===================== HES POSTING ==================== Michael Perelman's argument that 'value in use' refers to specific uses which are qualitatively different between goods is a correct summary of Marx's usage but not of Smith's. The passage from the Wealth of Nations that Michael Robison refers to reads: 'The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other, "value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange.' This clearly implies a notion of utility/value in use which is in some sense quantifiable and comparable betwen different goods (but does not, of course, mean that Smith's very vague notion is the same as later neoclassical concepts of utility - in particular, I am not aware of any link in Smith between utility/value in use and subjective preferences). But neither 'value in use' nor 'utility' played any substantial role in the Wealth of Nations. The phrase 'value in use' is used only in the few pages on value cited above, while 'utility' appears a few times elsewhere as a synonym for 'usefulness' with no specific theoretical significance (that I can detect). The precious metals have 'utility, beauty, and scarcity', for example. It would not be wise to make much rest on this casual usage. Some words have specific meanings within a theoretical scheme, others are just part of the general resources of the language which a writer like Smith could use without any special significance. ---------------------- Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) University of Bristol, Department of Economics ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]