 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
Kid, if you want to debate from the perspective of the fairy tale that is Marxist theory, then you're right...nothing to debate, as it has no basis in reality.
And your other point has nothing to do with the debate at hand. I think you've been reading too much Marx, and therefore, bait and switch has become a normal operating paradigm for you. It is not, however, normal in economics.
Utility value is a valid term, yes. Where you would stray (and where Marx strays) would be to USE this term in an argument stating that only things with utility value are valuable (much like marx claims that labor is the ONLY thing that creates value).
But of course, you have no desire to see this, and so, continue to throw up desperate smoke screens to obscure the facts.
The problem is...we (most folks of capitalist leaning) see through it.
We can try some more though, if you want.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
In short...such distinctions, be they "utilty value", or "labor value" or "surplus value" (to use some of your cute marxist terms), are meaningless in the market, in the way you are attempting to use them. The REASON this is so is because the concept of value has a multitude of component parts, and no one narrowly defined term can encapsulate them.
Word games and substitution is really the best you can do? |
So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.
Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!
Answer this question. Say John buys a car from Karl for $5000 and sells it to Adam for $6000. John has no use for the car, besides selling it to Adam, because he doesn't have room to store it. The question is how much does John value the car?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ell_man
|
|
2) Exchange Value: Price/Wage
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place.
If you only exchange things because they are of equal value why exchange at all? All you're doing is transfering resources with no gain. Exchanges takes place because of a double inequality of value-the seller values the item he's getting more than what he's giving up and the buyer values what he's giving up less than what he will gain.
-edit
Now as I read Kid's post just above mine I see that he's saying exactly what I just did. Is he agreeing with me or am I misinterpreting him? Maybe that line "at first sight" in the Exchange Value: Price/Wage quote means something?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.
That is NOT what I said, and you know full well. Typical Marxist bait and switch tactics. We're not talking about utility value vs. exchange value (or we weren't, until you interjected it into the conversation as a smokescreen to veer yourself out of the dangerous waters you found yourself in).
Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!
Stating the obvious. No kidding. You don't even have to be an economist to know this. People do it reflexively all the time. But, in true Marxist form, you will look at this in awe and wonder, as if you have uncovered some vast, hidden truth.
I'm not going to play your simplistic word games with you. I can't help it if you completely lack reading comprehension, and I'm not going to continue to find new ways of re-stating the obvious.
Continuing to cast smoke screens in the air in an attempt to buy more time and distance from your disaster of a "counter-critique" of the aforementioned article is failing as dismally as the counter-critique itself.
The word games and semantics you delight in engaging in do not detract from the fact that one of Marx's core principles (that labor alone is the source of all value) is flawed and false. You can continue throwing other arguments in the way, or you can come face to face with the flaw in your religion.
You can run, but you cannot hide. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
So you are saying that utility value is a subset of value? That shows how little you know, and possibly how little capability you have of understanding the subject matter.
That is NOT what I said, and you know full well. Typical Marxist bait and switch tactics.
|
You're purposefully being ambiguous and not making a real argument for me to address. MAKE ONE!
quote:
We're not talking about utility value vs. exchange value (or we weren't, until you interjected it into the conversation as a smokescreen to veer yourself out of the dangerous waters you found yourself in).
|
Dipwad! That is what the first part of Das Kapital is about!
quote:
Goods and services have an exchange value because they have a utility value, not the other way around. People exchange things because they get more value from the thing they get than the thing they give. NOT THE SAME, AND NOT LESS!
Stating the obvious. No kidding. You don't even have to be an economist to know this. People do it reflexively all the time. But, in true Marxist form, you will look at this in awe and wonder, as if you have uncovered some vast, hidden truth.
|
Then there are two real types of value that Marx identified. Blatt never said which one he was talking about in his argument. We are to assume that it is one or the other. His argument in complete crap. It serves no purpose, except propaganda.
That's why the obvious must be stated - because some people ignore it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:20
|
|
I'm not being ambiguous in the least.
Marx clearly states that Labor is the source (the only source) of all value.
Blatt's refutation blows that right out of the water.
The only person being ambiguous here is...Kidicious. Well, and Marx, but he's here only as the fodder, which Kid and the other Marxist regurgitate endlessly, much to the amusement of the rest of us.
So...labor is the source of all value (cos big daddy marx said so), and yet, per the definition of utility value, which is derived from personal satisfaction, there seems to be some other (at least one) mechanism at work here.
It seems then, that Kid has run smack into the same logical problem with his ideology that Marx did...imagine that!
Mr. Fun...yep...actually Kid is my DL, and I just love to talk to myself...
Og! Welcome, good sir!  (but good luck getting Kid to do anything besides waffle...as always...some things NEVER change, you know...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.
Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7] Let us consider the matter a little more closely. |
Can anyone read the bold type and tell me what planet Vel is on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:20
|
|
Vel said,
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The only person being ambiguous here is...Kidicious. Well, and Marx, but he's here only as the fodder, which Kid and the other Marxist regurgitate endlessly, much to the amusement of the rest of us.
So...labor is the source of all value (cos big daddy marx said so), and yet, per the definition of utility value, which is derived from personal satisfaction, there seems to be some other (at least one) mechanism at work here.
|
Marx actually said,
quote:
A thing can be a use value, without having value [due to labor]. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. |
Looks like someone can't read.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2005 19:36
|