This question <28|19> overall <17|19> VanHalen: <551|46>.  
  Question 40: Reproduce, in your own words, Marx's rebuttal that, despite the arguments asked for to in Question 37, exchange value seems to be something inherent to the commodity after all.   
  [18] VanHalen: Practice Questions   I'll try to answer question 40 even though I thought I was just understanding the reasoning behind question 37. Thinking about question 40 for a while, I think an answer may lie in the definition of what a commodity is: something which is produced for sale or exchange. In order to qualify as a commodity, the item must be produced for sale or exchange. I don't know why a person would go to the trouble of producing anything if they didn't think that they could fetch some sort of a return in the market for the product whether it was sold or exchanged. This is where I think the inherent value comes in; the person may not know what their product will be exchanged for or what price it may get, but they do feel that it will get SOMETHING even if it is a very small amount of exchanged good or monetary return. There has to be some sort of inherent value just because of the fact that it qualifies to be a commodity and can be bought or sold. If for some reason the product is so worthless that it can't be exchanged or sold then I don't think it qualifies to be a commodity. As for question 37, Chacci answered well, and it builds on this answer. Just the fact that it is a commodity, and can be exchanged or sold, means that it has some value. What value it fetches in the market can change due to tastes, technology or percieved use. big or small.   
  Hans: Don't make the paragraphs so long.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: