| This question <285|29> overall <5|7> Civic: <4|8>. |
| Question 26: How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something inherent in the commodity? |
| [6] Civic: Exchange value is not intrinsically linked to the commodity because it fluctuates according to the circumstances of the exchange. |
| Hans: Yes, this is basically the answer to the question. |
| [6] Civic: The best illustrative example of this is trying to value property. Someone may ask what the property is worth and the exchange value response would be “Whatever you can get for it”. Valuing commodities is therefore relative and changes constantly. |
| Hans: Your formulation in this passage is a little confusing. Please send me a short note simply re-formulating this passage? |
| [6] Civic: (datestring)Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:40:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I was trying to give an illustrative example of how exchange value was not intrinsically linked to the commodity. The quote from Butler says “For what is worth in anything but so much money as ‘twill bring’.” My example is how difficult it is to determine the value of real estate. Someone may want to know what the value of the land is and a common response is that it is worth whatever it can command on the market. I felt that this is an illustrative example of what Marx calls exchange value and how it is not directly linked to the commodity because it changes and fluctuates with time and place. |
| Hans: The saying: “it is worth whatever it can command on the market” not only implies variability, but, first and foremost, it indicates that there is no “value” behind the “exchange value” of this particular product, i.e., that the last sentence of 127:1 in Capital is wrong, where Marx says: |
| and secondly, exchange value itself cannot be anything other than the the mere mode of expression, “form of appearance,” of some content distinguishable from it. |
| The thing which I found confusing is that you derived variability from the absence of an economic principle determining the exchange value (which you seem to derive from the difficulty of valuing real estate) while Marx went the other way around: he started with the empirical variability of exchange values and concluded from this that it seems as if exchange value was something “accidental and purely relative”. |
| [6] Civic: Thus accounting practices in the United States value assets based on historical costs because it is the last exchange with the commodity. |
| Hans: But why should the last exchange be more relevant than any other? In my mind, modern addcounting practices are a slap in the face of modern subjective value theory: the accountants certainly do as if value were not relative but as if value were very much connected with the commodities themselves. |
| [6] Civic: I think that the toughest question in this context is what something is “WORTH”. Capitalist economies say that a car is worth 10,000 dollars. But the use value of the car may be something entirely different than what it is “worth”. This exchange value is extremely variable for different people and circumstances. For example, food may take on different values depending on if the person is starving or not. The last time I went shopping at the grocery store I was extremely hungry and I was not price sensitive due to my desire to satisfy immediate needs. Thus the exchange value for me fluctuated depending on external circumstances. I was more willing to pay higher prices at that time and place. I think that Marx is pointing out an over emphasis of capital societies to focus on the exchange value of commodities. This is not directly linked to the properties of the commodity itself but rather a function of the workings of the marketplace and external circumstances. If exchange value was directly linked to the commodity then pricing and valuation of commodities would be stable and constant. There would not be questions referring to what something was worth quantitatively, but rather the worth of all commodities would be known and based upon what the commodity is comprised of, (the use value). |
|
|
|||||