This question <33|170> overall <167|169> Fred: <164|208>.  
  Question 65: How is Barbon's statement that nothing can have an intrinsic exchange-value related to Butler's statement that the worth of something consists in the amount of money for which it can be exchanged?   
  [168] Fred: Intrinsic vs Relative Value.   Dave [33] did not discuss Barbon's statement about intrinsic value being non-existent. He does point out that commodities are equalized at the market in order to be traded using Barbon's quote from the text but the question was referring to the quote in Annotations pg. 22 where Barbon states that nothing can have an intrinsic value. This statement would indicate that Barbon sees value only as a relative thing since it is being exchanged for something else. This is related to Butler's statement in that Butler is saying if two things are indeed traded the worth of the thing is manifest in what it will bring, how much money, or what commodity can it be traded for, but as Hans stated in [2007SP:5] this is meant as a satire. “Worth should be some intrinsic quality”. But what we see in reality is more importance on the relative over the intrinsic. In other words, we judge a person like a commodity, by their surface value or bank account rather than what is inside, their intrinsic value.   
  So on the surface it appears that the two quotes are saying the same thing, but they are not. It is as if Barbon is saying “there is NO intrinsic value”, and Butler saying “worth must have intrinsic value, even if we are blind to it”. This is the argument Marx is making, that Capitalism causes us to focus on illusions of what value is, rather than to consider it's true source.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: