===================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
I basically agree with Tony.  My point was based on the one appearance of 
the terms "value in use" in Smith.  In that context, and only in that 
context, he appears to me to be saying that utility means some kind of 
objective usefulness which water has in abundance but diamonds do not. In 
my view he is not talking about the same thing here that he talks about 
in TMS under the heading of utility, nor is he talking about the same 
thing he means by utility in other places in the Wealth.  As Tony said he 
brought up the idea and then set it aside.  I think the lesson of this is 
that this passage cannot be used to support the view that Smith ignored 
subjective utility, or that he saw no role for demand in his price 
theory. This, I think, is a confusion which arises from supposing that 
just because he used the same form of words (value in use) as others who 
meant by it subjective utility, that, therefore, he must have meant the 
same thing by it.  If my memory serves me correctly I believe that this 
view can be found in Hollander's Econ of Adam Smith and in Meek's Studies 
in the Labour Theory of Value. 
 
Jeff Young 
[log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]