[wat0n]

How do you determine the value of use for any good, service or product?

[ingliz]

What point do you incorrectly imagine that would prove?

In a post-scarcity society exchange value would be redundant. Thus proving that exchange value is a historical category, which is only valid as long as commodity production exists.

[Truth To Power]

value
/ˈvaljuː/

noun

1. the usefulness of something.

It seems not.

Oh, please. That is -- inevitably -- a blatant equivocation fallacy. We are using "value," "price" and "utility" in their technical economic senses, not whatever random senses you can find in a dictionary. We also aren't using "utility" to mean, "an organization providing a community with electric power, gas, water, or sewerage," or "price" to mean, "something sacrificed to obtain a goal."

GET IT???

[Truth To Power]

In a post-scarcity society exchange value would be redundant.

It's not clear what a post-scarcity society would be like, or if it is even possible.

Thus proving that exchange value is a historical category, which is only valid as long as commodity production exists.

Nope. That is a non sequitur. Even if we stipulate that exchange value only exists in societies that practice arm's-length exchange, there is no necessary dependence on commodity production. For example, in certain POW economies, there is exchange value of commodities given by the captor authorities and outside charities, but no production thereof.

So, by what fallacious and disingenuous means will you now try to evade the fact that you have been proved wrong again?

[Truth To Power]

So while Patrick Murray criticizes Kliman destroying the concept of value if value is not thought to exist in commodities prior to exchange/sale, the value form theorists are seeing as thoroughly ignoring the substance of value, abstract labor, that they are thought to be destroying thr concept of value.

The substance of value is scarcity + utility, not abstract labor, which is nothing but another Marxist anti-concept.

[Wellsy]

The substance of value is scarcity + utility, not abstract labor, which is nothing but another Marxist anti-concept.

The substance of value is abstract labor, not scarcity + utility, which is nothing but another neoclassical anti-concept.



Wow, i’m smart

[Truth To Power]

The substance of value is abstract labor, not scarcity + utility,

No, that claim is known to be objectively false, because there is no abstract labor to explain the often astronomical value of natural resources with no labor content, while scarcity + utility explains all value.

which is nothing but another neoclassical anti-concept.

No, that is also known to be false, because economists knew that scarcity and utility explain value long before there was any such thing as neoclassical economics. The idea is thousands of years old. Even the physiocrats said both production cost and demand were necessary to explain value, though they thought there was a "fair price" that did not change. Before Adam Smith, there was Hutcheson:

In 1755, Francis Hutcheson, in his A System of Moral Philosophy, furthered development toward the phrase by stipulating that, "the prices of goods depend on these two jointly, the Demand... and the Difficulty of acquiring."

while

"It was not until 1767 that the phrase "supply and demand" was first used by Scottish writer James Denham-Steuart in his Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Also, scarcity and utility are not anti-concepts. An anti-concept is an invalid artificial concept deployed to prevent use of a valid natural concept. The concepts of scarcity and utility are both natural and valid. The Marxist concept of abstract labor is artificial and invalid.

Wow, i’m smart

Is that what you think denying self-evident and indisputable facts of objective reality in favor of stupid, evil Marxist garbage makes you? Smart?

Wow, indeed.

[Wellsy]

I see sarcasm isn’t your strong suit.

Is this stubbornness or just high functioning autism?

[Potemkin]

I see sarcasm isn’t your strong suit.

Is this stubbornness or just high functioning autism?

My money is on high functioning autism. He’s absolutely certain he’s right about everything and insults his interlocutors for not instantly agreeing with him. And social nuance or humour just isn’t his thing. Lol.

[Truth To Power]

I see sarcasm isn’t your strong suit.

Is this stubbornness or just high functioning autism?

It's 30 years of interaction with Internet Marxists.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

"scarcity + utility"

How do you explain the value of a diamond?

They are not scarce*

and

The most useful - industrial diamonds - are the cheapest.





* Diamonds have been produced commercially using the high-pressure, high-temperature method since the '60s (gem quality in the mid-'80s).

Gem-quality diamonds have been grown commercially using the chemical vapour deposition method since the 2000s.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

"scarcity + utility"

How do you explain the value of a diamond?

Scarcity + utility.

They are not scarce*

You just disqualified yourself from serious discussion.

The most useful - industrial diamonds - are the cheapest.

<sigh> Utility is the capacity to satisfy human desires, not the capacity to cut hard substances.

The immense marketing industry, by far the largest industry in the world, is based on the fact that human desires can be manipulated. DeBeers, a monopolistic diamond mining and jewelry company, has been very successful at getting people -- i.e., women -- to want diamond jewelry for centuries. Personally, I couldn't care less about them (it helps that my wife thinks jewelry is a stupid extravagance, and never wears the one piece I ever bought for her). But my opinion of diamonds' utility, like yours, is completely irrelevant. Value is how much the person who wants the item most would have to pay to buy it from the person who wants it second most.

* Diamonds have been produced commercially using the high-pressure, high-temperature method since the '60s (gem quality in the mid-'80s).

Gem-quality diamonds have been grown commercially using the chemical vapour deposition method since the 2000s.

Many years ago, I visited a friend in Bangkok who was in the stone business: buying and selling gemstones. He had fun showing me how little I knew about it. E.g., he showed me two similar stones, and had me look at them through a loupe. One was obviously flawed, the other one perfect. When I opined that the perfect one must be much more valuable, he disabused me: the perfect stone was artificial, and worth far less than the flawed one, which was natural. He was sure he could improve the flawed stone by "burning" it in a kiln at thousands of degrees, which would melt some of the imperfections and make the stone much more attractive. He had burned thousands of stones in this manner -- some were ruined in the process -- and had a good idea of what temperature and duration of burning were best to improve different kinds of stones with different kinds of flaws.

Now, by what disingenuous means will you try to persuade yourself that you have not been refuted again?

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Why would I attempt a refutation?

I am glad you agree that it is a marketing man's imagination that creates value in a gem-quality natural diamond.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Why would I attempt a refutation?

Maybe you are learning.

Naaaah. That can't be it.

I am glad you agree that it is a marketing man's imagination that creates value in a gem-quality natural diamond.

I said no such thing; his imagination requires a great deal of help from artists, copywriters, media buyers, etc. before it will be transformed into demand.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

You have agreed that the value in a gem-quality natural diamond is fictive - A creation of the imagination.

What is there to refute?

[Rugoz]

The substance of value is abstract labor, not scarcity + utility, which is nothing but another neoclassical anti-concept.

Production and the "abstract labor" that goes into it is a consequence of consumer choice, i.e. consumer preferences. There's no denying that. Moreover, the scarcity of natural resources determines what amount of "abstract labor" is required to make them available.