Originally Posted by
scott967
Bike builder Jones works a 40 hour week, does all his welding/brazing/painting by hand and turns out one bike a week which he sells for $1,000.
Bike builder Smith buys $200k in automated tooling. Working the same 40 hour week Smith turns out 5 bikes. By that labor theory, Smith's bikes should sell for $200. Great for the consumer.
In the Labor Theory of Value, the $200k in capital (and also any raw materials such as steel going into the bike frame) represents "embodied" labor, i.e. indirect labor input. So, your example does not conform to the theory you're using.
Originally Posted by
scott967
But why should Smith buy or finance his $200k investment in tooling? That investment has a real cost but Smith gets the same pay as Jones.
So you say the solution is have the state buy the $200k tooling and give it to Smith (or maybe Jones depending on whom is favored) then both Smith and Jones are happy, right? And there isn't any cost if the state buys the tooling, right?
Literally no one said that. And let's not get into the fantasy that it would take $200k of capital to build five bikes per week.
