Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity
- This topic has 426 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I'm not sure whether I'm right to post this message on this site's page. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I want to communicate to you all the following message.
I'm NOT an economist. Nevertheless, I'm conversant with ideas and opinions of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. My knowledge of political economy is limited to my study and comprehension of the great work CAPITAL volume I by Marx , which led me to discover the THESIS that money canNOT measure the WORTH ( i.e. the use-value or usefulness ) of a commodity. The Nobelist economist Alvin E. Roth, who is also noted for his contribution to the game theory, has obliged me with his ENDORSEMENT of this humble discovery by, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this humble guy. ' Economists certainly agree with your headline statement ', remarked Mr Roth in a message dated Sep 19, 2017 in response to my mail dated Aug 28, 2017, which I forwarded to him on Sep 19, 2017. By the expression ' headline statement ', he meant the THESIS at issue. Copies of Mr Roth's message to me and my mail to him are presented below to corroborate my claim.
As I've already stated, I believe the THESIS at issue to have been a discovery by myself. But Mr Anirban Mukherjee ,PhD , who teaches economics at the University of Calcutta , contradicts this assertion and argues that this THESIS is ' too obvious ' to the economics students. I've yet to receive his reply to my message seeking the name of the person that stated it first and the name of the work in which this piece of info occurs. My eagerness to have these pieces of info is behind my posting this message on this website. If you're an economist or someone conversant with this subject, would you be kind enough to oblige me with these pieces of info and thus enlighten me about whether I really deserve to have to my credit the recognition and distinction of having discovered a new THESIS and thus awakened humanity to this highly significant UNIVERSAL truth ?
[ copy of Mr Alvin E. Roth's message to me along with my mail dated Aug 28, 2017, which I forwarded to Mr Roth on Sep 19, 2017 ]
Alvin Roth
Sep 19 (4 days ago)
to me
Hi: 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 …Prakash RP wrote: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 …Prakash, I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The idea that money cannot measure the worth – or use value – of a commodity was well understood by Marx who pointed out that while"nothing can have value, without being an object of utility” it is neverthless the case that "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy” and that, logically speaking, labour had to be the primary measure of value under capitalism. After all, it is labour that is the one thing common to all commodities whereas the use values of commodities are not only are qualitatively different and incommesurable but differ from person to person and from time to time. Its just another way of saying what you are saying above, I think (Marx K, 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.)
Chapter One: Commodities4. “The natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities, or serve the conveniencies of human life.” (John Locke, “Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, 1691,” in Works Edit. Lond., 1777, Vol. II., p. 28.)In English writers of the 17th century we frequently find “worth” in the sense of value in use, and “value” in the sense of exchange value. This is quite in accordance with the spirit of a language that likes to use a Teutonic word for the actual thing, and a Romance word for its reflexion. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
There is also Oscar Wilde's famous quip : "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."?
Sorry for the delay in responding to your comment, but I was really very busy dealing with a serious problem. I've taken cognisance of your point. I also believe that Marx was not unaware of the fact that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. Nevertheless, I don't think it's strong enough to disprove an assertion or argument. i'd like you to oblige me with a citation that's direct ( i.e. not a deduction or interpretation ) and incontestable in defence of your view.However, I think it's far more weighty for humanity right now what the thesis at issue signifies than who originated it. As I see it, the immediate corollary to it is that economic INEQUALITY ( uneven distribution of wealth and income consequent on the exploitation of wage slaves by capitalists, inheritance, the buying and selling of commodities, etc leading to the social division into classes, i.e. the rich 1% including the super-rich 80, by Oxfam's wealth data, and the poor and penniless millions that make up around 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 the poor and penniless millions that sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries but lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life 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 few idlers that lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries were all BORN rich and super-rich to exploit the BORN poor and penniless and thus grow RICHER and RICHER is not attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs, does not happen to owe its origin to the QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by an unskilled or a less-skilled one. Thus, CEOs canNOT demand fatter salaries than restaurant waiters; engineers canNOT be paid more money than porters, and nurses CAN claim as much pay as physicians and surgeons. As I see it, this SIGNIFICANCE, the immediate corollary to the THESIS at issue, happens to constitute the mightiest argument against capitalism and for communism in the 21st century. I'd like to know your stance on this point. I'd also like to know of any works that contain this SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS in question.
I expected some comments from yoy all on the content of my last post. It passes my comprehension why you all are silent on the SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity.
You need to stop capitalising and emboldening words, as you are yelling at people and this is bad form (netiquette).
Prakash RP wrote:I expected some comments from you all on the content of my last post. It passes my comprehension why you all are silent on the significance of the thesis that money can not measure the worth of a commodity.Corrected by MattIf anything like me , I suspect some people saw the shouting and capitalisation and didn't read it.Money is merely a means of exchange in any case.
Prakash RP wrote:I expected some comments from yoy all on the content of my last post. It passes my comprehension why you all are silent on the SIGNIFICANCE of the THESIS that money canNOT measure the worth of a commodity.It will be because it's a commonplace observation which we, and most other people, agree with. Of course we go further and say this situation should be ended by bringing in a society based on common ownership and production for use instead of production for profit which would make monetary calculation and evaluation and money itself unnecessary.
As I see it, the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis at issue, the immediate corollary to it, is that economic inequality does NOT owe its origin to the qualitative distinctions between humans or between the work done by a skilled hand and that by an unskilled one. What's your view of it ? Did you hear of it ever before ?
You seem to claim that both the thesis at issue and what it signifies are ' commonplace observation
' , do you ? Most people seem to me silly, and they seem to justify the economic inequality with the argument that humans are NOT equal in terms of their calibre and capability. You seem to believe most people are aware of the thesis at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE. I'd like to know what led you to such belief.You are mixing two things up — the fact that money does not measure the usefulness of what is for sale and whether using money is a good or a bad thing. Nearly everyone accepts that money does not measure usefulness but comparatively few want a society in which money would be redundant. You are the ORIGINATOR of neither.
' You need to stop capitalising and emboldening words, as you are yelling at people and this is bad form (netiquette). ' ( comment by Matt on 20/12/2017 )I'd like to know what led you to believe that I'm ' capitalising and emboldening words' and ' yelling at people ' ?
Dear ALB, I'd like to revise my comment made in a hurry yesterday. I don't think most people are silly. I think most people are ignorant and have the silly belief that economic INEQUALITY is justified because humans are NOT equal in terms of their calibre and capability and add what follows to it. I've taken note of your point that you yourself ' and most other people, agree with [ what you view as " a commonplace observation " ] . ' So, as you agree with this ' commonplace observation ' of mine, I think I can expect you to join hands with me to be the 2nd member of my team and join in the MISSION aimed at awakening humanity, the poor and penniless millions, who sweat blood to produce all wealth and luxuries, and who make up 99% of humanity, by the Oxfam's wealth data, to the THESIS at issue and its SIGNIFICANCE , the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic INEQUALITY does NOT owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between the work done by an engineer and that by a porter, and the fact that humanity must get rid of, if humanity wants to be civilised through and through, the EVIL that is economic INEQUALITY , the origin of what I view as the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , i.e. the most DISGUSTING and agonising fact that the 99% , the poor and penniless millions, were all BORN poor and penniless, and so they're NOT to blame for their poverty and privation. Are we agreed, ALB ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.