| This question <51|685> overall <65|67> Juniper: <1407|193>. |
| 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? |
| [66] Juniper: Marx implies the scarcity of a good should bring the value higher depending on the scarcity of the good. The labor put forth in producing a product that isn't readily available such as gold should be valued at a higher rate not only for the scarcity it brings, but for the labor produced as well. Why hasn't gold fluctuated with the “scarcity” factor as do other products? |
| This is a product that isn't demanded by all. There is a select market involved in demanding gold. I believe Marx is stating just that, that gold isn't readily available, but the demand is low, but the labor put forth is greater and therefore the price should represent the labor put forth in producing gold. Yet, with gold it hasn't followed the scarcity rule as others, but gold isn't needed in a great market so the demand and value will be at a lesser value. |
| Hans: Marx does not think that scarcity should raise the value of a good. The only thing relevant for the value of a good is the labor content. If there is little demand for a good, Marx thinks the economic reaction will be that little of the good will be produced. Only in the short run prices may fall if too much has been produced; in the long run production schedules will be adjusted to demand and the price will be determined by labor content. |
|
|
|||||