From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >The value of any item is whatever two reasonably knowledgeable persons >are > >willing to exchange it for. In general this is governed by the >supply and > >demand. Usability or quality of an item is irrelevant >except in that it > >may generate more demand. There are few other ultra >fast 135's available > >and fewer still in K-mount, and only one made by >Pentax. [Bob Blakely] > > This is one very narrow definition of value conditioned specifically by an > unquestioning allegiance to capitalism. No. Not based on capitalism. Based on liberty and irrelevant to any economic system. It is based solely on the owner's liberty to evaluate the economic worth of his own property for himself and of the liberty of the other party to evaluate the item's worth to him. Your judgment that the definition is narrow is unfounded. Further, the definition is not narrow. It is extremely wide in what it covers. Except for the intrinsic value of some raw materials as they are in the ground, every dollar represents labor directly, and ultimately includes, in the long run not just the hours, but the value of that labor to the society of the laborer. If a society is in dire need of an item (i.e. a lack of a necessity), then the labor of those who produce the item is high. If a society has a glut of some item and they are sitting on shelves everywhere, the labor of those who continue to produce such items will have little value to society. > There are many other definitions, > such as the Marxist definition which takes into account the amount of labor > that went into making the item. Yes. A position where the liberty of both the owner and the buyer is thwarted and an item of poorer quality may demand a higher price from the buyer who needs it than another item of better quality produced by less labor through better manufacturing efficiency. This is a system where someone (the buyer, the seller or their society) always gets cheated. > There are many better definitions of value > as well which take into account more than just the crude dollar quantity of > exchange at a given moment and locale. The original post was discussing "crude dollar quantity of exchange ". I stuck to the topic. Also, you toss out judgments such as "crude" as though your use of the adjective makes it so, thereby cheapening the hours of hard work by many. Dollars are nothing more than "stand ins" representing the labor of folks and making it possible for a carpenter in Milwaukee to build an addition to someone's Milwaukee home in trade for a car made by someone in Detroit. Dollars are a stand-in for peoples work. Nothing more, nothing less. A laborer's hard work and sweat (or stress, or whatever) is not "crude". Describing it as such might seem... offensive. Economics is not about dollars (or euros, or yen, or pesos). Economics is about the trade of goods and services among people. Dollars are simply an abstract representation of this trade among people. Regards, Bob... -------------------- "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." - Samuel Adams, 1771 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
