----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
I find parts of Tim Leonard's contribution to this discussion rather
disturbing. He writes:"The classical economists generally thought of
utility as an objective property (roughly akin to "usefulness") of things ñ
consistent with their labor theory of value."
1. Which classical economists would have considered a hoe equally useful
to a fisherman as to a farmer? If not, in what sense would they have
considered utility "an objective property"?
2. Adam Smith used labor -- the "ease, liberty, and happiness" foregone in
production -- as a measure of "the exchangeable value of all commodities"
rather than their determinant. David Ricardo went some distance in
including the amount of labor directly (current labor) and indirectly
(capital goods) expended on a commodity, besides its utility, in
determining values in exchange. As J.S. Mill explained, "when Adam Smith
and Malthus say that labour is a measure of value, they do not mean the
labour by which the thing was or can be made, but the quantity of labour
which it will exchange for, or purchase; in other words the value of the
thing, estimated in labour. And they do not mean that this *regulates*
[italicized word] the general exchange value of the thing, but only
ascertains what it is, and whether and how much it varies from time to time
and from place to place." Importantly, Mill adds,"To
confound these two ideas, would be much the same thing as to overlook the
distinction between the thermometer and the fire." (Works, 3: 580-1). So
besides Karl Marx, which classical economist had a "labor theory of value,"
as Tim asserts?
3. Before Jeremy Bentham there was Adam Smith. Why ignore Smith's
clarification of the difference between value in use (utility) and value in
exchange (price), the former being subjective and the latter being
objective, i.e., observable?
James Ahiakpor
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
