed out, "value" is subjective. Your terrible wine may be loved by someone. Or you may really enjoy making wine. As wine has zero intrinsic value, it is a luxury good, it's very possible for both wines to be just as valuable.

It has plenty of meaning, it just doesn't explain "profit."

[alexasmyths]

I don't think the 'labour' concept of value has any meaning at all.

Given how much our labour is amplified by machines, energy, machine intelligence, parts, equipment, R&D, support - it's not a very helpful way to think about anything.

It's also very unhelpful when considering prices of IP related things.

You study your whole life to become a great actor, you make a film - it only takes a month. Is it only a 'one month film'? Equivalent to the quality of a newby actor?

Almost everything requires at least some skill ...

[codemac]

It depends -- how would we price things when everything takes 0 labor from humans?

Because I bet the price changes drastically, and that's the labor-value represented in object.