If 500 people wanted a car, say, and 500 wanted a bog roll, and supply and demand are exactly the ratio same in both cases, then shouldn't the price of a car and of bog-roll be teh same?
There are several reasons why they are not - one of which you'll like and the others you wont. lets start with the one you like - yes it takes up more labor time to make cars. Now -bog rolls have more easy substitute goods whilst cars are limited to walking for days, horses,trains all of which are very different from the car. Further to this bog rolls dont enhance one's life as much as a car can so you get more utils for a drive (for most people), Cars are important to many people as expresions of individuality, privacy and 'show' as well as a means to travel - Ive never met a person who utilises bog rolls to the same effect, they perform a less interesting role (pun!) That list goes on almost ad infinitum - in most cases you'll be arguing why cars are more desirable to a person than bog rolls and evidencing this with observations of behaviour and people's aspirations (I want to go accross 12 states, carry stuff home, pull a caravan, go miles every day etc etc = car, I want to wipe clean = roll. which one do you think people will give more for?)...
The above statement demonstrates conclusively that the Subjective Theory of Value is certainly SUBJECTIVE.
Indeed, the above statement is absurd.
Without any backup to the above statement this is just more 'please dont take of my blinders' presumptiousness from you.
The 'above statement' is RIDICULOUS.
..What youre saying is just whimsical assertion
I think not.
Is it not YOUR task to prove that the above statement is NOT ridiculous?
Perhaps you could act like I was an idiot and break it down piece by piece and carefully explain ALL of your statement to me.
Perhaps you could enlarge upon the idea of enhancement and interesting roles as they apply to the use-value and / or exchange-value of commodities. How do capitalists measure enhancement and intersting roles when pricing products? Etc., etc.
And when you're finished, perhaps you could then explain to me how 'people's desires are subjective,' as you state here, and then square that with your statement 'desire is objective' here.
Then, for my continuing edification, perhaps you could clear up how---AFTER reading Capital---you maintain that 'profit is gain based upon use-value' and 'machinery is variable capital' as you state here. If you disagree with Marx's two propositions, perhaps you could state why you disagree and what YOUR assessment of use-value and variable capital are.
Or... you could just simply admit that your economic theories are so much dadaist surrealism generated from everest.