| This question <170|168> overall <32|34> Dave: <535|100>. |
| 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? |
| [33] Dave: Barbon states that, “There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value.... One hundred pounds worth of lead or iron, is of as great a value as one hundred pounds worth of silver and gold.” So it does not matter what the items are, if they are equal in value they are the same. |
| Butler's statement, “For what is worth in any thing, but so much money as ‘twill bring?” is closely related to Barbon's in that an item of one thing or another has only the value it can be exchanged for. Butler says that any one thing can only have the exchange-value as say x. Let's say “x” would be money. So one hundred pounds worth of lead is worth one hundred pounds worth of gold, at point of purchase, regardless of the intrinsic differences of the two items. |
| Both Barbon and Butler are saying the same thing in a way. Butler says that it does not matter what the item is, money can get you so much of it. And Barton is saying that so much money can get you any item of purchase, and it does not matter the intrinsic value of the item, they are equal in exchange-value. |
| Hans: The Barbon quote you are using here is not the same which was asked about in the question. Your Barbon quote, given in 127:4--128:1, says that the act of exchange equalizes the commodities, it makes the world of commodities one-dimensional. It does not address the question whether the value of the commdities is inside the commodities or is something relative. Regarding the Butler quote, I recommend my [2007SP:5]. |
|
|
|||||