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 can not 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