Shane Mage wrote: > *Real* GDP measures use-values, not exchange values. Strictly speaking, > since it *is* done it *can* be done!
This calculation is done using an off-the-wall method of correcting for inflation (which might be the best available but is still poor). Even before that, the key assumption is that the price of any item equals its use-value to the purchaser on the margin. This ignore external costs and benefits. > That is because use-values are not > qualitative but quantitative (Marx repeatedly speaks of the "menge," [the > "mass"] of use values as varying in a quantitative [as more or less] way. For any specific item, there is quantitative dimension (the number of pounds, kilos, or whatever) except in the case of unique products. That is, the number of any specific use-value (i.e., good) is quantitative. But the actual use-value is qualitative, representing the relationship between people and the item. I guess one could quantify such relationships but almost all of them are multidimensional. > Use-value is a measure of concrete (because dated) socially necessary labor > time. we disagree on this one. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
