Prakash RP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
' Prakash to learn is to trace our mistakes so mistakes do not hold us back from finding more mistakes. I believe you will find your mistakes since you want to get nearer to the truth. Your points are logical mistakes. Why start from the definition of money? Word definitions depend on who is doing the defining. The ancients define money and you say that they do not understand it. As a rule, word definitions are out-of-step with what we know about facts. We are always editing word definitions to bring them in step with what we know. But once more new discoveries outpace word definitions. Once more, we must redefine definitions. Joseph Priestly first made what we call oxygen but we do not have to accept his original definition for it. Is it a definition that proves the facts or facts that prove a definition? There are economists (from the marginal utility school) who want it that money really does measure usefulness. Now you say that the definition of money proves the facts about money. What then proves the definition? ' ( comment by Alan Kerr # 44 ) Dear Alan, I'm a humble seeker after the truth, and I have no pretension to erudition. I'm ashamed of my ignorance of the ancients' definition of money and would like you to throw light on it. Nevertheless, your comment gives me the impression that you're over-certain that my definition of money is wrong. In this regard I'd like to state that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the definition of money I've referred to in my work is outright consonant with Marx's concept of money as we find it in the CAPITAL Volume I by Marx. The following citations are meant to throw light on this point. ' The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money form, is … ' ( PREFACE TO THE FIRST GERMAN EDITION, CAPITAL Volume I ) ' It [ i.e. money] thus serves as a universal measure of value. ' ( section I, chapter III, CAPITAL Volume I by Marx ) ' The commodity that functions as a measure of value, and, either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium of circulation, is money. ' ( section III, chapter III, ibid ) I want to start from the definition of money just because I think it deserves to be the premise of my logical formulation, and because I believe this definition of money is correct. You also seem to be over-certain that Marx is, and so I am, wrong on these points. And it seems to be the view of money that economists from the marginal-utility school hold that you believe is right, right ? I feel I should admit to my ignorance of how economists from the marginal-utility school view value, use-value, and money. Nevertheless, I must claim that if Marx's concept of money is not wrong, mine is not wrong either. And just out of curiosity, may I ask you to enlighten me about what led you to be so certain that the view of economists from the marginal-utility school is correct ? In my comment ( #41 ), I asked you to draw a conclusion from four points. It passes my comprehension why it should move you to wonder whether it is ' a definition that proves the facts or facts that prove a definition '. It's intriguing that just the other day you approved of my view of money and the definition of money that I premised my view on ( your comment #27 ). What revolutionised your stance and led you to do a volte-face and believe that Marx must be wrong, and that economists from the marginal-utility school must be right, I wonder. Joseph Priestly's ' original definition of oxygen ' may be faulty ( I do not know; I'm not a chemist ). It does not follow from this that the definition of everything else is faulty just as because Mendeleev's periodic table is wrong, it does not follow that the whole of chemistry is wrong, and that only whatever economists from the marginal-utility school think and say are right, OK ? Nevertheless, before concluding, I'd like to call your attention to to the fact that the thesis that money cannot measure the worth of a commodity, has won, to my credit, three Nobelist economists' endorsement so far ( see my comment #1 ) and the fact that none of the trio belongs to the Marxian school of thought, as far as I know.
' The best example that we have is the case of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump they have been forced to go along with the logic of capitalism, instead of them making any changes on the economic base of this society, the economic base changed them ' ( comment by Marcos #40 )I agree with this view.
' you can actually measure the usefullness of a 'commodity' but only with a 'commensurable' usefullness of another. ' ( comment by Dave B on 04/01/2018 ; # 43 ) Dave, I agree with this view of yours. We can evaluate two commodities by comparing their use-value. For example, an LED light of Japanese make and another LED of the US make can be evaluated in terms of their luminance and longevity, and then, comparing their costs, we can conclude which one we should buy if we wish to spend our hard-earned money sensibly. I've also taken note of your observation : ' Aristotle was very close to [ the ] labour theory of value. ' Thank you for taking part i this discussion. I'd like you to respond to my question : ' What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ? ' ( See my comment # 41 )
' And the winner is ….. Aristotle ' ( ALB's comment # 22 ) Thank you for pointing to my mistake. Nevertheless, I'd like you to take cognisance of the four points ( my comment # 41 ) and state what logical conclusion they lead you to.
[ Response to Alan Kerr's comment dated 02 Jan 2018 ] Dear Alan, I've taken cognisance of your points and am thinking over them. Nevertheless, I'd like you to consider the following points.My work is meant to acquaint people with the definition of money and basic distinctions between the value and the use-value of commodities and thus help them comprehend the truth of the thesis in question. The fact that you're convinced of the truth of the thesis and the fact that you haven't detected any logical fallacy in my work give me the impression that it has achieved what it's aimed at. Nevertheless, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting it as a proof of the thesis. Frankly speaking, I'm not a hundred percent certain about the correctness of my assertion in this regard. Notwithstanding this, I think we can agree on four points : ( 1 ) it follows from the very definition of money that money is not meant to measure the use-value ( worth ) of a commodity ; ( 2 ) we're aware of no reasons for claiming that money can measure the use-value of commodities ; ( 3 ) we're not aware either of any reason to believe that the use-value of a commodity is measurable in money ; ( 4 ) There exists no criterion for measuring the use-value in money. What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ?
' … your proof is not proof. ' ( Alan Kerr's commen on 31 Dec 2017 ) Dear Alan, you seem to be dead certain that my ' proof is not proof ', but you've forgotten to state what led you to be so certain of it. I think you'd awake to your mistake if you just try to point to the fallacy of my argumentation. The line of reasoning I've employed to arrive at the conclusion ( the THESIS at issue ) starting from the definition of money ( the premise ) is the deductive one, and the method of deduction happens to be recognised as an infallible scientific method, as far as I know. And my work deserves credit on two counts. First off, it's the first work meant to present humanity with a proof of the THESIS ; second, the method of proving it is unique. None seem to be known to have thrown light, before me, on the very definition of money and thus enlightened humanity about what money cannot do. I don't think Aristotle had a clear concept of money— clear enough to be able to define it, just as a guy in the Dark Ages cannot have the concept that ' air is more than one kind of gas. ' And I think proving, for the first time, that air is a mixture of several gases and a non-gaseous stuff called moisture is surly a highly creditable achievement bacause not only does it call for a clear concept of distinctions between a gas and a non-gas, it also calls for a good knowledge of the gases present in the air and their physical and chemical properties. The proof and comprehension of the THESIS at issue calls for, as I see it, the knowledge of the definition of money, a clear concept of the use-value ( worth ) and the exchange-value ( value ) and basic distinctions between them, and a clear concept of science and scientific methods, as well. Because it appears to be ' not proof ' to you, it doesn't follow that it's ' not proof '. You have to prove it. Just try to find the fallacy of my work, will you ? ' By definition, money is meant to serve fundamentally a dual purpose : ( 1 ) to measure the value of a commodity and … ' There's nothing wrong with it, is there ? Since money is meant fundamentally to measure the value ( i.e. exchange-value ), not the use-value which is essentially distinct from the former, it follows that money cannot give a measure of the use-value of a commodity ( or, if put with different wording, ' the monetary value of an object does not measure its " intrinsic worth ", usually called its utility ' ). The argument is as simple as the arithmetic logic that two and two makes four, RIGHT ? could you present humanity with a better or not-better proof of this THESIS ? I really don't know of another proof of it and would be glad to be acquainted with it. Any more questions ? I invite questions. I also think I deserve credit for having enlightened humanity about the grave SIGNIFICANCE the THESIS carries, the immediate corollary to it, namely, the fact that economic inequality doesn't owe its origin to QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans, between a Nobelist and a palmist or between the work done by a doctor and that by an actor, and thus economic inequality happens to be at the root of the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE, i.e. the most disgusting, distressing, and disgraceful fact that the fact that in a class-redden society, the poor and penniless millions, the 99%, were all BORN poor and penniless is NOT attributable to any faults or failings of theirs just as the fact that the rich and the super-rich, the 1%, were all BORN rich and super-rich to exploit the BORN poor and penniless and thus keep growing RICHER and RICHER is NOT attributable to any great acts or commendable achievements of theirs, OK ? I've got the impression that the THESIS and its SIGNIFICANCE together constitute the strongest defence of the classless communistic order.
To Alan & ALB
'm glad that you've voiced your thoughts. I truly wish you'd throw as many questions as you please at me. I'm aware that the truth is not only something heartless and callous but invincible, inescapable, and irresistible as well. I'm also aware that it is through argumentation that we can reach the truth. And I'm always ready to welcome the truth. I wish you would not quit before we've seen this debate through.' 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.
' 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.
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.
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.
[ 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.
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 ?' 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.
