The labor theory of value isn’t that labor creates value. It’s that IF something has value, it’s BECAUSE someone labored on it.

It doesn’t take much imagination to think of things that have value despite requiring little or no labor, or of things that have value despite the labor not being worth the effort, or of things that have no value despite requiring massive labor. We can also think of things that have a variable market value depending on time and place. Does the maximal price of an umbrella during a rainstorm go to the laborer? Does the decreased price of an umbrella get taken from the laborer during a drought when no one will buy at break-even? Or are there other people who are on the hook/take? Ask a worker if they’re willing to give up a guaranteed wage in exchange for variable income that could dip negative. Go ahead. Let me know what they say, and which orifice they tell you to cram your idea.

But beyond these obvious holes in the LTV, the real problem isn’t the theory, but the “shoulds” and “therefores” that come after it and the lack of acknowledgement of the precursors that come before it.

I own a significant pile of wood. (This is a real example.) I didn’t inherit it as Bernie suggests. These “capital” goods cost me thousands of dollars that I had to earn before I could acquire them.

I’m well in the hole on this venture. EVERYONE of the laborers who helped me cut down the trees and mill it into lumber got paid up front, on time, in full.

I’m currently storing this wood in my house, taking up a huge portion of my basement. I’ve had to stack and re-stack this wood several times to let it dry properly without rotting or splitting.

Now you (and Bernie) are telling me that if I deign to pay another laborer a price THEY AGREE TO to help me turn this wood into tables or garden boxes that I’m “exploiting” them? They didn’t help me cut down the trees, or mill them, or stack them, or re-stack them, or joint/plane them, or find buyers for the finished product — but I’m some kind of greedy capitalist for PAYING them to help me make the product? Are you quite serious?

Note that my operation is incredibly simple compared to most business operations. I didn’t have to fund my “capital” goods with massive debt, or paying for absurdly expensive bureaucratic licensing, fees or inspections.

Why am I not surprised that this theory came from someone who eschewed labor at all costs? Have you ever stacked wood? Have you ever tried to run a profitable enterprise? Here are some “shoulds” and “therefores” you can actually use: if you don’t know how a business works, you “should” learn before you sound like a silly billy. When I hear Bernie or Marx or members of their parrot brigade talking about the evils of a guy who owns $10 worth of wood I know they don’t have ANY IDEA what went into that pile of wood, “therefore,” I am utterly unimpressed by their conclusions.