Under the labor theory of value, land should on its own have no value if no useful labor has been put into it yet its exchange value on the market extremely high. How is this contradiction addressed? if it is because the value is offset somewhere else then how can we prove that that is happening? Marginal utility explains this well with from what I understand, fewer assumptions.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.