Talk:Labor Theory of Value

Capitalisation of title
Should this be in lower case? Most sources don't capitalise "labo(u)r theory of value", e.g. Wikipedia, Britannica, and various academic source (except in situations where all words in titles are capitalised) --Gospatric (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is pretty poor
There are a lot of misconceptions and poor language in this article. Primary sources would be helpful. 23:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theory
The labor theory of value is rejected by the overwhelming majority of economists. The mainstream consensus is that the subjective theory of value holds true. Value is not determined by the labor put into producing a product, but by what people deem the value of that product to be. This is basic economics. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the LTV. Marx and other LTV theorists (like Adam Smith and David Ricardo) readily acknowledge the fact (as Marx does in Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie) that the monetary value of the product is determined by the demand (i.e. a bottle of water will sell for more in the middle of the desert). However, in classical economics, commodities have two values, use value and exchange value. The exchange value is produced solely through the labour put into the production of the commodity/object and is what makes the product the product. When products are exchanged in the market, what really is exchanged is the labour put into the production of these products.
 * While the values of various products may fluctuate and change against each other in the market (which really means that the value of labour put into the production of them fluctuates, for example due to technological innovation speeding up the production of one commodity considerably) the products are always considered commensurable, i.e. one unit of product A can always be measured as x units of product B, and therefore ultimately the labour itself is commensurable. To summarize it: you can only buy labour with labour, exchange value with exchange value. All this boils down to the view of the classical economists (Smith, Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, Frederic Bastiat etc.) that the money is neutral, i.e. the quantity theory of money or the classical dichotomy, and all monetary values are purely fictional. It was only John Maynard Keynes and the Chicago School monetarists who assaulted the assumption that money is neutral. LTV is therefore no fringe theory, it is the basis of the classical economics. JJohannes (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Modlock.
Can you Modlock this article until SH gets their shit together and explains themselves? 00:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I already explained myself. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merely asserting that it's "debunked" and "go read a textbook" is not considered "explaining". This edit did a better job at disputing the content than yours. 01:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW not going to modlock for now. Seems drastic for a short, petty edit war. Yeah, it's best not to edit war.  02:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)