Marx's Value Theory--a potential critique
kls at unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Fri May 10 16:01:39 MDT 1996
At 23:19 09.05.1996 EDT, boddhisatva <kbevans at panix.com> wrote:
> Again you do not deign to make your own point. However, your posting
>reminds me of a somewhat egregious error I made. I said the value of
>anything is what someone actually pays for it. This should be modified to
>take into consideration the shifting nature of currency supply. The value of
>something is a person's *willingness* to pay for it, which is most rationally
>approximated by what he actually pays for it with the understanding that some
>correction for currency fluctuation should be applied.
It is naturally still more convenient to understand by value nothing at all.
Then one can without difficulty subsume everything under this category.
Thus, e.g., J. B. Say: "What is value?" Answer: "That which a thing is
worth"; and what is "price"? Answer: "The value of a thing expressed in
money." And why has agriculture a value? Answer: "Because one sets a price
on it." Therefore value is what a thing is worth, and the land has its
"value," because its value is "expressed in money."
This is, anyhow, a very simple way of explaining the why and the wherefore
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism