What is Value?
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
08-31-2009, 08:22 PM
And I will give Rose the b of the d. We are swimming in this muck our whole lives and we have to constantly fight through it. But it is this kind of bringing someone up short that, hopefully, knocks some of the mud from their eyes (I know it did mine). The only thing that is worrisome is that Anax asked her twice to explain herself and I asked for some specifics and in each case she completely ignored the questions or requests. But, yeah, I am not assuming nefarious-ism, but getting caught with Hayek is still pretty funny...
08-31-2009, 08:22 PM
And I will give Rose the b of the d. We are swimming in this muck our whole lives and we have to constantly fight through it. But it is this kind of bringing someone up short that, hopefully, knocks some of the mud from their eyes (I know it did mine). The only thing that is worrisome is that Anax asked her twice to explain herself and I asked for some specifics and in each case she completely ignored the questions or requests. But, yeah, I am not assuming nefarious-ism, but getting caught with Hayek is still pretty funny...
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 08:26 PM
You keep telling everyone to read it and this is the start to BP's question... all neat and logical. We will get to your question in a minute. First, let's see if we can help Senor Swine read the book. In truth, we haven't got to labor yet... (don't quote me on how he just said labor or "labour"). We are still at "exchange-value" can't be based on "use-value".
One interesting thing to this is that Marx reworked it as a logic derivation - in the formal sense. Let BP get through this... i.e. Is this much true?
BTW, "yes, of course", ain't an answer either. For you: is this much indisputably true? Is there ANY common feature inherent in all commodities as use-values?
Also BTW, there is an inherent logical failure in "marginal utility" which appears by page 3. It assumes what must be proven and starts from exactly the same basis: Commodities exchange, they have nothing in common, SO there MUST be a reconciliation of utility in the abstract. The "margin" part is just a flourish.
08-31-2009, 08:26 PM
You keep telling everyone to read it and this is the start to BP's question... all neat and logical. We will get to your question in a minute. First, let's see if we can help Senor Swine read the book. In truth, we haven't got to labor yet... (don't quote me on how he just said labor or "labour"). We are still at "exchange-value" can't be based on "use-value".
One interesting thing to this is that Marx reworked it as a logic derivation - in the formal sense. Let BP get through this... i.e. Is this much true?
BTW, "yes, of course", ain't an answer either. For you: is this much indisputably true? Is there ANY common feature inherent in all commodities as use-values?
Also BTW, there is an inherent logical failure in "marginal utility" which appears by page 3. It assumes what must be proven and starts from exactly the same basis: Commodities exchange, they have nothing in common, SO there MUST be a reconciliation of utility in the abstract. The "margin" part is just a flourish.
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
08-31-2009, 08:35 PM
it didn't occur to me how close you're hewing to the presentation.
Is there ANY common feature inherent in all commodities as use-values?
So, still being a bit of a turd even if somewhat corrected, I'll then ask with a nod to our environmental/biological enquirer -
What 'value' then is a tree? clean water? fresh air? coltan?
08-31-2009, 08:35 PM
it didn't occur to me how close you're hewing to the presentation.
Is there ANY common feature inherent in all commodities as use-values?
So, still being a bit of a turd even if somewhat corrected, I'll then ask with a nod to our environmental/biological enquirer -
What 'value' then is a tree? clean water? fresh air? coltan?
Re: What is Value?
anaxarchos
08-31-2009, 09:05 PM
... unless they are bottled water, clean air in a tank, or a processed tree. The labor involved is then obvious, as it is with an eco-resort where you can "enjoy trees, clean water, and fresh air". As far as "virgin land" and mineral leases go, they are exchangeable because commodity production already exists - a special case which we will get to. Virgin land which cannot be seen, modified, or sold has no value... just as mineral rights without any rights don't have any value either.
I take that back... they can have a curiosity value, such as an acre of land on the moon... sold by someone who doesn't own it... but sends you a "certificate", anyway. The why and wherefore of use-values is not our concern.
All products of labor are not commodities, either. The vegtables you grow for consumption are not commodities and neither are the "bookcases" that I used to produce out of cinder blocks...
08-31-2009, 09:05 PM
... unless they are bottled water, clean air in a tank, or a processed tree. The labor involved is then obvious, as it is with an eco-resort where you can "enjoy trees, clean water, and fresh air". As far as "virgin land" and mineral leases go, they are exchangeable because commodity production already exists - a special case which we will get to. Virgin land which cannot be seen, modified, or sold has no value... just as mineral rights without any rights don't have any value either.
I take that back... they can have a curiosity value, such as an acre of land on the moon... sold by someone who doesn't own it... but sends you a "certificate", anyway. The why and wherefore of use-values is not our concern.
All products of labor are not commodities, either. The vegtables you grow for consumption are not commodities and neither are the "bookcases" that I used to produce out of cinder blocks...
Re: What is Value?
blindpig
09-01-2009, 06:14 AM
1)So, is there a difference between capitalist wealth and that of the King of Kings? That seems implied.
2)Wants & needs covers a lot of territory.
Trying to find exceptions to #5 but cannot. It seems there would have to be some relationship between use-value and exchange-value, else why would that commodity be exchanged? Why should we leave out consideration of use-value? Am I a dunderhead?
I'm thinking about cowrie shells, used by some NA folks as a medium of exchange. Does their exchange value reflect the minimal labor of gathering them plus the considerable labor of transporting them inland?
Clear, the nits I'm pickin' are mostly for verification.
Is it true? Let us continue...
09-01-2009, 06:14 AM
1)So, is there a difference between capitalist wealth and that of the King of Kings? That seems implied.
2)Wants & needs covers a lot of territory.
Trying to find exceptions to #5 but cannot. It seems there would have to be some relationship between use-value and exchange-value, else why would that commodity be exchanged? Why should we leave out consideration of use-value? Am I a dunderhead?
I'm thinking about cowrie shells, used by some NA folks as a medium of exchange. Does their exchange value reflect the minimal labor of gathering them plus the considerable labor of transporting them inland?
Clear, the nits I'm pickin' are mostly for verification.
Is it true? Let us continue...
Re: What is Value?
blindpig
09-01-2009, 06:22 AM
that the use-value of these things might be reconsidered, taking into account that referred to these days as 'ecosystem services', leaving aside those things which may or perhaps not be considered metaphysical or at least aesthetic.
09-01-2009, 06:22 AM
that the use-value of these things might be reconsidered, taking into account that referred to these days as 'ecosystem services', leaving aside those things which may or perhaps not be considered metaphysical or at least aesthetic.
Re: What is Value?
Kid of the Black Hole
09-01-2009, 07:20 AM
Well, about the marginalists. As Anax says, they simply start with the assumption that there is some sort of abstract commensurability between various use values (utilities)
It is not however, wrong to ask if there might be such a commensurability. But what happens is, you have to figure out how to quantify "utility" or use-value.
The way that they do this ends up being to talk about beaver furs and deer skins. Thus, if they exchange in rates that vary widely from the respective disutilities involved in gathering them, then you will have to have a forcible correction..
If the exchange is 3 deer skins for 2 beaver furs but it is harder to gather deer skins, no one will. You would be smarter to just trade 2 beaver furs instead.
As you can see, you've already arrived at defining "utility", or alternatively "disutility" depending on your perspective, as a function of labor time and effort.
There is also a subtle shift at work, because now you are discussing utility to produce something and that is not the same as utility in the sense of a want or need. Except that it is, because one begets the other.
For instance, the marginalist explanation for why water is so cheap despite being the most necessary of commodities is that there is little disutility involved in producing additional gallons. Ie once the spigots are flowing, it costs almost nothing to pump more water through the lines. (this is not actually true today, but it was a question that they dwelled on at the time)
And so you can start to see the whole sordid edifice unravel..
EDIT: the idea is that labor comes to undergrid the entire strucutre as a premise because you quantify the disutility of doing something by measuring it against what ELSE you could have done instead.
When this comes to be expressed in money, it actually changes nothing even though it is in a different guise. You work for your money but then decide later how best to spend it but that money is just the congealed form of the labor you "invested".
EDIT: sorry for starting this thread then bailing, will be back later today
09-01-2009, 07:20 AM
Well, about the marginalists. As Anax says, they simply start with the assumption that there is some sort of abstract commensurability between various use values (utilities)
It is not however, wrong to ask if there might be such a commensurability. But what happens is, you have to figure out how to quantify "utility" or use-value.
The way that they do this ends up being to talk about beaver furs and deer skins. Thus, if they exchange in rates that vary widely from the respective disutilities involved in gathering them, then you will have to have a forcible correction..
If the exchange is 3 deer skins for 2 beaver furs but it is harder to gather deer skins, no one will. You would be smarter to just trade 2 beaver furs instead.
As you can see, you've already arrived at defining "utility", or alternatively "disutility" depending on your perspective, as a function of labor time and effort.
There is also a subtle shift at work, because now you are discussing utility to produce something and that is not the same as utility in the sense of a want or need. Except that it is, because one begets the other.
For instance, the marginalist explanation for why water is so cheap despite being the most necessary of commodities is that there is little disutility involved in producing additional gallons. Ie once the spigots are flowing, it costs almost nothing to pump more water through the lines. (this is not actually true today, but it was a question that they dwelled on at the time)
And so you can start to see the whole sordid edifice unravel..
EDIT: the idea is that labor comes to undergrid the entire strucutre as a premise because you quantify the disutility of doing something by measuring it against what ELSE you could have done instead.
When this comes to be expressed in money, it actually changes nothing even though it is in a different guise. You work for your money but then decide later how best to spend it but that money is just the congealed form of the labor you "invested".
EDIT: sorry for starting this thread then bailing, will be back later today
Re: What is Value?
Dhalgren
09-01-2009, 07:49 AM
arose to ensure (or was used to ensure?) the fairness and equity between traders of commodities, right? When it quickly evolved to being used to ensure profits for the traders, how did it change? Or was the differing uses immaterial? Or is the question nonsensical?
09-01-2009, 07:49 AM
arose to ensure (or was used to ensure?) the fairness and equity between traders of commodities, right? When it quickly evolved to being used to ensure profits for the traders, how did it change? Or was the differing uses immaterial? Or is the question nonsensical?
Re: What is Value?
PinkoCommie
09-01-2009, 08:28 AM
This system arose to ensure (or was used to ensure?) the fairness and equity between traders of commodities, right?
People made some shit. Eventually, people made enough shit they had surplus. They swapped this surplus. Lots of swapping began to take place and this surplus shit became a goal of production. The money form came into existence of sheer necessity.
I don't think fairness and equity ever had much to do with it. It was swapping. Trade. That is call. Nothing good or evil about it.
Now on the productive side though, the transition from surplus as a happy accident to a Raison d'être, this is where one must take a peek in order to see things that can either be fair or unfair.
We all know, if we know nothing else, which side of that question the owners of the forces of production have fallen on all through history...
09-01-2009, 08:28 AM
This system arose to ensure (or was used to ensure?) the fairness and equity between traders of commodities, right?
People made some shit. Eventually, people made enough shit they had surplus. They swapped this surplus. Lots of swapping began to take place and this surplus shit became a goal of production. The money form came into existence of sheer necessity.
I don't think fairness and equity ever had much to do with it. It was swapping. Trade. That is call. Nothing good or evil about it.
Now on the productive side though, the transition from surplus as a happy accident to a Raison d'être, this is where one must take a peek in order to see things that can either be fair or unfair.
We all know, if we know nothing else, which side of that question the owners of the forces of production have fallen on all through history...
Re: What is Value?
Kid of the Black Hole
09-01-2009, 08:35 AM
which is just an evolvement of assigning commensurability item-by-item (3 bushels of this trade for 4 of something else and so on) doesn't necessarily ensure profits for traders.
Even at the point where money and trade become so pervasive that your dollar can basically be exchanged for any commodity you like, profit (which is not the same as surplus value) isn't guaranteed by money per se.
It is true that money is definitely a requisite and as the capitalist system evolves, money takes on an even MORE front and center role in "lubricating" the entire system.
The surplus value comes from the fact that the capitalist "purchases" a quantity of labor time. Then he is free to use any and every trick that he can to coax as much labor as possible from workers during that time period. Some of this goes back to the worker but since the actual amount of time requied to produce all of the livelihood demands of the worker is much less than the working day, the rest is appropriated by the capitalist as his own.
But of course this surplus value takes the form of money eventually..it is "congealed" in commodities,yes, but it is ultimately counted in $$$
Prior to the spread of the money economy, you have to remember that surplus was considered on an absolute basis. Regardless of what the lord could sell them for, producing more crops added to his surplus. But at the same time, past the needs of his manor and his ostentatious lifestyle, this surplus did not really avail him in the same way as a fortune does today.
Raising net intake -- by raising the exploitation of the peasants and squeezing more from the land -- was the mesaure of increasing value. The capitalist comes along and does things much, much differently. If a company has mutliple divisions and one of them is not being profitable -- despite an overall profit for the company -- you know whats going to happen.
09-01-2009, 08:35 AM
which is just an evolvement of assigning commensurability item-by-item (3 bushels of this trade for 4 of something else and so on) doesn't necessarily ensure profits for traders.
Even at the point where money and trade become so pervasive that your dollar can basically be exchanged for any commodity you like, profit (which is not the same as surplus value) isn't guaranteed by money per se.
It is true that money is definitely a requisite and as the capitalist system evolves, money takes on an even MORE front and center role in "lubricating" the entire system.
The surplus value comes from the fact that the capitalist "purchases" a quantity of labor time. Then he is free to use any and every trick that he can to coax as much labor as possible from workers during that time period. Some of this goes back to the worker but since the actual amount of time requied to produce all of the livelihood demands of the worker is much less than the working day, the rest is appropriated by the capitalist as his own.
But of course this surplus value takes the form of money eventually..it is "congealed" in commodities,yes, but it is ultimately counted in $$$
Prior to the spread of the money economy, you have to remember that surplus was considered on an absolute basis. Regardless of what the lord could sell them for, producing more crops added to his surplus. But at the same time, past the needs of his manor and his ostentatious lifestyle, this surplus did not really avail him in the same way as a fortune does today.
Raising net intake -- by raising the exploitation of the peasants and squeezing more from the land -- was the mesaure of increasing value. The capitalist comes along and does things much, much differently. If a company has mutliple divisions and one of them is not being profitable -- despite an overall profit for the company -- you know whats going to happen.