| This question <79|83> overall <81|83> Idasan: <567-2|173>. graded B |
| Question 198: Which characteristics of value are expressed better in the Expanded form of value than in the Simple form, and what are the defects of the Expanded form? |
| [82] Idasan: Jimmy, BillyB, and Diesel have all given an excellent definition of Simple and Expanded forms of value and all grasp the concept quite well. To summarize very quickly a simple form of value is the market value of good A as compared to good B. Alternatively, the expanded form suggests that good A be compared to all other possible goods with its value determined in a global market. In contrast to what Mitchel has just posted, I feel that although Marx delves much deeper into the philosophy behind these ideas -- they are simple ones and they do suggest that commodity is based on the value of other items. |
| Now, the task at hand is to delineate the strengths and weaknesses of the Expanded form of value -- which is what I think Mitchel was trying to say. First, the defects - as BillyB mentioned this value term is not unique, simple nor is it uniform. But in a real life situation I would like to offer that in order to properly assign value to a given commodity, it is impossible to line it up directly with all other goods - not simply because it is a monstrous task, but rather that it would require perfect information about need and willingness to purchase. What is most important in this type of value is the ability for the good to react with all other goods - let us take a flat screen TV and a cow (obviously a comparison with very little reaction). For example, a pastoral society prizes cattle before any other commodity and would perhaps pay more for it than an urban dweller. Likewise, said urbanite may pay out of the nose for a flat screen TV while the nomad would scoff at such a purchase. What one values another sees as worthless. |
| However, the utility of the Expanded form of value cannot be denied and as BillyB mentioned, it is far more capable of making an accurate comparison between goods. For example, Bailey makes the argument that linen, when explained by the simple form of value, only has its one value as compared to one other good. However, when given the chance to be compared to many commodities it shows its unlimited kinds of value -- in fact, “there are a thousand different kinds of value, as many kinds of value as there are commodities in existence, and all are equally real and equally nominal” [Bai25, p.39]. Even more simply, the use of a third commodity may shed light on a particular good in regard to its value. How can we really know the value of linen based upon the value of potatoes unless we accurately compare both goods to value of wheat? |
| The simple value form of a commodity is contained in its value relation with a commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation with the latter. The value of commodity A is qualitatively expressed by the direct exchangeability of commodity B with commodity A. It is quantitatively expressed by the exchangeability of a specific quantity of commodity B with the given quantity of commodity A. |
| My understanding of this question is simply a comparative value of the quality of a commodity versus the quantity of it. Firstly, the quality of the good expresses its presence in the trade in the first place. As I suggested above, a pastoralist will see a cow as a high quality good and will entertain discussion on its value. Next comes quantity - how many bushels of wheat or stalks of corn or hand-made rugs are the equivalent of one cow (all of which should be assumed to be qualitative goods). This question guides us to understand relevance in goods and then exchange value. |
| Hans: The problem is not how to assign value to a thing, but Marx investigates how the commodities themselves show in their exchange relations that they are the product of abstract labor. |
| Those forms are favored (not defective) in which the information that filters down from the market to the producers helps the producers allocate their labor efficiently. |
|
|
|||||