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
-
ALB's comment on 21/12/2017 : ' 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. 'Dear ALB, I've taken note of this comment by you. I'll reply to it later.
Prakash RP wrote: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 ?I think it is a bit of an unhelpful caricature to characterise the 99% as "poor and penniless". At least some of that 99% are not at all "poor and penniless" in the absolutist sense you seem to imply. There is, instead, a gradation of poverty, You can have plenty of pennies tied in a property you might own or earn quite a substantial sum of the same as many workers do in the course of being employed – particularly in the West but increasingly in the Global South – and yet still be "poor" in a relative sense ( in the Marxian sense of the term) I appreciate that this might just be a case of poetic licence but there is a danger in the excesive use of poetic licence in that your analysis can come to be interpteted as quite disconnected from the actual world we inhabit and the force of any argument you want to present will be considerably weakened as a result Also, though I agree that the workers are not responsible for the poverty and privation they experience, their continuing support for capitalism ensures the perpetuation of a social system that makes for that poverty and privation in the first place
Hello Prakash,Like you, I'm not SPGB. And like you, I'm also reading the works of Marx. I'm sorry if I don't get to every one of your points.It's true that money cannot measure use-value. That's not a fault in money. The fact is that no one can measure value when we look at value as just usefulness. To measure we just need to look at value another way. From Marx' book we find that Aristotle almost sees how to look. Aristotle considers the commodities 5 beds in exchange for 1 house. Aristotle sees that we must be able to make beds and house equal in kind. Only then, can we measure and compare. Does Aristotle believe then that money removes this difficulty? No, Aristotle does not. Aristotle already finds that money cannot measure use-value.Marx, in his book, quotes Aristotle where Aristotle finds that"5 beds=1 house (…)"is not to be distinguished from"5 beds=so much money. (…)"And how Aristotle finds that"It is, however, in reality, impossible (…), that such unlike things can be commensurable"—i.e., qualitatively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something foreign to their real nature, consequently only "a make-shift for practical purposes."But Marx goes on…"… What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does represent something equal to them, in so far as it represents what is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is—human labour."(Marx)http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA1.html#I.I.76Prakash is Marx' point clear to you?In 5 beds = 1 house there the house represents the (human-labour) value of the beds. Or in 5 beds = so much money there it is the money which represents the (human-labour) value of the beds.It's true that money or prices cannot measure usefulness. As we see, Marx (and Aristotle) already knows that.And your other points:We have always been more or less quickly changing our way to produce and to exchange.Yes, ordinary economists do teach that the biologically top people rise to the top so that (so the argument goes) unequal class society is the natural way. That philosophy is all wrong. It is wrong but not wrong because money is just evil or fails to measure use-value. I do not wish to hog this discussion. Please ask the SPGB to use their SPGB Preamble, Object and Declaration of Principles to make clear, why we really change our way to produce and to exchange.Season's Greetings all and I'll return to view replies in a couple of weeks.
' 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. ' ( comment by ALB on 21/12/2017 )I agree I cannot claim to have originated the idea at issue. Nevertheless, I think I deserve to claim to have proved it first. How I'm ' mixing two things up ' is not clear to me.
I'm sorry, Matt, for causing your displeasure by ' capitalising and emboldening words ' . But, I'd like you to consider that not all take it amiss. I don't think my ' capitalising and emboldening words ' means ' yelling at people '.
' Money is merely a means of exchange in any case. ' ( Matt on 20 Dec 2017 ) As I see it, money is, by definition, an instrument ( or a universal commodity ) meant to measure the value ( exchange-value ) of a commodity and facilitate the exchange of commodities.
Dear Alan, thank you a lot for the response ( comment dated 23/12/2017 ). You have referred to a number of enlightening points that deserve to be given serious thought to. ' Marx'
point ', i.e. two commodities, the use-value of each being different from the other, have one thing in common, and that common stuff is ' human labour ', is certainly clear to me. I think whoever has studied Marx's Capital vol I should not fail to grasp it. In fact, my command of political economy is limited to this great work by Marx. And I wholly owe my concept of money to the Capital vol I. I agree whoever is conversant with this great work by Marx finds it too difficult to accept that Marx was not aware of money's incapacity to measure the use-value of a commodity. Nevertheless, I haven't run across a statement by Marx to the effect that money does not have the capacity to measure the use-value or usefulness of a commodity or that we cannot measure such stuff in money. Aristotle's finding that ' " 5 beds = 1 house " [ which ] is not to be distinguished from " 5 beds = so much money " ' shows, as I see it, that Aristotle found a way to compare exchange-values of different commodities ( different in terms of their use-value ), and that Aristotle was aware that the use-value of a commodity was not comparable with the use-value of another, the two commodities being of different kinds in terms of their use-value. From this, I don't think it unquestionably follows that Aristotle was aware that it's beyond money's capacity to measure the use-value of a commodity.I agree that my claim to have originated the thesis in regard to this issue is going too far. Professor Aumann holds that the thesis at issue is the same in essence as this one with different wording : ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth ", usually called its utility ', which is something ' well known ' and ' known for hundreds of years '. this incontestably dismisses my claim to have originated it. Nevertheless, I think I deserve to claim to have presented humanity with a logical formulation, the first of its kind, that proves the THESIS at issue. I also think I deserve to claim to have to my credit the fact that I'm the first to throw light on the SIGNIFICANCE of the thesis, the immediate corollary to it, namely that economic INEQUALITY does not owe its origin to the QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a receptionist or between different sorts of work we do. Am I right on these points ?Nevertheless, as I see it, it's far more important whether this thesis is true, what it signifies, and how much weight its significance carries in this SPACE age. Do you also agree with ALB's view that the thesis is ' a commonplace observation which [you], and most other people, agree with ' ? If ' most other people ', i.e. most of humanity, are really aware of the THESIS and its SIGNIFICANCE , it's useless and silly to spend precious time on trying to enlighten humanity about these issues. Could you provide me with a proof in support of ALB's view in this regard ?[ Reply to robbo203's comment on 22/12/2017 ] Dear robbo203, by Oxfam's wealth data, globally the 1% ( the rich including the super-rich 80 ) possess as much wealth as the 99% do together, and the super-rich that are in all only 80 possess more wealth than half the global population ( i.e. around 3.5-billion-strong crowd ) do together. Of course the 99% include doctors, engineers, lawyers, lecturers, professors, writers, painters, actors, singers, sculptors, photographers, choreographers, film makers, etc, etc along with hawkers, shop workers, grocers, plumbers, porters, cabdrivers, green grocers, restaurant waiters, etc, etc, and of course not all of them belong to the same socio-economic stratum. Nevertheless, all of them deserve, I'm afraid, to be reckoned truly poor beside the 1% and penniless beside the 80. Certainly, mostof them are not aware of this truth. They're not aware either of the fact that economic inequality is not attributable to the qualitative distinctions between humans or between different sorts of work they do. It's communists' mission, as I see it, to awaken them to this universal truth and the way to get rid of the EVIL that is the economic inequality. I've taken cognisance of your warning of ' a danger in the excessive use of poetic licence '. Nevertheless, the truly affluent of the 99% in relation to the rest of them are insignificant few. Therefore, I don't think we need bother much about what these people think or say. By the way, i'd like to know whether you also think, like ALB, that the THESIS that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity is ' a commonplace observation ', and whether you were aware of it before you read about it in my post on this site. I'd also like to know when and how you became aware of it before running across my posts on this topic.
I'd like to add the following NB to my comment made yesterday ( i.e. on 28 Dec 2017 ). NB Professor Aumann seems to hold that the expression ' does not measure ' in ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth ", usually called its utility ' is synonymous with the expression ' cannot measure ' or ' cannot be a measure of ' . I'm not sure whether he's correct on this point.
I'd like to add the following to my comment made on 28 Dec 2017 in response to robbo203's comment dated 22 Dec 2017 . I'd also like to know whether you're aware of any move by anyone or any movement by a Communist organisation which was aimed at awakening humanity to the fact that money cannot measure the WORTH of a commodity and what it signifies and thus aimed at the abolition of the EVIL of economic INEQUALITY on these grounds.
Thank you Prakash,
First, we agree that money cannot measure usefulness. Next, where is your proof? ALB, same question to you.
' And the winner is ….. Aristotle (350 BC) ' ( comment by ALB on 27/12/2017 )Is it Aristotle ? Professor Aumann thinks the thesis that ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its "intrinsic worth", usually called its utility [ occurs in ] "Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk" ', a work by Daniel Bernoulli, a Swiss mathematician. [ 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.
' Thank you Prakash, First, we agree that money cannot measure usefulness. Next, where is your proof? ALB, same question to you. ' ( Alan Kerr's comment on 29 Dec 2017 ) In my work, the inference ( ' Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodityt ' ) has been deduced from the very definition of money, namely, that money is an instrument ' 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 ' ( the premise ). By ' value ', the exchange-value is meant while by the ' WORTH ', the use-value of the commodity is meant. And since the use-value and the exchange-value are different things, the inference in question follows from the definition of money. What's wrong with this argumentation ? The method of deduction is a scientific method, isn't it ? Money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodityty. 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 ads and ads in the print media, the way I see it.
Prakash RP wrote: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 on it? Did you hear of it ever before?In 100 years we had heard many things and most of your arguments are not new to us. Economic and social inequality is very simple: Class division, in a society where small groups of peoples own everything and the majority of the peoples, own nothing, especially their labor force to be sold in the labor market makes a huge economic inequality. The actual bourgeoise definition of inequality is totally wrong because it is based on the level of salary but it does not mention the class division, especially in the USA where the concept of social class is invisible, and it has disappeared from the books of history
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.