----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Rod Hay wrote: 
 
"There are any number of "values." Not just use and exchange. Value is a 
judgment. It is easy to invent a large number of different criteria for 
judging a thing or an action." 
 
To refer to "values" as purely matters of judgment and therefore subjective 
is the basis of the neoclassical dichotomy between positive and normative 
economics. It ignores the reality of an economic society in which our 
shared moral principles as Adam Smith would say, form the foundation of 
even a market society. Without those moral judgments emerging from a 
'framework of social reciprocity' [Keith Tribe's words in his JEL 1999 
article] value in use and value in exchange will not have operational 
meaning. For example, we  disdain the production of use values by a drug 
dealer and ignore the fact that the price of the drug may be totally 
justified by the conditions of demand and supply. So I would like to 
suggest that we adhere to 'values' as a matter of necessity and usually 
agree on the accepted norms of the time. And of course they change with the 
passing of time. 
  
Feminist economists theorize that the emphasis on keeping science in 
general and economics in particular value-free is an exercise in self 
deception. I would like to recommend: "Value-Free or Valueless? Notes on 
the pursuit of Detachment in Economics"  by Julie A. Nelson, HOPE 25:1, 
1993. 
  
Best, 
  
Sumitra Shah 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]