----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Bill Williams doubts there is any direct evidence that "a particular 
utility [is] perceived by the user" of a product or good that has 
ostentation or collection value.  I'm not sure I understand the difficulty 
with my suggestion. 
 
Whether a diamond, a Faberge egg, a $100 bill used to light a cigar or a 
collectible that only an individual would want, isn't it self-evident that 
having paid a price to acquire it there is utility?  The utility may be to 
show off,  to have pure enjoyment, to make an investment with a specific 
monetary return or some combination.  As I understand investment value, it 
is distinguished from market value because the investor's objectives may 
vary from market's.  Utility may even be in non-use.... say the 
philanthropist who buys a development site to place a conservation easement 
on it, or the environmentalist who trades national debt instruments for 
rain forest to be turned into parkland as has been done in South America. 
 
Is your concern with the demonstration of utility itself or with the 
"particular" nature of the utility? 
 
Scott Cullen 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]