| This question <138|146> overall <144|146> Billybob: <1400|503>. |
| Question 215: 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? |
| [145] Billybob: The defects of the expanded form are three-fold. The first is that it is not unique. The equivalent of beans and rice is not the same everywhere. If beans were more easily harvested in certain parts of the world they would hold less value to the rice in that part of the world because there would be an abundance of that product. |
| The second is that the expanded form of value is not simple. The book states that in real life we only deal with one use-value at a time where in the expanded form it deals with all use values. |
| The third is that it is not uniform. What works for one product is not what will work for another. The book uses linen and boots and explains how they are qualitatively different from one another. |
| I believe the characteristics that are expressed better in the qualitative form are those that can be shown over all products. One of these would be human labor. Human labor is something that has to put put into the product or we get no output. |
| Hans: We are not asking here how value should be defined. We are already working in the framework of the labor theory of value, i.e., for us value is defined by labor. The question is: in what respects is the Expanded form of value a more accurate surface reflection of the fact that value derives from labor than the Simple form. DCotardo's [138] gave some arguments. Your answer does not build on [138] but falls far behind it. |
|
|
|||||