Academic’s UNACADEMICLIKE Behaviour

[Prakash RP]

An Academic's UN-ACADEMICLIKE behaviour

 

An academic is expected to defend their views and observations with sound logical explanation. It's unbecoming of an academic to have recourse to silly tactics like evasion or escape when it comes to face up to views and arguments challenging their own views and arguments. Joel Sobel, the Editor-in-Chief of Econometrica, an academic journal, resorted to such silly tactics in reply to a message meant to bring to his notice the fact that the THESIS that money canNOTmeasure the WORTH of a commodity, which I believe to be a discovery all by myself, has, to my credit, won THREE NOBELIST economists' ENDORSEMENTthus far. The three Nobelists are Alvin E. Roth, Robert J. Shiller, and Robert J. Aumann. ' Economists certainly agree with your headline statement, ' remarked Mr Roth. By the expression ' headline statement ', he meant the THESIS at issue. And Mr Shiller's brief comment was : ' I agree with you. ' Professor Aumann’s comment was approving too, but he contradicted my claim to have originated it. He holds that it's a ' well known ' thesis. in his message in response to my message to him, Mr Sobel remarked, ' I agree with the comments of the distinguished people who have replied to your message. The monetary value of an object does not measure [ its ] worth. This idea, however, has been known since (at least) Adam Smith and the references to the diamond-water paradox are appropriate. So I believe your insight is sound, but not novel. ' It's clear as day that Mr Sobel, like the three Nobelist economists, approves of the correctness of the THESIS at issue, but on the question of its newness, he subscribes to Professor Aumann's view. I certainly cannot agree with him on this point. In my second message to him, I pointed to the fact that what Professor Aumann views as the ' well known ' thesis is NOT identical with the THESIS I claim to have discovered by myself. ' It is known for hundred of years that monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth " , usually called its utility, ' observed Professor Aumann in his second message to me. Evidently, Professor Aumann's ' well known ' thesis is that ' monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth " , usually called its utility ', which is clearly different, in terms of wording and structure, from the THESIS that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. Of course, such differences do NOT mean they're different in essence too. But are they really identical in essence ? Mr Sobel's reply to this query is this : ' To the extent that the two statements you make: 
(1) monetary value of an object does not measure [ its ] worth 
(2) money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity
are different, it is because the second is poorly defined, while the first is a simple consequence of equilibrium analysis. ' It's clear as day that Mr Sobel accepts that the two theses are NOT identical in essence ‘ because the second is poorly defined '. He did NOT clarify what he meant by the expression ' poorly defined ' . Nor did he state what led him to this conclusion. Nevertheless, I think he means ' the second ' is incorrect because his statement just following the quoted one is : ' … I am not sure what the second statement means, but my guess is that ( 2 ) is false in reasonable formulations. ' The contradiction between his first view and his second view on the question of rightness of the THESIS that is my discovery is obvious. Thus, not only does he contradict himself, he also contradicts all the three Nobelists's views, all of whom ENDORSE the THESIS . And there's NO knowing what his defence is on this point as he made it clear in his second message that he ' will decline to answer [ any ] future emails. ' This is plain escape, a silly recourse, aimed at escaping the TRUTH that really and truly is inescapable. By resorting to such silly tactics, the Editor-in-Chief of Econometrica has exposed his silly SELF : not only is he lamentably lacking in wisdom, he's also without backbone he needs in order to stand up straight with his head held erect in front of the TRUTH.

[ copies of messages referred to and messages meant to support my assertions in the essay ]

[ copies of messages from Mr Joel Sobel and my message to him ]

Joel Sobel <jsobel@ucsd.edu>

Oct 25to meDear Mr Prakash, I agree with the comments of the distinguished people who have replied to your message. The monetary value of an object does not measure worth. This idea, however, has been known since (at least) Adam Smith and the references to the diamond-water paradox are appropriate. So I believe your insight is sound, but not novel. Best wishes, Joel S.

[ copy of my message to preceding Mr Sobel's message ]
 

Prakash RP <prakashrp54@gmail.com>

Oct 27to JoelDear Mr Sobel, pardon my ignorance and asking, would you take cognisance of the following points and queries and oblige me with your replies to them ? ( 1 ) Professor Aumann holds that the THESIS that money canNOTmeasure the WORTH of a commodity is ' well known ' and has been known for hundreds of years '. Nevertheless, he ' does not know who stated it first ' and has so far referred to only one piece of writing as its source ( Professor Aumannstated all this in his message dated October 24, 2017 to me ). Do you agree with this view wholly ? Could you state who stated it first and name one that defended it first ? Could you name a Nobelist economist other than Professor Aumann who holds the same view as he does and discussed the THESIS at issue and itsSIGNIFICANCE before me ? Did you really run across ever before what, by Professor Aumann, happens to be a ' well known ' thesis ? How many sources of it do you know of thus far ? Would you oblige me by stating these sources along with names of their authors ? ( 2 ) Is the statement that ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth ", usually called utility ' identical in essence, as Professor Aumann believes, with the statement that money canNOTmeasure the WORTH of a commodity ? Does the former, like the latter, point to the BASIC, hence insuperable, LIMITATION of money's capacity ? The latter, as I see it, carries GREAT and grave SIGNIFICANCE for humanity. It's meant to awaken humanity to the fact that the economic INEQUALITY ( i.e. wage differentials, wealth disparity, and the resulting social division into classes, i.e. the rich 1%including the super-rich 80, by the Oxfam's wealth data, and the poor and penniless millions that together make up 99% of humanity ), which happens to be at the root of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, i.e. the most DISGUSTING and agonisingly DISTRESSING fact that the fact that in a class-ridden society, swarms of the poor and penniless millions that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence themselves throughout their life and sillily watch the rich and the super-rich few idlers to lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries, were all BORN poor and penniless is NOT attributable to any FAULTS or failings of theirs while the fact that the rich and the super-rich were all BORN rich and super-rich to exploit the BORN poor and penniless and thus keep on growing RICHER and RICHER does NOT owe its ORIGIN to any NOBLE or creditable acts or achievements of theirs, canNOT be JUSTIFIED on the grounds of QUALITATIVE distinctions, just because the WORTH ( i.e. use-value or usefulness ) of a commodity is NOT measurable in money, between humans, between a NOBELIST and a pianist, or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by an unskilled or a less-skilled one. Thus, CEOs canNOT claim fatter salaries than restaurant waiters ; engineers canNOTclaim more money than porters, and nurses CAN claim as much pay as what physicians and surgeons receive. Did you ever encounter any work, other than mine, which is meant to awaken humanity to the THESIS at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE, i.e. the fact that the economic INEQUALITY, as referred to and described above, canNOT be JUSTIFIED on the grounds that NEITHER humans NOR their works are equal QUALITATIVELY ? Could you oblige me with a citation in defence of your assertion and opinion ? ( 3 ) Would you take cognisance of the fact that none of Alvin E. Roth and Robert J. Shiller holds the same views as Professor Aumann does in regard to the newness of the THESIS at issue and its being ' well known ' ?( 4 ) Don't you think the PERSPECTIVE of the originator of the ' well known ' thesis is outright DIFFERENT from mine ?( 5 ) Do you think I DIDborrow the CONCEPT of the THESIS at issue from its ' well known ' version that, by Professor Aumann, ' has been known for hundreds of years ' ? If you really think so, would you please let me know the reasons that led you to this conclusion ?A humble seeker after the TRUTH, I write to enlighten humanity. I wish you would state the WHOLE and plain truth, the NAKED and unpleasant truth. Best wishes, Prakash RP. prakashrp54@gmail.com

[ copy of Mr Sobel's second message to me ]

Joel Sobel

Oct 27to meI agree with Aumann. It appears clear that Roth agrees as well as his answer directed you to the literature. I do not know the origin of the diamond-water paradox, but it has been a textbook example for generations. To the extent that the two statements you make: 

(1) monetary value of an object does not measure [ its ] worth 
(2) money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity
are different, it is because the second is poorly defined, while the first is a simple consequence of equilibrium analysis. Without a precise formulation, I am not sure what the second statement means, but my guess is that (2) is false in reasonable formulations. I will not discuss the extent to which the subsequent claims you make are justified, but I do not see how they follow from either (1) or (2). 

At this point, with apologies, I will decline to answer future emails. I have other commitments and the topic of your message is outside of my central research interests.

[ copies from Nobelist economists referred to in the news piece along with my messages to them ]
 

Alvin Roth

Sep 19 (8 days ago)to meHi: sorry for my delayed reply, I get well over a hundred emails a day and can no longer answer them all. Economists certainly agree with your headline statement: if you Google the "diamond water paradox" you may enjoy what you find, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
 

Al Roth

http://www.stanford.edu/~alroth/

http://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/

 

Sent from my iPhone, sorry for autocorrect typos
On Sep 19, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Prakash RP <prakashrp54@gmail.com> wrote:
 

I'm forwarding it as I believe I deserve a response to my messages. Pardon me for encroaching on your precious time, sir.

---

Forwarded message

---

From: Prakash RP <prakashrp54@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:42 PM
Subject: a HUMBLE thesis by a HUMBLE guy
To: alroth@stanford.edu

Sir, I'm sorry to encroach on your precious time, but I really want to know your view of the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. I think humanity that still happens to be way too uncivilised just cannot afford to ignore it. It's presented beneath. Regards, Prakash RP.

Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity.

By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from the perspective of political economy, a commodity possesses two sorts of values. They are : ( 1 ) the use-value and ( 2 ) the exchange-value. By the use-value, the usefulness of a commodity is meant. By the worth of a commodity, I mean its use-value or usefulness. By the value of a commodity, its exchange-value is meant. It is because of the use-value ( or usefulness ) that a commodity has got some exchange-value ( i.e. value ). No use-value means no exchange-value. For example, a used-up ball-point-pen refill as refill is useless, hence valueless. Another example is an LED bulb that has stopped emitting light because of some irremediable inner fault. No one that wants an LED bulb would knowingly pay a penny or a cent for it. Another basic distinction between the use-value and the exchange-value is the fact that while the use-value of a commodity ( say a brand-new product on a shop's shelf ) remains unchanged, its exchange-value ( or value ) may undergo frequent changes because of changes in its supply and demand figures. The exchange-value ( or value ) of a commodity measured and expressed in money, i.e. its money-value, is its price, and it is the price of a commodity that happens to be governed and determined by market forces ( i.e the laws of supply and demand ). The use-value ( i.e. usefulness or worth ) of a commodity is independent of market forces. Another important and most interesting point worth noting in this regard is the fact that it's not the use-value but the exchange-value that interests the seller most while it happens to be the former that the buyer-consumer happens to consider something the most important for them.

Two commodities, each with an equal amount of use-value, may possess appreciably unequal exchange-values. For example, I'd like you to consider two products, say two toilet soaps, one of which is branded and thus supported by sales-promotion campaigns and ads. Naturally, the branded toilet soaps selling for higher prices to generate higher returns are far more lucrative than their non-branded rivals, and so they interest the seller far more than the non-branded ones do. In India, you'll encounter drugstores of two kinds :

( 1 ) the fair-price medicine shops ( situated inside the compounds of state-run hospitals ) which sell medicine by its generic name and offer as much as around 70% discount on the RRP or MSRP of each sort of medicine ;

( 2 ) drugstores of the other kind sell medicine by its brand name and offer no or low ( 10% at the most ) discount on the price ( RRP or MSRP ) of the medicine.

Even a commodity with far less use-value than another may carry far more exchange-value, thanks to massive and extensive sales campaigns with lavish TV adsand ads in the print media, the way I see it.

 
[ copy of the message from Robert J. Shiller ]
 

Robert Shiller

9:14 PM (16 hours ago)to meI agree with you. Adam Smith in 1776 also distinguished between value in use and value in exchange. Diamonds vs water. GDP is a poor measure of value.

On Aug 27, 2017 4:04 AM, "Prakash RP" <prakashrp54@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir, I'm sorry to encroach on your precious time, but I feel I ought to seek your view of the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity. I think humanity that still happens to be way too uncivilised just cannot afford to ignore it. It's presented beneath. Regards, Prakash RP.

Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity.

By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and ( 2 ) to act as the medium of exchange of commodities. But which value ? Viewed from the perspective of political economy, a commodity possesses two sorts of values. They are : ( 1 ) the use-value and ( 2 ) the exchange-value. By the use-value, the usefulness of a commodity is meant. By the worth of a commodity, I mean its use-value or usefulness. By the value of a commodity, its exchange-value …

 

[ copy of the message from Professor Aumann's office ]

Prof. Aumann's Office <aumann@mail.huji.ac.il>

Oct 22 (1 day ago)to Robert, me

Dear Mr. Prakash RP,

Prof. Aumann thanks you for your message of yesterday. He certainly agrees that the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth," which depends on the individual consumer, but he thinks that that is well known.

With best wishes,

Victoria Chvatal

 

ויקטוריה חבטל
עוזרת זמנית לפרופ' אומן
מרכז פדרמן לחקר הרציונליות
בניין פלדמן, חדר 225
האוניברסיטה העברית, גבעת רם
ירושלים 91904
טל': 02-6586254
פקס: 02-6584863
http://www.math.huji.ac.il/raumann

Victoria Chvatal
Temporary Assistant to Prof. Aumann

The Federmann Center for Rationality
The Hebrew University
Givat Ram Campus 
Jerusalem 91904
Tel. +972-2-6586254

[ALB]

I am afraid Joel Sobel is right, as we pointed out in the discussion of the other thread you started –it isn't you that is the first to point out that money doesn't measure use-value (only exchange-value) and that this was known at least as far back as Adam Smith. As he wrote to you:

Quote:

Joel Sobel Oct 25 to me: Dear Mr Prakash, I agree with the comments of the distinguished people who have replied to your message. The monetary value of an object does not measure worth. This idea, however, has been known since (at least) Adam Smith and the references to the diamond-water paradox are appropriate. So I believe your insight is sound, but not novel. Best wishes, Joel S.

[Prakash RP]

Dear ALB, thank you a lot for this response. I apologise to you and all others if it ( this post by me ) causes serious wastage of your precious time. But, as we know, conflict between views and counter-views leads us to the right one. I'd like you to spend some more time on this issue and help me grasp it clearly. I wish you'd bear in mind and consider the fact that I'm an individual who's NOT perfect NOR infallible. Surely, I may be mistaken. As I see it, the diamond-water paradox leads us to our awareness of the contradiction between the use-value and the exchange-value. Does it really lead us unquestionably to an idea like the one on money's incapacity ? Did you really encounter any such work to date that acquaints us with a logical method, such as the method of deduction, by which the author has arrived at the idea or thesis at issue ( conclusion ) from something like the diamond-water paradox ( premise ) ? Suggesting an idea is one thing, and the confirmation of it is something quite different, isn't it ? I have strong reservations about whether the idea logically follows from the diamond-water paradox. In my work, I've arrived at the thesis in question ( the inference ) directly from the definition of money ( the premise ), RIGHT ? In this respect, I think my work is unique and deserves credit, doesn't it ? ( None of the three Nobelist economists who endorse the thesis at issue has to date uttered a word against the method I've employed to deduce the thesis. Nevertheless, it's also true that they haven't stated anything for this method. I do not know the reason for their silence in this regard. But from this it doesn't follow that they disapprove of the method. ) Further, I think I deserve credit for enlightening humanity about the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis, a direct corollary to it, don't I ? I'm not conversant with Adam Smith's work. I'd like to see some relevant excerpts from his work dealing with this issue. I may be wrong to claim to be ' the first to point out ' the idea at issue. But that of course doesn't justify the volte-face the Editor-in-Chief of Econometrica did in his 2nd message and his evasion of commenting on the significance of the thesis, the immediate corollary to it, does it ? The Editor-in-Chief has not said a word to justify his volte-face either. You've claimed, to my utter astonishment, that you and most of the rest of humanity are well aware of the idea in question. This makes me wonder why then I did not hear of it before I discovered it all by myself. Why are economists, Nobelists included, not heard to speak on this topic,  i.e. the thesis, and its significance and thus enlighten humanity about what money cannot do, why it cannot do it, and what its significance is ? Is it because they fear that the thesis and its significance ( i.e. the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans or between a line of work and another , and thus it's the mother of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE ) will awaken humanity to the incurable ILLs and EVILs of capitalism and thus constitute the strongest defence of communism ? Are they all capitalists really ? But what about communists ? To be a true communist, you have to study CAPITAL volume I by Marx and comprehend its essence, haven't you ? Besides, as you remarked on the 2oth of December 2017 in the other thread ( Originator of a THESIS on money's incapacity ), as the thesis at issue ' is a commonplace observation which most of [ you ] agree with ', all communists must be aware of this thesis and its significance, mustn't they ? Why, then, are communists silent, like their capitalist bros, on the thesis and its significance ? Did the socialists of Great Britain talk about the thesis and its significance ever before ? I wish you'd throw light on these points and furnish your remarks with adequate, sound logical support and thus help me realise my mistakes. Would you let me know when and how you had the awareness of the idea at issue and what led you to be certain about its correctness ? ( Of course you were not BORN with this idea in your head, will you ? ) And what led you to believe that most of humanity is aware of the idea and its correctness ? And as most of those that make up the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, by the Oxfam's wealth data, are aware of the idea and its correctness, could you explain why even in the First World, you haven't witnessed to date an organised strong movement aimed at the abolition of economic inequality and factors that contribute to it, such as the exploitation of wage slaves by capitalists, wage differentials, trading in commodities, private property and its inheritance, etc, etc ? Why have the workers in the First World failed to date to make the abolition of economic inequality a strong political issue ? Why to date haven't we witnessed, even in the First World, a true communist party with a respectably large-enough following ? Is it because most of humanity, the 99%, know that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity, and that economic INEQUALITY is the origin of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE ? Or, is it because I'm the most ignorant and biggest fool of the world ? Everyone knows everything that I know and also everything else that I don't know ?!!  I'd like to add the following to the above. ( added on 26/12/2017 )If Adam Smith or anyone else had proved the thesis at issue, Professor Aumann would know ' who stated it first ', as I see it. ( See the 2nd message from Professor Robert j. Aumann ) [ copy of Prof Aumann's second message dated Oct 24, 2017 along with my second message preceding it ]  Prof. Aumann's OfficeOct 24 to me, Robert      1) It has been known for hundreds of years that the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility. Prof. Aumann does not know who stated this thesis first. 2) It occurs, for example, in the following, first published almost 300 years ago:Bernoulli, Daniel; originally published in 1738; translated by Dr. Louise Sommer (January 1954). "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk". Econometrica. The Econometric Society. 22 (1): 22–36.   From: Prakash RP [mailto:prakashrp54@gmail.com]Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 6:15 PMTo: Prof. Aumann's OfficeSubject: Re: a humble THESIS by a humble guy  Thanks to Professor Aumann a lot for the reply. I'd like him to oblige me with the following pieces of info : ( 1 ) who stated this THESIS first and ( 2 ) in which work this piece of info occurs.  

[Author]

Posts