Without debating whether Archbishop Whately was correct or not, economics is very selective about its use of subjectivity. Where is the subjectivity of the pearl divers or any other labor? When Jevons began experimenting with the physiological nature of fatigue, the Austrian economists denounced him. Later in the 1920s, Frank Knight rejected the idea that economists should take an interest in "sentimental" factors such as the worker's welfare.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:14:02PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > David B. Shemano wrote: > > I am sure I am going to butcher this and repeat arguments that you believe > > were refuted 100 years ago, but here goes. I disdain the labor theory of > > value for the reason stated by Whately: "it is not that pearls fetch a high > > price because men have dived for them, but on the contrary, men dive for > > them because they fetch a high price." < > > I know that some disagree with my interpretation, but I think this is > confusing two completely different things, i.e., price and value. > > Whately is right: the price of pearls reflects their scarcity (both > natural and artificial) and demand. But that says nothing about the > value of pearls (at least in the Marxian vocabulary). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
