[–] openmind 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I think this fallacy is also often seen in the "intrinsic" currency argument. Some people don't realize that value is completely subjective. Therefore different people will value the same things at different prices. Values are subjective so nothing has intrinsic value.
But such a statement is being strict with semantics. Often people will recognize that certain things have intrinsic utility. This is valid as it simply conveys that different things are suited to certain applications e.g. a hammer is good for hitting a nail. But again intrinsic utility doesn't necessarily mean value follows.
[–] TeardropsFromHell [S] ago
Utility however can change with time. A hammer has utility for hitting a nail but what if all nails became self-hitting and did not then need a hammer? It would maintain the utility but lose all value.
[–] idrinkamp 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Not to mention that the labor theory of value does not account for technological or methodological advancements in production.
If in year 1 a car costs z price, and requires x amount of labor hours, then in year 2 they develop a new manufacturing procedure that cuts labor hours down significantly, the price will not necessarily drop (at least not completely comparative to the decreased labor cost). This is because while the labor cost in (capital and hours) has dropped, the value of the car has not diminished.