| This question <43|109> overall <66|68> Fritz: <50|68>. |
| Question 56: How is the value of raw materials determined in Marx's theory? How does the scarcity of these materials influence their value? Is Marx's argument still valid in the case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only in finite supply? |
| [67] Fritz: Whip me! Karl wrote in [43] |
| Now a diamond in it's natural, or raw state beneath the earth required no labor of any individual or societal aggregate. Therefore Marx would consider it's value to be nil, as there is no appendage of labor to it. |
| yes, correct |
| This seems to be one of Marxs' underlying, planned, contradictory thoughts, that was mentioned by Hans. Because while it is a raw material the diamond sould be thought of as a commodity in embryo. In class it was mentioned that a commodity held value regardless of exchange. |
| spell check Marxs' should be Marx's, sould should be should |
| yes, because that is the definition of commodity |
| The diamond as a raw material also holds no exchange, and therefore can only have value once it is required to be developed by a laborer or in other words, unearthed, cut, and polished. |
| a raw diamond “holds no exchange”? -- no price? Marx would not agree. . . |
| Marx stated, “all human labors are equal in so far as they are equal expinditures of human labor power.” |
| spell check expinditures should be expenditures |
| yes, your labor is equivalent to mine in the sense that under Jon Huntsman's whip, we sweat the same number of droplets. . . |
| but as a skilled graduate student, I will create more value per hour for my master than the unskilled misspeller. =) |
| Cheers. Fritz |
| p.s. Dr. Ehrbar is a stickler for spelling. He learned English and asks the same of his students. =) |
|
|
|||||