| This question <73|85> overall <82|84> Calvin: <455|111>. |
| Question 155: Assume there are 51 butchers in a barter society, and none of them is a chess player. Does this mean that the game of chess is not one of the Particular equivalents in the Expanded form of value of meat? |
| [83] Calvin: 51 butchers I would like to look at question 155 in two different lights. The first being that the game of chess may have no value to the Butchers, but there maybe someone else in the community who likes the game of chess and holds it at a very high value. At that point the Butcher may have a whole different viewpoint on the game of chess. Because in a barter system the butcher now may be able to trade the game of chess for something he holds of value. |
| On the other hand if there are 51 butchers and there is zero interest in the game of chess that's a whole different story. Marx put it in perfect words when he said It becomes plain that it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the magnitude of their values, but rather the reverse, it is the magnitude of the value of commodities which regulates the proportion in which they are exchanged. There has got to be some interest or worth in a commodity for it to hold any value. |
| For example, if a corporation is doing very well individuals will want to buy stock in that corporation, making a market for that corporation's stock and the value will rise. The converse is also true, if the corporation does poorly there will be no market for that particular stock making the value decrease. Giving us this lesson, the greater the want the higher value we give. |
| It seems like all it takes is for one individual to have any interest for something to be of value. I may barter for something as stupid as pine cones but because I have some interest in pinecones they hold some type of value |
|
|
|||||