>>13530546>producers could keep lowering the price until it hit zero because labor time is irrelevant Yes they can and they do. Again in April 2020 the price of an oil barrel was ZERO.
Oil producers were willing to give you an oil barrel for free. This is because demand collapsed utterly and they had excess stocks that cost them millions each day to store.
Market model explains this. Marxist creationism does not.
>Which would be a price loosely corresponding to the value of labor put into the product.No.
>The producers are not going to sell less than what it costs to make. Yes. No matter how much you repeat this it doesn't make it true.
>So what you're left with is the real price of the product because supply and demand have been canceled out. There is no "real price" of a product.
Each producer and consumer gives a different subjective value to a product. The aggregate of these values, which changes over time, is the market price.
>Supply and demand fails to distinguish the price between different types of products No it doesn't, microeconomics is the science that studies this phenomenon, what you describe is called monopolistic competition, each brand has its own small niche market which competes with other niche markets, a Nike shoe being different from an Adiddas, and so on... you are just clueless that's all. The more you type the more you give away the fact that you never took a single econ class.
>>13530558>That's what I said. When supply and demand cancel out you get the actual price which is determined by the amount of labor used to produce the productNo, see above
>Supply and demand is an outdated modelMarxism is outdated by 150 years of capitalist success and unprecedented prosperity in the face of its inane predictions that it would all collapse
>This is a rare circumstance Too bad I can think dozens of examples like this, see above
>its natural price cannot be zero.It can and will one day when it becomes obsolete, like the diskette
