|
|
On October 29 2012 22:48 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2012 18:11 Danglars wrote:On October 29 2012 16:40 Souma wrote:On October 29 2012 16:06 Danglars wrote:On October 29 2012 15:20 blug wrote:
I'm not an American, I don't know anything about the American Political System besides the fact that you have 2 main candidates running.
However, I did watch a video of Romney bad mouthing the poorer individuals, how did Romney talk his way out of that? How are people even willing to vote for Romney after saying those comments?
Do people actually agree with what he said? I'm not saying if it's bad if you do, I just thought the general populous wasn't that open minded xD Well now that you've watched Romney bad mouthing poorer individuals, how about Obama bad mouthing some hard-working individuals. News media is all about sensationalism. Don't think you saw one volley of mud slung and have people seriously question their votes as a result of it. I mean, we on the other side were aghast at how Obama's numbers have held on considering what the last 4 years have shown America about how the man likes to govern. Two sides to this deal. On October 29 2012 15:00 Souma wrote:
^ Yeah we talked about it, then you went off on a tangent about X-Boxs and air-conditioning. Because those are some of the evils that one cause of income equality generates. The living conditions of the poor improve even as the income gap between them and the wealthy widens. I hear the moans about this gap, but the deleterious effects of it are not borne out. I'm sorry, but life is not measured by something so trivial as the affordability of a television to the general populace. This whole black-and-white perspective on income inequality is stupid. There's a certain threshold where income inequality becomes detrimental to society and that line has been all but crossed as demonstrated by paralleluniverse's sources and even Jonny's linked article. Thanks for the straw man, I'll stick it in the corner. I'm talking about the general trend of the elevation of the person in poverty's lot in life. That they now have money for that extra TV, for the car, for the AC, and everything else. And even when you say that life is not measured by the luxuries you can afford, I'll stack on top of it that well-being is not measured by income. I read at least The Economist article seeing with what broad strokes they painted societal ills into the income inequality bucket. China came first, the bastion of a politically free and responsive government. Of course, the political favors of a corrupt, unresponsive government creates poor conditions, and not some income gap with free people able to do business apart from state-owned allowances. Throw Russia and India in that pile. Wall Street cronyism not letting up-and-comers in to become wealthy? Let's get government out of the too-big-to-fail business and back to the worst-run banks fail, allowing new ones to spring up to take their place. There is still quite a big of income mobility into the top ranks. Taking 1995 to 2005, you can see only one quarter of those at the very top still being in their coveted position, new ones coming in to take their place (US Treasury Report, 2007). Celebrate it for goodness sakes. Continuing in the trend of misdeeds done by the government on the economy is the subsidies, and the declining state of schools (Not for lack of spending money on them, the growth in that is astronomical.) I doubt I can convince even one who focuses on income inequality that it is misappropriated. It is a political issue, it is the way of drumming up envy and votes, and it will remain so. The alternative is stark. The improvement of conditions for those who at any point in time are in the bottom 20% is remarkable. Income mobility is still very good in the United States, even with the increase in single-parent families and other pressures. 93% of the time, if you were born to a family at the very bottom, you will supercede your parents. This is 88% if you're in the middle class (Pew Trusts, Economic Mobility Project, 2012). If you don't want to be counted amongst the poor in this country, it isn't that hard, it isn't . Get through high school, marry before getting kids, and wait until after 20 to get married (This from William Galston, Clinton adviser, back in 2002. Only 8% of families that did this are poor, you're up to 79% chance if you fail to do those three. Personal responsibility). http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pursuing_American_Dream.pdfLink to the study you referenced. Did you actually read the study or just look at information that suited your needs? It doesn't paint that much of a rosy picture. It's fine to say 93% of the time you will supersede your parents, but taking a closer look, as the study did, you find the ones at the bottom do not supersede their parents by very much, much of the distribution is barely higher than their parents. Also the mobility among blacks is significantly lower than whites. By your implication this is because they are lazy, stupid, and irresponsible, if they would only "just do it", obviously it's not that hard not to be poor. Furthermore, there are differences state by state, to simply state 93% of the time... is overly simplistic and lacks meaning. From the study. At all levels, Americans are likely to exceed their parents’ family incomes, but the extent of their income growth varies by quintile. Americans raised in the bottom who surpass their parents’ incomes do so by the smallest absolute amounts, while Americans raised in the top who surpass their parents’ incomes do so by the largest absolute amounts. ![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/th_page1.png) ![[image loading]](http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/th_page2.png) Also from the study that stuck out. Only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom quintile make it all the way to the top as adults, confirming that the “rags-to-riches” story is more often found in Hollywood than in reality. Similarly, just 8 percent of those raised in the top quintile fall all the way to the bottom. So there's the links and info if anyone wants to look at it and decide for themselves. You shouldn't interpret my response as one of being disdain for rich people or white people. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't think there is a conscious effort to keep minorities down. And obviously not everyone can be rich. The U.S. is still far better off than a lot of the world and there are still opportunities, but at least be genuine and realistic about describing a problem rather than not even scratching the surface. I think we are way off topic now.
Yes 43% stay in the bottom. 93% exceed their parent's income, and 43% of those don't earn enough to rise out of poverty. That's right, 57% pop out. You're more likely to get out of the poverty line in a generation than to stay there. Maybe only by one quintile, but it happens. I'd like more policy emphasis on intact families instead of government as the second parent in a two parent family (Welfare policies for single parents making 2 parent families less of a need). Studies I referenced as well as others show the black/white difference tied to families. Again, not the income inequality, but the need to have a marriage bedrock for kids. I see Obama putting class warfare as the highlight (Well, shouldn't the rich pay just a LITTLE bit more while we pursue cutting federal programs. Sacrifice!), and Romney wanting to encourage income mobility. It's a core issue for me.
Do you not realize how elitist and privileged you sound? It must be nice talking down on others from your pedestal. Getting out of poverty isn't black and white as you make it out to be. It's not as simple as finishing high school and marrying before kids to escape poverty. There are issues involving race and ethnicity that must be taken into consideration. Most of those living in poverty happen to be minorities living in urban slums where education, social services, and the government are seen as working against them or just non-existent. You're implication that the poor are just lazy and are only poor because they don't put the work in is disgusting and outdated.
Here is a great quote from the Pew article you cited. "While a majority of Americans exceed their parents’ family incomes, the extent of that increase is not always enough to move them to a different rung of the family income ladder." Taking together with the finding that the poor's gainest is lowest in absolute terms, you're making a very, very small increase. And most likely you'll still be living in poverty even though your income has improved. Nice picking and choosing of quotes out of context to fit your argument.
Strangely enough, the exact citation of marrying before kids and finishing high school is demonstrated to be the keys to the escape. Of course I'm for an improvement in education. It is government keeping the poor in under performing schools, essentially dooming the biggest moves out of poverty, because there is no school choice right now. Romney supports school voucher programs, giving the people "purchasing" their education more choice instead of being forced into bad schools with teachers protected by teacher's unions and legislation from being fired for poor performance. Education is a need for the poor, sadly, Obama stands on the side keeping it a need, opposing school choice.
The government is indeed working against them in the respect I just talked about and more. The solution to this is, oddly enough, not more government programs. The ones not working now, as you claim, were designed by the same kind of people likely to do the next one. The truly elite sit back with the numbers of how much they're spending on the poor, scoring political points for their intentions, while the programs go on to skyrocket costs for little actual improvement. As mentioned earlier, a simple elimination of the management bureaucracy and a check would be an improvement. Ludicrous, but true.
So, look at the supposed ills of income inequality, and you find the real causes. Amongst these are the rise in single-parent families, high school dropouts, and failing education system run by the self-interested bureaucracies. Heck, if you want more income parity, let's go for a bigger recession, that can really nail the wealthy, and have that great side-effect of decreased prosperity for everybody. If you're poor growing up in a system you can't change, there are responsible steps you can take towards a better life. Real edgy, counter-culture ones. Like obeying the law, staying away from alcohol and drugs. It gets a bad rap, but religious and community organizations are there and help make it more likely that you will experience success. Rail against it as you may, the inconvenient truth remains, marriage before kids and high school are on the list to (for ex, Butler, Beach, Winfree 'Pathways to Economic Mobility') I want income mobility, and more truth towards the insignificant statistic of income inequality (as it relates negatively, at least. Rich getting richer is a good symptom of a prosperous nation). My vote is going towards the guy that can be more trusted to support income mobility, the "American Dream," and remove governmental barriers to its realization.
|
Well, the thing is, you say Marx isn't advocating a normative theory...
But in my mind, social value doesn't exist, because society doesn't have a mind, it is a collection of minds. Value can only exist for individuals. The nature of these values are not something held in common, they are in conflict with each other. Because they exist in conflict, it doesn't make sense to suggest some overarching social value that exists independent of individuals. Describing individual values is not a normative process, because you are simply describing what is there, you are responding to it.
The attempt to ascribe a social value to something instead of responding to existing individual values is something I can only regard as a normative process.
|
On October 30 2012 09:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
But in my mind, social value doesn't exist, because society doesn't have a mind, it is a collection of minds.
Value can only exist for individuals.
Yes! That's why value is intersubjective (shared between a collection of minds) and use-value is subjective (exists for one person). You're leery at the idea of intersubjectivity tout court, I suppose, but I think you would have a hard time defending this. At least, if you want to, you aren't allowed to use language to do it, because that is an intersubjective thing and if you try to use words to prove the nonexistence of intersubjectivity you lose automatically.
The nature of these values are not something held in common, they are in conflict with each other.
Yes. The use-values are heterogenous and incommensurate. That's Marx's starting point. The question is, then, how can people trade them? If they are the sorts of totally different things like a hammer and sandwich, owned by totally different people, then you need some reference point if you want to say that, in general, one hammer trades for two sandwiches. You need some axis on which they can be compared, and use-value doesn't work for this because "hitting nails" and "feeding me" are simply not comparable things...
Because they exist in conflict, it doesn't make sense to suggest some overarching social value that exists independent of individuals.
It doesn't exist independently of individuals, it exists because of an aggregation of individuals (an economy). It's the interaction of these conflicts which produce the social values.
Describing individual values is not a normative process, because you are simply describing what is there, you are responding to it.
this is a little unclear to me.
The attempt to ascribe a social value to something instead of responding to existing individual values is something I can only regard as a normative process.
But Marx doesn't say what the value of a hammer SHOULD be... that would be a normative claim. He's simply theorizing how it can possibly be that commensurable exchange-values emerge out of the comparison of heterogenous use-values. The point is, that if you don't have a social value for the hammer, you can't sell it - you can only barter it. You need to have social values of things in order to have a money economy work - otherwise you have no clue how much to sell your hammer for.
|
This conversation surely has much to do with the current election. I didn't know that Marxism was a point of difference between the two candidates, although I think I did hear that once on a right-wing radio station.
|
It should be. (edit: there's a normative claim for you)
Anyway, if you guys want to go back to talking about the obamaphone or whose wife wears what dress, I'll shut up and you can carry on with serious politics.
|
Man, I was really hoping the Star Wars thread would merge with the economic thread.
Come on, we all know the Emperor was in the pocket of defense contractors. A space station the size of a small moon. Really?
|
The specter haunting alderaan
|
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual's preferences. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it.
|
On October 30 2012 09:45 DoubleReed wrote:
Man, I was really hoping the Star Wars thread would merge with the economic thread.
Come on, we all know the Emperor was in the pocket of defense contractors. A space station the size of a small moon. Really?
The "Trade Federation"? We all know it was Halliburton that build the Death Star...
|
Lest anyone think that Mr. Christie had been subsumed by politics amid a disaster, the governor, who spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Mitt Romney, heaped praise on President Obama.
Mr. Christie said Mr. Obama had called to make sure he had everything needed from the federal government and left a number to call him directly at the White House should any unmet needs arise.
“I appreciate that call from the president,” Mr. Christie said. “It was very proactive. I appreciate that kind of leadership.”
Christie secretly wants 2016 to himself ;p.
|
well, the peanut gallery is growing tired of me I think. but if you'll reread what I already wrote you'll find the answer to your question. None of what you've said is a challenge for the theory. We're going in circles and I'm not sure you're listening to me, or maybe I'm bad at explaining. you say "it is all based on individual utility that is all," okay, but you don't have a theory about how all of that turns into an economy. you just say "it just happens, and if you try to theorize it you're being silly." It's precisely the point of the theory to explain what happens in your collection of a million individuals. You can't, with your theory. you just wave your hands and it happens.
It's not wrong to think about value as an illusion. In fact, Marx would rather agree with you. But then we have to start talking about commodity fetishism and leporello will become angry
edit: and you should notice that your thing about "maximize consumption" is laughably wrong. you don't set prices to maximize consumption, you set them to maximize your profit...
|
On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it.
There is perceived value and there is trade value. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done.
See how easy that was?
|
On October 30 2012 10:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +Lest anyone think that Mr. Christie had been subsumed by politics amid a disaster, the governor, who spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Mitt Romney, heaped praise on President Obama.
Mr. Christie said Mr. Obama had called to make sure he had everything needed from the federal government and left a number to call him directly at the White House should any unmet needs arise.
“I appreciate that call from the president,” Mr. Christie said. “It was very proactive. I appreciate that kind of leadership.” Christie secretly wants 2016 to himself ;p.
I don't think it's a secret. I mean his RNC speech was "Dude, I am so awesome. Look at how awesome I am. Don't you wish I was running? Oh btw vote Romney."
|
On October 30 2012 10:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +Lest anyone think that Mr. Christie had been subsumed by politics amid a disaster, the governor, who spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Mitt Romney, heaped praise on President Obama.
Mr. Christie said Mr. Obama had called to make sure he had everything needed from the federal government and left a number to call him directly at the White House should any unmet needs arise.
“I appreciate that call from the president,” Mr. Christie said. “It was very proactive. I appreciate that kind of leadership.” Christie secretly wants 2016 to himself ;p.
Of course he does. There is no Democrat with a shot of winning it against the winner of a Rubio/Christie/Ryan/Condi primary.
|
On October 30 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it. There is perceived value and there is price. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done. See how easy that was?
Fixed your post. The problem is, we aren't talking about price.
|
On October 30 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it. There is perceived value and there is trade value. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done. See how easy that was?
but it's not objective... and what's the relationship between them?
|
On October 30 2012 10:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it. There is perceived value and there is price. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done. See how easy that was? Fixed your post. The problem is, we aren't talking about price.
Same thing. There is what you're willing to pay for something and what you'll get for selling something. Like I said, you can call them whatever the hell you want, they're still the same thing.
|
On October 30 2012 10:06 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 10:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 30 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it. There is perceived value and there is price. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done. See how easy that was? Fixed your post. The problem is, we aren't talking about price. Same thing. There is what you're willing to pay for something and what you'll get for selling something. Like I said, you can call them whatever the hell you want, they're still the same thing.
yes, that's the exchange value. What's your point
|
On October 30 2012 10:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 09:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
lol no.... It is all based upon utility, individual psychological satisfaction, that is all it is. When a person has a choice between a hammer and a sandwich, their mind picks the one that will give it greater satisfaction at the moment.
See, here's another problem with your ideas... If I'm starving to death, my utility from a sandwich will be very, very high. After I've had one sandwich, I'm still going to value the next quite a bit, but not as much as the first. After I've had about 4, I'm getting stuffed, and don't value the next one much at all. If I continue eating, I will actually become averse to having more.
The value, the utility, that is gained from the same exact object is changing, based upon the psychological preferences of the individual. If the value is not consistent, even for one person during a single day, how could you suggest that society as a whole and across time could have some quantifiable use-value?
This concept in economics is called the law of diminishing marginal utility. And recognizing the existence of marginal utility negates the notion that the sandwich has a value independent of the individual. Because if the value of a good can change so rapidly for even an individual, what does that say about a the commodity among a collection of a million individuals?
So as to the question, "how much to sell your hammer for?" the answer is obvious: How much is that individual willing to pay? In practice, we don't set prices based upon individuals most of the time, that would be too cumbersome, and so we set a price that we think will maximize consumption among the whole public. And this short-cut is what is creating the illusion that society has a specific value for it. There is perceived value and there is trade value. What you call them doesn't matter. The former is subjective, the latter is objective. Done. See how easy that was? but it's not objective... and what's the relationship between them?
Because trade value can be measured in a civilized earth where we all use a standard to measure price.
If you guys are arguing about the "value" of the return goods differentiating based on the perceived value of the return goods, then it's a pointless circular argument. If you pin it to a single reference point (as every moderately civilized society does), then price and trade value become the same thing.
|
no, that's not what the argument is about, the argument is about what this "civilized standard" is and how to understand it.
But, please, guys, go back to shouting at each other about whose polls are better. I can tell I'm boring you with my pedantry
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page1.png)
![[image loading]](http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d56/Gugen/?action=view¤t=page2.png)
