No.1830751
>>1830748That's like saying creating cars is destroying value because that steel could be turned into way more bicycles.
No.1830752
>>1830751Please stop giving me ideas, I like cars.
No.1830754
>>1830752Well, I like junk food. I can barely cook due to autism and other mental retardation, if it weren't for junk food I would die of starvation.
No.1830757
Snacks are ok every once in a while. There are also healthier options like unsalted nuts and fruits and berries.
>>1830754You can buy healthy food at the store that's either cooked or not and you can eat it without needing to do any work. The shelves at the store have more than just dorritos you know.
No.1830768
That's not how anything works.
No.1830769
have you even read marx
No.1830780
>>1830757I also have ARFID.
No.1830783
OP I appreciate what you're trying to do but you are fundamentally misunderstanding "value" by conflating use-value and exchange-value. No matter what you do to a product, whether it makes it good or bad, that puts more labor into it, increasing the exchange value. Use-value on the other hand isn't really measurable because it's subjective - it's either there or it's not. If you want to talk about the degradation of a product's quality, you need to do it in other terms. "Enshittification" is a popular one these days.
No.1830811
>>1830751the difference is that the steel isn't already a bicycle. A tomato is already edible before it is turned into ketchup. The labor process is robbing it of nutrients and making it less healthy. The act of boiling a pepper for example strips it of its antioxidants. It is better nutritionally to just eat it as a whole food. Steel is just steel until it is made into a bicycle or a car. Even if you find the bicycles to be a more valuable use of the steel than a car, labor still needs to be done to transform the steel into the bicycles. It's different when whole foods lose nutrition during processing.
No.1830813
>>1830754uncooked whole foods are better for you. You don't need to cook. Just eat a salad.
No.1830832
>>1830748The added value comes from the qualitative change in taste which makes it addictive. Value isn't about good or bad, but starts with satisfying needs or
wants, from the moment a product have a tiny bit of that use value, then value can be poured into it with labor
No.1831417
>>1830748Use value is not exchange value
No.1831419
>>1830811>>1830813You can't eat raw grain or potatoes so how is it relevant to junk food?
No.1831422
>>1830751A better analogy is raw steel vs even the shittiest car. Obviously even the shittiest car provides more use value then raw steel.
No.1831426
>>1830813No I can't :( I only eat a few safe foods
No.1831588
>>1830780is that a real thing, it sounds very fake. i dont want to sound like an insensitive boomer but how is that not a "get over it" type deal
No.1831606
>>1831422What OP is talking about would be more analogous to shitty car mods that take a lot of effort to do but make the car worse. Whole foods by definition are already edible. You don't have to alter them to make them serve their purpose as food better. Most of the value-added stuff in food production relates to making the product either more shelf-stable or more appealing as a commodity. The additives like coloring and flavoring make people want to eat it more. The processing that removes the "impurities" helps keep the food from going bad for longer, since the more nutritious parts removed (like the bran in grains removed to make the flour) also spoils fastest. There is a use-value to these alterations, just not from the perspective of public health.
No.1831609
>>1831588I dunno in the same way as any other mental illness is 'get over it'?
No.1831618
>>1831588>i dont want to sound like an insensitive boomer but how is that not a "get over it" type dealthis is gonna blow your mind but if you could just "get over it" then it wouldn't be a mental illness
No.1832411
>>1830748>the manufacturing processes whereby whole foods are converted into junk foods is not a "value added" process like most manufacturing processes.Value as a concept is a property of the economic system itself. In capitalism, if turning something + labour into a different commodity makes profit, it adds value.
>I can think of no other area in the economy that functions this way.Landlords
Telemarketers
Privatising of nature reserves and charging an entry fee (a form of landlordism)
Making designer clothes made to break
Most of the commercial operating system and computer industry that intentionally slows down your pc when it gets old
The entire office printer technology
Basically any form of planned obsolescence
The economy is full of things that have much larger obvious objective negative impacts compared to its earlier "primitive" forms than fast food, as fast food is just tasty and enjoyable even if it is basically designerdrugs.
No.1832416
>>1831606He's talking about junk foods. Made out of raw potatoes and grain, which are inedible before they're prepared into "junk food."
No.1832456
>>1832416You can just cook potatoes and then they're good to eat though. You don't have to do any special processing. Grains have to at least be milled into flour, but you can do that with whole grains, and the flour is edible. Some grains are pretty much edible without processing like oats.
>>1832419You can just cook corn and it's ok to eat, although it's an unusual case because it actually requires special processing to make most of the nutrition bioavailable. Settlers didn't know this and often suffered malnutrition because they killed the native Americans before they could teach them how to properly prepare the maize. But that's still a whole different thing from the way corn is processed to make junk food (mostly into corn syrup).
>>1832418Whole grains are much better for you than the ones that are stripped down to the starch.
No.1832461
Junk food actually has the most calories, so it has the most use-value
No.1832465
>>1832461Well raw pasta/etc usually has more calories than junk food per dollar
No.1832469
>>1832456Ok. All you're arguing is that you could start with the same materials, do your own labor, and then end up with a better finished product. But that's potentially true for any finished product and that in no way means that value is subtracted just because you think the finished product is worse than you would've made from the same materials.
No.1832481
>>1832461calories are only useful for maintaining a healthy wait. Too many calories and you become obese. Use values are only useful to a reasonable extent.
No.1832500
>>1832469I didn't say any value was subtracted. I'm not OP. OP misunderstands how value works. I'm this poster
>>1830783The fact that junk food is worse isn't the same as saying it's less valuable. The only reason it has less value than some artisinal food is because economy of scale. There's more labor per pound of some hipster bread than the mass produced bread in a grocery store, but that's not because it's
better, just the way production differs. The fact that that bread might in some cases be better for you is incidental really - you could just as well mass-produce very healthy bread, but corporations just prefer not to do that for various reasons.
No.1832509
>>1832500You're comparing raw ingredients to a ready to be consumed product. The raw ingredients provide no utility without the means to cook them. Comparing raw materials that must be worked upon to get an end product can't be compared to an end product.
No.1832530
>>1832509It depends on the food. Grains usually require some processing, but fruit and vegetables can just be eaten as they are.
No.1832580
>>1830783>that puts more labor into it, increasing the exchange value.OP here, I thought it was labour power (the commodity that the worker sells) and not labour itself that gives things value
No.1832585
>>1831417Right but we all know that the labor power has to be useful in order to create a commodity with exchange value. That's why there is no socially necessary labor time in creating mud pies. So why is the exchange value going up with junk food when the labor power is making a commodity that is less useful than its whole food constituents?
No.1832587
>>1831606>. Most of the value-added stuff in food production relates to making the product either more shelf-stable or more appealing as a commodity. The additives like coloring and flavoring make people want to eat it more. The processing that removes the "impurities" helps keep the food from going bad for longer, since the more nutritious parts removed (like the bran in grains removed to make the flour) also spoils fastest. There is a use-value to these alterations, just not from the perspective of public health.OP here. Thank you. this is a good answer.
Unique IPs: 19