" 
 == Economizer's new edits == 

 quoting yoru new section “This contrasts with the subjective theory of value as an explanation for differing prices of goods, which says that value is determined by a good's ability to satisfy a want and its scarcity.” Ricardo himself discusses this verry topic (scarcity and desire in shaping exchange-value) in the his “Principles”. So again you're erecting a strawman artilce so that you can contrast it with your original research (which is only original in that it plagarizes Ricardo and then uses him as the strawman against which your article is contrasted).   
 :I noted that Ricardo found exceptions to his labor theory of value. But, he did not abandon it in favor of the subjective theory. The labor theory clearly cannot explain exchange value, the adherents to the labor theory tried for a long time. By the way, now you're getting nasty again, by claiming I'm plagiarizing Ricardo.   

 :: We're not talking about exceptions to his labor theory of value. We're talking about his theory of exchange-value where he always sees exchange-value influenced by value along with scarcity and desire for a commodity. He doesn't use the term LTV nor does he use the term subjectivist, because those terms are contemporary terms. But the contrast you make is completely contrived. You provide no supporting evidence from Ricardo that supports anything you say about his theory of exchange-value. BTW, are you saying that for the subjectivist theory, production conditions do not effect exchange-value. Because then I could see the contrast. But you should probably just contrast it with contemporary neoclassical economic theory that more people are familiar with, because neoclassical theory (like Ricardo) holds that both production conditions and scracity effect exchange-value. And you've gotten nasty by claiming an article that carfeully cites sources is original research while working on an article that cites no sources whatsoever (the subjectivist theory of value)   

 :::Saying that I think you're engaging in ""original research"" is not accusing you of doing anything malicious or dishonest. It just means that I think you're drawing your own conclusions from things instead of referencing sources that draw those conclusions. I could be right or I could be wrong. Your statements may be referenceble or they may not be. If they're not referenceable than they shouldn't be here. I don't doubt that you're doing your honest best to try to interpret correctly. Don't accuse me of ""plagiarizing."" Plagiarizing means taking someone's words and claiming them as my own. If you think the subjective theory of value article is original research, then by all means put some tags up so we can verify things. This is how Wikipedia articles are improved. Please work with the process. Above all, don't think that the article will ever be stable even if a consensus is reached, because new people are always coming in and a new consensus has to be reached. If you worked on the ariticle before and got it the way you wanted it, great. But everything in this article will be erased and redone in another way over and over and over. It's very sysiphian. I look it more as a learning experience than anything else. If all my work is destroyed in time, and it will just as yours will, I really don't care.   

 :::: It's not my work per se that I'm trying to proect. I understand how wikipedia works. However, this article and many artciles related to this are subject to very hoaky edits like the ones you've been trying to make. People want the LTV to be a certain strawman theory so that they can knowck it down. They  have countless obsscure authors no one haw ever heard of to cite. Or they cite reputable suthors but construe them in ways that are entirely unsupportable (your quotation of the very first heading in Ricardo's ‘Principles’ comes to mind). Besides that heading, there's very little in the chapter that supports the ridiculous strawman position you accuse Ricardo of. The whole thing degrades the Wiki experience (for editors/contributors and readers alike). So I don't care much that my work is sacred or that my prose should not be touched. But this is an article I care to see held to decent academic standards. Whereas many people (who think the LTV is anacrhonistic) want to the article to serve some auxillary purpose. 

 :::: So I welcome honest contributions from those who've read primary and secondary sources on the LTV. And I welcome contributions to the criticism section from those critical of the theory (those I'm less familiar with). But I don't support the view that the critics should be the one defining the theory to make their jobb of criticism easi