Julien Pierrehumbert wrote:
>
>
> Carrol, I'm talking about things which according to Marx have ONLY use-value.
>
Exchange value by defintion is only determined when something is exchanged.
It makes no sense to say the glass of orange juice I am drinking now (which
*before* I bought it was a commodity with both value and its form, exchange
value, and the form of exchange value, money) is not a commodity, has no
exchange value, but until I finish drinking it has use value.
> I'm saying that these things have exchange-value. This is not 1,05 vs. 1,10 but
> ZERO vs. something so all details like whether we're talking about the socially
> average value or not doesn't matter much. If something you said has
> something to do with the question of whether natural resources have
> exchange-value or not, please explain.
This is meaningless. Only something *on the market* can have exchange
value. At 70 years of age I don't have time to spend on such silly questions.
Carrol
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
