Dear Pat Gunning,



I request you to think fairly on the point " Dose any one feel scarcity 
without concept/sense of value in his mind?"   I say "No"

When the sense of scarcity appears on horizon as an infant, value enjoys the 
status of matured age. The essence of my saying is...if we are not clear 
about true nature of or constitution of "value", it is not possible to hold 
a reliable opinion/discussion on "demand and supply" relation. Here Roger 
had to bring "value" in the discussion, but, in my view as I have told, till 
date controversies prevails when value (with improper understanding about 
it) becomes one of the prime means of discussion. Karl Marx had said about 
"use value" that is what I believe fulfilment of 1,2 and 3 conditions when 
4th condition remains unfulfilled. But it is inevitable for any person who 
discusses any vital topic of economics...he must understand the difference 
between "value" (fulfilling all the four conditions) and "form of value".

A material substance or thing bears "Form value" when one or more conditions 
out of four are to be still fulfilled.

If you are thirsty and a green coconut (with a hole pierced) is in your hand 
has a "value". However, if the same green coconut is on the coconut tree and 
you are standing under the tree with your thirst, the same coconut has a 
"form of value" but not "value". If any one discusses vital issues of 
economics without understanding the difference between "value" and "form of 
value", he is going to invite contradiction in his ultimate conclusions.



Harshad Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pat Gunning" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "HH DAVE" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] The reversed axes of supply and demand (private)


> Without scarcity, Harshad, the value you describe is irrelevant. Choice is 
> only relevant in the presence of scarcity. Perhaps scarcity is implicit in 
> your definition of a need.
>
> The question is whether you are discussing only denabd
>
> On 2/4/2011 11:50 PM, HH DAVE wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As Roger said bellow, I would like to comment as follow.
>>
>> While going through various aspects of value, I view value in different 
>> way.
>>
>> (Here I talk about value of substance i. e. material thing only.)
>>
>> **
>>
>> *PARAMETERS CREATING VALUE*
>>
>> For any layman, *value *means cost/price at which we buy the things. The 
>> meaning is sufficient for him as far as life is to be continued in terms 
>> of monetary value. The concept of *value *was born at the moment when the 
>> first life came into existence on our earth. We generally apply the 
>> concept of *value *without knowledge just as we enjoyed the benefits of 
>> laws of gravity before discovering the same by Sir Isaac Newton! It is 
>> not worth to apply the word *value *anywhere to push the transaction 
>> ahead.
>>
>> To avoid confusion while presenting views on value, a clear meaning of 
>> value has to be understood. The creation and interpretationof value in 
>> any substance always rests on fulfilment of four preconditions.
>>
>> These four constituents are:
>>
>> 1.Existence of a Subject or a Person with *need* for something.
>>
>> 2.Existence of a substance competent to satisfy the need by its one or 
>> more characteristics. (recognized as “substance”)
>>
>> 3.The subject/person should know about the intrinsic characteristics of 
>> the substance in relation to need satisfaction.
>>
>> 4.Practical feasibility to realize the exploitation/consumption/enjoyment 
>> of the substance to satisfy need.(recognized as “consumption”)
>>
>> These typical four constituents are inevitable for the creation of *value 
>> *in any materialistic thing. When all four parameters are present at an 
>> event, *value* is established in the substance to satisfy need of the 
>> subject/person.
>>
>
> Not inevitable but necessary.
>
>> *In absence of fulfilment of one or more conditions out of above four, 
>> value can never exist in a substance.*
>>
>> When one or more out of above four conditions are not fulfilled and if a 
>> person has a feeling/sense of value in the substance, it is form of 
>> value....but...not "Value".
>>
>> Lack of understanding about the difference between "value" and "form of 
>> value" creates such confusion.
>>
>> Above definition of value with a precondition of fulfilment of the four 
>> conditions is my own concept/conclusion.
>>
>> Is there any one who might logically counter it or point out that it is 
>> not a new one?
>>
>> ______Harshad Dave
>>
>
> Try reading Chapter One of Mises's Human Action, followed by Chapters Four 
> Five and Six.
>
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA.html
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Roger Sandilands <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 04, 2011 11:14 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] The reversed axes of supply and demand
>>
>> *I have found Allyn Young **(1876-1929) **helpful in clarif**ying the 
>> issue. Partly his views relate to his **1911 **QJE article, "Some 
>> **L**imitations of the Value C**oncept" **in which he asks whether value 
>> is antecedent to price or vice versa. But later, in his LSE lectures, 
>> 1927-29 **(published in the Journal of Economic Studies, 17:3/4 
>> **[**1990**])**, **as written down by Nicholas Kaldor, **he **highlighted 
>> the **deep **importance of **the distinction between **demand and 
>> supply**in **(i) **the **sense of **quantities at particular prices and 
>> (ii) **as relating to the general conditions of demand and supply, or 
>> **in the **(shifting) "**schedule**"**sense.***
>> *Thus he wrote (**[1990], **p.35):
>> ****"Demand price" is the price**at which a specified quantity of goods 
>> will be taken off the market. The older economists in saying that 
>> **"prices are determined by supply and demand" used **common**concepts 
>> which they themselves did not scrutinise carefully.
>> **T**hey had in mind**that p = f(s.d.), more particularly**, one aspect 
>> of it -- i.e., changes in supply and demand and what effect they have on 
>> price. J.S. Mill**first attempted to give precision to the notion. "Price 
>> will always be, or tend to be, at that point where supply equals demand." 
>> There he considers price not so much as f(s.d.), but **rather****supply 
>> and demand as functions of price **[**s = f(p); d = f(p)**]**. And this 
>> is more than changing the dependent and independent variable; **_*/*it is 
>> not the same statement*/*_.
>> ****Taking Mill's tendency statement prima facie, it is a tau**tology; 
>> but it really implies a generalisation about the character of supply and 
>> demand functions. Marshall then used curves to give Mill's statement 
>> greater precision. (Cournot and **J**enkin**[first of all] had already 
>> used curves.) Cairnes, however, favoured the older conception of supply 
>> and demand varying and so affecting price. Regarding **these curves, the 
>> negatively sloping demand curve is really a generalisation from the 
>> market. It is implicit, not explicit, in Mill. Notice that **M**arshall 
>> violated mathematical **convention by using price**a**s the independent 
>> variable and yet measured price vertically. Contrast Cournot's curves.*
>> *By thi**s**time (1927-29) **Young was **more interested in developing a 
>> **macroeconomic **theory of **increasing returns in which **price 
>> **is****the **dependent variable**. Thus he drew (in his LSE 
>> lectures**explicitly**, **and implicitly in his seminal EJ December 1928 
>> paper) **interdependent aggregate supply and demand curves **in which 
>> both were downward sloping, and in which price appears **on the 
>> **vertical**axis in the conventionally **“**correct**”**way.****For the 
>> **supply and demand curves**, though **_*/*interdependent*/*_**, are 
>> still the **_*/*independent*/*_****variables**upon which price depends.*
>> *- Roger Sandilands*
>
> -- 
> Pat Gunning
> Professor of Economics
> Melbourne, Florida
> http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm
>
>
>