>CB: "Exchange-value" is one of old Karl's concepts. I don't know of anybody
>else using it. If you don't mean the same thing as Marx by "exchange-value" ,
>what do you mean ?
I was of course using it as I think Marx was using it. I was trying to bring forward
a compromise. It other words, as I see it, it's pretty marxist but not exactly what
old Karl said. Ya know, "Marx is dead, long live marxism !" :-)
The difference is not in the definition of the concept but in its analysis (I'm
getting obscure but I hope you get the idea). Since you guys seem to value
the first pages of Capital a lot, here's a quote I could use as a definition:
"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. 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."
BTW, my understanding is that the concept of exchange-value is used under
another name by most economists. And other critics of standard economics
used the concept in opposition to (net) utility. It doesn't look very orginial to me.
>What is an example of a non-scarce natural resource ?
Breathable air is a general obvious example. In some places there's other
kinds of resources, like drinkable water or trees, which are not scarce. Mineral
resources can also be non-scare (gravel quarries rather than gold mines
usually). Scarcity status can change over time, with an obvious example beign
fishes.
In addition, from the point of view of exchange-value, any non-commodified
resource is not scarce even if it is scarce in practice. (This last sentence is
actually a restatement of that "tragedy of the commons".) Actually, the present
dissidence from Marx stems precisely from the fact that some resources are
commodified while he said that resources never are (at least this is how I
understand the last verse of Capital,1.1). IMO, this opinion of his was due to
rampant positivism but who am I to talk about such things?
>What do you mean by scarce ?
Not underexploited, basically. That's not enough to say it's scarce but in
almost all such cases, it's scarce because equilibrium is rare. Of course, you
have to define an aera of sensible size (depending on how bulky the resource
is realtive to its exchange-value as well on the transportation available) for this
questioning about scarcity to be meaningful. And, more importantly, the
resources should be classified not only by type but also by utility: f.ex. the best
gold mines in an aera would be scarce eventhough there are other less
productive gold mines around. This definition is probably not flaw-free but you
get the idea.
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
