This is a pretty confusing sentence, but assuming that everything after the comma is what you now regard to be true (and not a summary of your former mistake), we agree. That’s pretty much exactly a rewording of what I have said.
No, I don’t see why supply has to go up for prices to fall. The same number of cabbages could be consumed before and after the invention of the tractor and prices would still have gone down. Supply generally increases to meet increased demand when a product becomes much cheaper, but the first step was for the product to become cheaper–the first step was the new process that made the thing easier to produce (made production less labor-intensive).
Please don’t reply to posts you didn’t read/comprehend, you waste both of our time when you do so. Go back and read/comprehend the short paragraph I just wrote about the terms “value” and “use value” in the LTOV if you wish to get another reply from me. If you already read it, then you’re just in the habit of constructing straw men, and I won’t reply to you again.
My bad, yes thats what I meant, although I dont think is “true” is what marxists believe, and by that logic of value being strictly related to labor in the LTV use-value cant be use as an equivalent of utility in the STV since use-value doesnt explain value only the possibility of value according to the commodity “intrinsic properties”.
I dont like cabbage, so to me it has no value regardless how much labor when into it.