this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
205 points (97.7% liked)
memes
22593 readers
2163 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If trade value is equal to the labor value of something, then how is it that the trade value can fluctuate so much? You emphasize its creation of value, but what of the destruction?
Instead of Pokemon cards, lets use a trend that came and went. The trade value of a Beanie Babies skyrocketed in the mid-to-late nineties. People were using it as an investment vehicle. And then the trade value plummeted. The Beanies themselves, the cloth and the plastic filling, remained unchanged through all of it. If a good is damaged, its value is permanently reduced (sans labor to repair, anyway). If trade value is reduced... doesn't matter. It can go up or down or anything tomorrow. You would claim that process is equal to value derived from labor?
I do. I claim that trade can destroy value, and it can destroy value that is created through labour just as much as it can amplify it. A change in how much people value something can turn productive labour which produces valuable goods into a worthless activity which wastes time.
If tomorrow, people suddenly decide rice is disgusting, repulsive, and not fit for human consumption, that would destroy all the value in rice production equipment, and it would destroy the value of all the rice that has been produced but not consumed. The rice hasn't changed. The nutritional value hasn't changed. But since rice no longer makes people happy, its value is now far less, regardless of how much labour was expanded to produce it.
There is no objective standard for value. Value is inherently subjective. Not even for food. After all, dandelions are edible, but also perfectly worthless because it's simply culturally unacceptable to eat them. Blackberries are another great example. In your area they might be a rare and expensive delicacy. In my region, they grow like weeds and we pay people to remove blackberry vines.
For a similar reason, we could pour as much labour as we want into producing mud cakes, but no matter how much work it was to make them, mud cakes are worthless to everyone and so there is no surplus created by making them. Instead, everyone who expended resources (money, equipment, labour) to make them has incurred an economic loss because the resources were consumed and nothing valuable was received in return.
Suppose we imagine a fantastical world where no one is able to trade, and a second fantastical world where nobody is able to labor.
In the first world, people would still be able to get stuff done, alter their surroundings, and invent new things - they'd just have to do it each for themselves. In the second world, there would be nothing to trade.
How can the process of exchange value be equal to labor value when it can only exist with the prerequisite of labor?
This is non-sequitur. The fact that value derived from labour is required to exist for value derived from trade to be generated does not mean that either category of value is less real.
Labour gets you from 0 to 1. Trade gets you from 1 to 100. Labour generates value by adding to what's available. Trade generates value by multiplying what's available. The observation that zero multiplied by anything is still zero does not invalidate the fact that multiplication is still more powerful than addition. It just means that one cannot exist without the other if you want to have more than zero.
It is not a non-sequitur, I'm arguing against a claim you made;
I think you're overstating trade and downplaying labor here. It's not the trade that's multiplicative, it's labor saving tools that expand what an hour of labor can accomplish. It's why the modern exponential explosion in economic activity correlates to industrialization, and not expanding trade routs.
I don't agree. The explosion in economic activity is not solely because of industrial advances. The global supply chain is extremely well-connected, and it's this system of global trade that is the real oil of the modern economy. There is almost nothing more advanced than a wheelbarrow that can be economically made without involving some aspect of global trade. Sure, industrial advances are part of it, but it's the trade that makes any of the products worth anything.
A machine that can manufacture a million wheelbarrows in one hour produces extremely little value unless those wheelbarrows are traded.
If you want to see what shutting off trade does to a country, take a look at the current happenings of United States.