Life every day refutes Marx's labor theory of value (it is mostly known by this name).
It is refuted in stores, agricultural markets, bazaars, auctions, and online ad sites – People participate in sales, are attracted by discounts in the price, and trade on the markets and on the Internet, knocking down or raising the price until they finally agree on it.
A kilogram of potatoes from the same field, which took the same amount of labor to grow, will be sold at different points of sale at different prices. Moreover, even at the same point during the day, its price will change, usually falling by the end of the day. �
An apartment of the same size, design and quality of building materials in the capital will be several times more expensive than a similar apartment in the province. Even within the same city, identical apartments will vary in price depending on the area. They may also differ within the same house. Workdays have nothing to do with it.
Why would a Repin painting be several times more expensive than a similarly-sized painting by an obscure artist exhibiting on the Krymsky Val embankment in Moscow? After all, both artists spent approximately equal time and effort on writing. Because it's not the work that matters.
A ton of limestone extracted for the production of cement will be many, many times cheaper than a kilogram of diamonds for the production of diamonds, although in both cases we are talking about rocks compressed by nature over thousands of years, the extraction of which does not differ much in the effort spent.
When you buy chocolates in the store, you are not interested in the number of labor days or labor hours spent on their production – you want sweets for tea. Or maybe you change your mind at the last minute and take a cake – all that matters is how you imagine your evening with sweets.
A company may make the wrong decision –and this, by the way, happens regularly-to produce a product with a lot of working time and other costs, and find that no one needs this product or very few people need it. So what? No amount of work will save you.
The Coca-Cola brand's valuation has doubled in 12 years – from $41 billion in 2006 to $79 billion in 2018. And what does this have to do with working days in an almost fully automated production facility? You can start imitating Coca-Cola, start producing a similar product, and spend about the same amount of labor, but sales will most likely not go up unless you set the price 3-4 times lower, but then you will have to suffer losses. Despite the labor days spent, such a product will not be of value to customers.
In numerous daily purchase and sale operations, both personal and corporate, we regularly encounter a suggestion: buy not one piece, but two, not 1 ton, but 5, not 100 packages, but 300 and the price will be lower. How so, if the number of working days in each unit is the same?
Why is Krasny Oktyabr tastier – and more expensive – than Babaevsky? Because the quality of chocolate is better, and not the number of working days is different – it is about the same.
Why is even a small Mercedes more expensive than a Lada? After all, labor-days for one” Merc ” takes exactly no more.
The answer to these and thousands of similar questions for any product group is the same: the labor spent on the production of a particular product does not play a special role in the price of the product. The price of a product is not determined by the amount of labor expended – it occupies a relatively small place in the price of the product. Although there are exceptions: the lawyer's fee is almost entirely made up of the lawyer's salary, as well as, for example, the fee of a tutor at home.
A product (or service) represents a certain value for us, for which we are willing to pay and exchange what we currently need the least (the corresponding amount of money) for what we need the most (this product or service). There is always not enough money for everything, so we choose. And we are not interested in any other people's work.
By making similar choices every day, we distribute cash flow and reward those industries and companies that provide us with the necessary values, and ignore others that are most likely to become unprofitable, although they may have the quantity and quality of labor no worse than in successful enterprises.
The price of a product or service does not consist of working days-it is formed in the buyer's head.
Let's look at this topic from the other side – from the production side, from the inside.
The employee is offered compensation for work – salary. A contract is concluded that determines the amount of salary, working conditions, recreation, and so on. If you believe Marx, then there is still a certain amount associated with this s/pl, which the employer allegedly appropriates for himself. But this means that the employer must somehow take this amount into account, fix it somewhere, otherwise he will not know how much to add to himself later. Records should be kept, but nothing like this exists at any enterprise in the world, at any place of work. How do employers not get confused? Yes, in no way, because there is no such accounting item, and there are no mythical labor costs that this accounting should reflect. All labor costs are reflected in the salary.
Zpl is taken into account in the cost of any product or service, taxes and deductions to state funds are paid from it.
Neither Marx nor any of his followers were ever able to calculate the percentage of the second part of the salary allegedly retained by the entrepreneur. But this should not be difficult, since we are talking about numbers. Marx, on the other hand, is a materialist, and he speaks of material expenditures, but he cannot calculate them. Why did these costs turn out to be illusory? Because they don't exist in nature.
Marx and his associates were never able to calculate the “fair” remuneration – the amount needed to “restore the labor force”, although we are also talking about very specific things and figures, for example, 2 coats for 2 years, 1 hat for 3 years, 2 pairs of shoes for 1 year, 1 umbrella for 3 years, 2 tomatoes a day, half a loaf of bread a day, 1 entrecote a day, 1/17 tube of toothpaste a day, 2 tea bags a day, 2 liters of water a day, 100 rubles/day for travel, etc.
How many rolls of toilet paper are there? What if the employee is a vegetarian and doesn't eat meat? And the car? What if the umbrella breaks in 3 days? And if you want leaf tea instead of tea bags? What if the child suddenly demanded a toy? And if the wife demands a fur coat? And what about those who do not have a wife and children – they should receive less family money? But after all, their labor costs are the same as those with a family.
Marx does not answer these questions, does not calculate anything, and does not even want to attempt to show what it might look like.
Marx simply states: stolen, but doesn't bother to prove it.
Marx did not invent the theory of labor value himself – he borrowed it from A. Smith. This mistake is excusable for the Scot, who came to this conclusion, which is far from the most important in his reasoning, against the background of a still predominantly agricultural economy, when many, especially on farms, worked for themselves. In addition, his father raised him in the Calvinist spirit, when work is given special importance. Smith didn't even bother to prove the theory. But Smith's theory didn't get him very far, whereas Marx 100 years later, when the economy had already changed, when justifications for price, as well as supply and demand, appeared, deduced from the obviously false theory the need for revolution and social violence in general, which in Russia turned into mass repressions, fought against the class enemies identified by Marx.
Life every day refutes Marx's labor theory of value (it is mostly known by this name).
It is refuted in stores, agricultural markets, bazaars, auctions, and online ad sites – People participate in sales, are attracted by discounts in the price, and trade on the markets and on the Internet, knocking down or raising the price until they finally agree on it.
A kilogram of potatoes from the same field, which took the same amount of labor to grow, will be sold at different points of sale at different prices. Moreover, even at the same point during the day, its price will change, usually falling by the end of the day. �
An apartment of the same size, design and quality of building materials in the capital will be several times more expensive than a similar apartment in the province. Even within the same city, identical apartments will vary in price depending on the area. They may also differ within the same house. Workdays have nothing to do with it.
Why would a Repin painting be several times more expensive than a similarly-sized painting by an obscure artist exhibiting on the Krymsky Val embankment in Moscow? After all, both artists spent approximately equal time and effort on writing. Because it's not the work that matters.
A ton of limestone extracted for the production of cement will be many, many times cheaper than a kilogram of diamonds for the production of diamonds, although in both cases we are talking about rocks compressed by nature over thousands of years, the extraction of which does not differ much in the effort spent.
When you buy chocolates in the store, you are not interested in the number of labor days or labor hours spent on their production – you want sweets for tea. Or maybe you change your mind at the last minute and take a cake – all that matters is how you imagine your evening with sweets.
A company may make the wrong decision –and this, by the way, happens regularly-to produce a product with a lot of working time and other costs, and find that no one needs this product or very few people need it. So what? No amount of work will save you.
The Coca-Cola brand's valuation has doubled in 12 years – from $41 billion in 2006 to $79 billion in 2018. And what does this have to do with working days in an almost fully automated production facility? You can start imitating Coca-Cola, start producing a similar product, and spend about the same amount of labor, but sales will most likely not go up unless you set the price 3-4 times lower, but then you will have to suffer losses. Despite the labor days spent, such a product will not be of value to customers.
In numerous daily purchase and sale operations, both personal and corporate, we regularly encounter a suggestion: buy not one piece, but two, not 1 ton, but 5, not 100 packages, but 300 and the price will be lower. How so, if the number of working days in each unit is the same?
Why is Krasny Oktyabr tastier – and more expensive – than Babaevsky? Because the quality of chocolate is better, and not the number of working days is different – it is about the same.
Why is even a small Mercedes more expensive than a Lada? After all, labor-days for one” Merc ” takes exactly no more.
The answer to these and thousands of similar questions for any product group is the same: the labor spent on the production of a particular product does not play a special role in the price of the product. The price of a product is not determined by the amount of labor expended – it occupies a relatively small place in the price of the product. Although there are exceptions: the lawyer's fee is almost entirely made up of the lawyer's salary, as well as, for example, the fee of a tutor at home.
A product (or service) represents a certain value for us, for which we are willing to pay and exchange what we currently need the least (the corresponding amount of money) for what we need the most (this product or service). There is always not enough money for everything, so we choose. And we are not interested in any other people's work.
By making similar choices every day, we distribute cash flow and reward those industries and companies that provide us with the necessary values, and ignore others that are most likely to become unprofitable, although they may have the quantity and quality of labor no worse than in successful enterprises.
The price of a product or service does not consist of working days-it is formed in the buyer's head.
Let's look at this topic from the other side – from the production side, from the inside.
The employee is offered compensation for work – salary. A contract is concluded that determines the amount of salary, working conditions, recreation, and so on. If you believe Marx, then there is still a certain amount associated with this s/pl, which the employer allegedly appropriates for himself. But this means that the employer must somehow take this amount into account, fix it somewhere, otherwise he will not know how much to add to himself later. Records should be kept, but nothing like this exists at any enterprise in the world, at any place of work. How do employers not get confused? Yes, in no way, because there is no such accounting item, and there are no mythical labor costs that this accounting should reflect. All labor costs are reflected in the salary.
Zpl is taken into account in the cost of any product or service, taxes and deductions to state funds are paid from it.
Neither Marx nor any of his followers were ever able to calculate the percentage of the second part of the salary allegedly retained by the entrepreneur. But this should not be difficult, since we are talking about numbers. Marx, on the other hand, is a materialist, and he speaks of material expenditures, but he cannot calculate them. Why did these costs turn out to be illusory? Because they don't exist in nature.
Marx and his associates were never able to calculate the “fair” remuneration – the amount needed to “restore the labor force”, although we are also talking about very specific things and figures, for example, 2 coats for 2 years, 1 hat for 3 years, 2 pairs of shoes for 1 year, 1 umbrella for 3 years, 2 tomatoes a day, half a loaf of bread a day, 1 entrecote a day, 1/17 tube of toothpaste a day, 2 tea bags a day, 2 liters of water a day, 100 rubles/day for travel, etc.
How many rolls of toilet paper are there? What if the employee is a vegetarian and doesn't eat meat? And the car? What if the umbrella breaks in 3 days? And if you want leaf tea instead of tea bags? What if the child suddenly demanded a toy? And if the wife demands a fur coat? And what about those who do not have a wife and children – they should receive less family money? But after all, their labor costs are the same as those with a family.
Marx does not answer these questions, does not calculate anything, and does not even want to attempt to show what it might look like.
Marx simply states: stolen, but doesn't bother to prove it.
Marx did not invent the theory of labor value himself – he borrowed it from A. Smith. This mistake is excusable for the Scot, who came to this conclusion, which is far from the most important in his reasoning, against the background of a still predominantly agricultural economy, when many, especially on farms, worked for themselves. In addition, his father raised him in the Calvinist spirit, when work is given special importance. Smith didn't even bother to prove the theory. But Smith's theory didn't get him very far, whereas Marx 100 years later, when the economy had already changed, when justifications for price, as well as supply and demand, appeared, deduced from the obviously false theory the need for revolution and social violence in general, which in Russia turned into mass repressions, fought against the class enemies identified by Marx.