Does an orange tree growing naturally have less value that one that was planted using human labor?

Does an orange tree growing naturally have less value that one that was planted using human labor?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

social work value for collecting 5 planted oranges: 10 sheckels
but natural tree offers other 5 oranges.

orange value = 1 sheckel each

depends on how you market it. Could go the whole "IT'S ORGANIC NOW PAY ME MORE" route. In the end the value is determined by the buyer.

If people value it more

They have a different cost, but the same value

Its only worth what people will pay for it

>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.

>I don't understand that modern agricultural species were selectively bred over thousands of years
>I'm so retarded that I think there are "wild orange trees"

There are wild orange trees you absolute retard.

I'll take animals eating fruit and shitting out seeds for 200 Lou.

If the analogy used blueberries instead of oranges, would you still use the same shitty arguments?

Seems like you are the retard in this instant since you didn't even understand the question just because it was not perfectly worded.

what is transport costs? refrigeration, etc. you need people to build refrigerators. you need diesel or jet fuel to transport the product. you need skilled drivers or pilots, you need mechanics to upkeep the supply chain.

shit is more complicated than any marxist can dream of and orange trees can't grow everywhere

>hurrdurr I'm entitled to the fruit after thousands of years of development and decades of care of the tree because muh communism

Neither. The value of abything is what you can sell it for. That's the only way it could be, there's no magic book of values anywhere.

no, it has more value, mostly idealistic
but also it would save costs

Oranges have whatever value someone will pay for them regardless of origin

What if nobody wants oranges anymore? What if they're in extremely high demand because of scarcity?

It's almost as if value is subjective.

Someone explain to me how LTV accounts for things produced with low amounts of labor and capital that have high value, and things that are produced with high amounts of labor and have low value.

My History of Econ teacher couldn't do it but maybe Sup Forums can.

...

in marx's day everything was organic. find a better argument.

Naturally growing plants yield not even close to the same amount of product and not even close to the same quality.

Only wild animals eat that crap.

False. Farming had been well developed by then and humans had selectively bred better plants for thousands of years by that time.

you dont know what organic, much less GMO, means lol

no one ever, ever means artificial selection when they discuss organic vs GMO

>BUT ITS LITERALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM IRRADIATING AND DIPPING SEEDS INTO ARSENIC TO MAKE THEM PRODUCE PESTICIDES INTERNALLY!

"scientific skeptics" make me less sad about the upcoming white goy extermination.

Is this the kind of shit they circlejerk over in university philosophy classes?

Artificial selection is literally GMO.

Nuh uh labor theory of value says otherwise

if youre a pedantic little faggot, sure. maybe you should stop being autistic and learn how to into context

>communists
>care so little about human life they debate about fruit

lel

Labor theory of value concerns commodities, and commodities are defined as things produced society-wide with the sole purpose of exchange. So just two trees is not a relevant example, the whole society's activity is pertinent, isolated Robinson Cruseau stories are not within the scope of the theory.

And when you do take into account the entire society, it is so simple that it's almost a truism. The value of a commodity is the *average* man-hours the society has allocated to each instance of it.

So if you somehow came across readily available oranges in nature, in sufficient quantity that the effect on the orange supply in the market would be felt with no additional expenditure of human labour, then the value of *all* oranges would fall, the market won't care about the history of a given particular orange.

Most domesticated crops have undergone hundreds or thousands of generations of selective breeding to improve their quality.

So yes.

FUN FACT: Cabbage, Bok Choy, Brussel Sprouts, Broccoli, Cauliflower, Kohlrabi, Kale, Collard Greens and a number of other crops are all derived from the same species of wild cabbage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea

>*word*
Die.

It's not planting, but the constant maintenance that's the issue.
If the skill of the carer drops, it negatively affects the tree, so you need to incentivise the next generation to train. Just giving them your second-hand tools won't do.

>buying oranges from a tree
What, you gonna pick them yourself and throw some sheckles at the tree branches?

If no one picks them they have no value other than the energy you have spent to pick them.

if no one owns them they are free.
However if someone owns the trees they prevent you from just walking up and picking them yourself, thus forcing you to pay either the owner of the tree for the right to harvest the trees or pay even more for them having been picked by another.

Um. No. Just don't be a god damned retard. Marx lived in a society with plants that were vastly superior to naturally growing plants. Thanks to men.

Idiot.

No, but an orange tree tended by workers who pick the fruit when ripe is worth more than an orange tree with no such arrangement.

>And when you do take into account the entire society, it is so simple that it's almost a truism. The value of a commodity is the *average* man-hours the society has allocated to each instance of it.

That doesn't sound very empirical. It sounds like a truism, which is to say, it might be true incidentally as a result of supply and demand of labor, but it isn't actually a system to calculate value.

you dont even have a fucking point lol

This
A million fucking times

GMOs are good
Organic is bad

this
>projection.txt

What about a machine that creates other machines
whats the value of the machines created by a machine?

Are you without a brain?

Karl Marx isn't even aware that farmed plants have vastly higher yields both in volume and quality than plants that occur without being farmed. Apparently you aren't aware of it either.

>GMO doesn't mean what science and industry understand it to mean, it means something so broad as to encompass every cultivated plant.
I hope you get a tumor from eating produce coated in Roundup®

No you are literally just wrong.

Ask ANY of the people you just referenced they will tell you we have been practicing genetic modification since Mesopotamia.

Are farmed plants different than wild plants? Yes. Extremely. Even "organic" non-wild plants are extremely different than wild plants. Because they' been genetically modified.

The debate is wild vs. farmed

You're just upset about being dumb.

No. The labor theory of value is precisely wrong. Rarity is the objective driver of value and utility is the subjective.

"from all according to their ability, to all according to their need"

I'm in need of an orange bro pls provide it to me

>GMOs are good
>Organic is bad

SHILL

>Rarity is the objective driver of value and utility is the subjective.
Yes and no
Supply and demand has two sides.
Rarity addresses supply but utility is literally demand by a different name

bullshit

GMO is generally understood to be genetical engineering

selective breeding is not understood to be genetical engineering, even though we influence the genes

So you will eat a ruby red grapefruit, an unnatural fusion of two species commingling thousands of different genes, which was still further mutated by exposing it to radiation.
But you won't eat a tomato that has had only one gene added?

only one thats was edible, all modern day orange come from that one mutant tree. Wild orange trees are sour oranges. Like all the avacados in the store are from one tree. the hoss tree from california

according to Marxist Labor Theory, (which is totally rejected by serious economists) the orange tree growing naturally has no value and its oranges should be free

You can't continue to say this and expect it to be true.

For laymen, GMO means man made chemicals.

Scientists understand what genetic modification actually means.

>an orange tree growing naturally have less value that one that was planted using human labor

There's no such thing as an orange tree growing naturally.

The last tree growing naturally was around over 4000 years ago, and did not grow what we know as modern oranges. Modern oranges came about over a 4000+ year process of human planting and cultivation.

Supply and demand establish market value, young grasshopper. I was speaking of actual value.

For example, Oxygen is abundant. There no market demand for it outside of medical and industrial applications--in which cases people will pay and the market will supply. And yet the utility of oxygen is something we all enjoy.

No scarcity means there is no market demand, yet the intrinsic utility remains.