| This question <685|66> overall <50|52> Deni: <11|463>. |
| Question 105: After claiming that the value of scarce goods is determined by labor-time, Marx brings the example where one scarce good, gold, historically never has traded at prices proportional to the labor-time embodied in it. What is Marx trying to prove with this counterexample to his own theory? |
| [51] Deni: Marx is trying to prove that even in his own theory about “value of scarce good is determined by labor-time,” there is an exemption to be made. He is using gold for an example, saying that gold historically was never traded at prices proportional to the labor time that was embodied in it. |
| How is this theory implemented in society today? |
| I would use just a simple example of two vehicles: Jaguar vs. Hyundai. Even though the commodities are the same (in this case “vehicles”), values are different. Not only because of labor-time used to create them, (and it may be the same regarding the time of a production), but the quality, the name, design and production itself. |
| So does Marx see the gold vs. more gold but opposite way? |
| I disagree with this. Values of diamonds would not fall if the same quantity of laborer would represent more of them. I believe that value of a diamond is the same, regardless of how much time of laborers is spend in looking for it. |
| Scarce commodities just don't lose value if the quantity of them increases. |
| I believe that value of more in quantity increase. |
| Hans: After your [11] this is now the second submission in which your perception of the readings is completely different than what Marx meant. |
|
|
|||||