Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Scarcity and Rationality

One common solution to Scarcity is rationing, e. g. during a water shortage.  Rationing, too, is what constitutes Supply-Demand Equilibrium, i. e. each side receives half of what it is seeking.  So, fair distribution can be characterized as 'rational'.  Accordingly, unfair distribution is 'irrational'.  Thus, Profit-Maximization, which seeks all take and no give, is irrational behavior, contrary to the standard characterization of it in Economic theories.  Instead, the aspect of a Capitalist system that does involve rational behavior is operating as part of a Division of Labor, i. e. in which roles are distributed on the basis of some organizing principle.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Scarcity, Capitalism, Social Darwinism

Examples of natural Scarcity include not only extreme cases, like drought, but any occasion in which there is not enough of a vital good for everybody.  Familiar examples of artificial Scarcity include most sporting events, in which the number of participants exceeds the number of prizes, and often in which the number of target areas, e. g. goals, baskets, etc., exceeds the number of balls, pucks, etc., in play.  Now, as has been previously discussed, Scarcity arises in Market Exchange when each side is seeking to maximize profit.  So, if Profit-Maximization is a natural instinct, then, so, too, is that Scarcity, as is the struggle to resolve the conflict that might ensue.  But, Capitalists, starting with Smith, have taken that status for granted from the outset, without explaining how Profit-Maximization is related to a more generally accepted as natural instinct like Self-Preservation, or how Profit-Maximization is distinct from Greed, which is widely recognized as a diseased condition.  Now, their failure to better ground their thesis has consequences for a doctrine that presupposes it.  For, Social Darwinism defends winner-take-all Capitalism as an instance of the Evolutionary principle, Survival of the Fittest.  But, the latter entails natural Scarcity, so, if Scarcity in the former is as artificial as it is in, say, football, then the classification 'Darwinism' does not apply.  The doctrine is thereby exposed as Ideology masquerading as Necessity.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Scarcity, Capitalism, Socialism

Hobbes' widely accepted 'war of all against all' formulation implies that  Conflict is the condition of Humans in the State of Nature.  However, there seems to be no way to confirm the claim.  In contrast, more easily verifiable is the thesis that Conflict is one response to Scarcity, defined as any condition in which Supply < Demand, e. g. the event that inspires Hobbes, the English Civil War, is a struggle between two sides for one end, political control.  It is not the only response--compromise is another, and a third is the elimination of Scarcity, e. g. via manufacturing processes.  Now, one important distinction between the two theses is that one attributes Necessity to Conflict, whereas Scarcity, even if widespread is Contingent, and, thus, so, too, is any subsequent human conflict. Thus, to whatever extent Economics is a response to Scarcity, Ecological conditions are a factor.  In contrast, as has been previously discussed, Capitalism is based on completely artificial Scarcity, a consequence of the Profit-Maximization behavioral principle that, if it reduces to any psychological drive at all, it is to Greed, which corrupts the natural survival instinct.  Thus, the Marxist response to Capitalism is a correction of Scarcity in two respects.  First, it eliminates any struggle over exclusive ownership of property, and, second, it projects a technological solution to the scarcity that it diagnoses as the occasion of that struggle in human history. On the other hand, it tends to leave unaddressed how Profit-Maximization exacerbates the former struggle, i. e. as Smith's variety of Moral Egoism, it validates Exploitation.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Market, Scarcity, War

An Egoist principle such as Self-Preservation entails universal mutual indifference, not, as Hobbes asserts, universal war.  Conflict only arises when Demand exceeds Supply, i. e. in the case of relative Scarcity.  Likewise, so long as each Egoist party receives what they are seeking, in a market exchange there is no conflict.  But Smithian Profit-Maximization transforms a market into a Hobbesian war-zone, by creating Scarcity in an exchange, since satisfaction on each side consists in all take and no give.  That consequence of instituting Profit-Maximization as its fundamental behavioral principle is tacitly acknowledged in Smith's concern for the tendency of his system towards Monopoly. But, like Hobbes, he does not recognize that the implicated Scarcity is contingent, and that the Market is not inherently a war-zone.

Friday, July 27, 2018

Profit-Maximization and Scarcity

In simple Barter, Market activity is governed by complementarity--the shoemaker trades with the farmer, the result of which is that each has both food and shoes.  Market antagonism is thus the consequence of the introductions of the Profit-Maximization motive, and Money, in which each party aims at gain at the expense of the other.  This antagonism is a premise of Capitalism and Marxism alike, resolved by differing concepts of an inherent tendency towards Equilibrium, i. e. the Invisible Hand vs. Dialectics.  But, the premise is contingent, so, the solution is, as well, i. e. Dialectical Materialism is not a Necessary principle.  Now, at the heart of the introduced antagonism is a struggle for a quantity of money that both cannot have, with Equilibrium a division of that quantity, ideally a half to each.  So, therein lies the real source of any Economic antagonism--Scarcity, i. e. there is not enough for both sides to maximize gain--certainly a natural condition in many cases, but an artificial one in Economic systems that are consequences of Profit-Maximization.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Capitalism, Exploitation, Greed

Marxist Socialism presents a precise solution to a feature of a Capitalist system: the problem is Exploitation, which Marxism traces to the private ownership of the Means of Production, including Land, the solution to which is, therefore, the abolition of Private Property.  However, this diagnosis leaves unaddressed a more fundamental Capitalist ill--the codification of Profit-Seeking, a principle without precedent or grounding, e. g. Hobbesian Egoism seeks survival, not gain.  To the contrary, insofar as Profit-Seeking respects no measure, either psychologically or socially, it is equivalent to Greed, which is generally classified as a Vice.  So a shift of the focus of the criticism of Capitalism to its Profit-Seeking principle projects the  elimination of Exploitation via the removal of its essential element, i. e. Profit from the Labor of others, and, thus, of any motivation to do so.  Furthermore, absent that factor, any multi-personal Labor is transformed into a cooperative effort, as is, Economic relations in general, without abolishing Private Property, which can be re-conceived as harmoniously distributed.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Marketplace and Ideas

The expression 'Marketplace of Ideas' has its roots in the writings of Mill, and in the decisions of Justices Holmes and Douglas.  But, in those contexts, a more accurate characterization of the topic under discussion is 'Marketplace of Expression of Opinions', because they are primarily promotions of Free Speech.  Unfortunately, the metaphor also reinforces the concept of Truth as 'what sells'.  Accordingly, any distinction between Knowledge and Opinion collapses, i. e. being accepted suffices as Justification.  Likewise, Argument becomes indistinguishable from Sales-Pitch, an indistinguishability that is especially problematic for Capitalists trying to defend the Laissez-Faire status of the Marketplace.  For, it is entailed in their own principle that all behavior is individual Profit-seeking, i. e. implicit in an appeal to any other criterion is a subordination of that principle.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Laissez-Faire and Technology

Technology is antithetical to Laissez-Faire: deliberate manipulation vs. letting be.  Now, Technology is pervasively ingredient in Economic phenomena: crop rotation, cooking food, division of labor, telecommunication advertising, digital algorithmic investing, etc. etc.  So, any argument that Laissez-Faire policies have general Economic benefits has little evidential support.

Monday, July 23, 2018

Capitalism and Laissez-Faire

The Capitalist defense of Laissez-Faire conditions is selective.  In phenomena such as Production, Wages, and Income, regulation is rejected, often on the basis of the thesis that they are governed by an internal mechanism of some, or, in other words, that they are naturally self-correcting.  However, elsewhere in the system, there are no such qualms about interfering with Nature.  For, they do not let be sympathetic instincts, which they repress with Normative Egoism, and, likewise, survival instincts, which they manipulate into profit-seeking behavior.  So, the demand for Laissez-Faire in their pursuit of Profit itself aims to reinforce their own violation of Laissez-Faire conditions.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Science

In the Mathematization of Economics and the focus on Price, Supply and Demand are each ultimately defined in terms of Price--Price-Asked vs. Price-Offered.  So, fundamentally, Price-Paid is the mid-point between Price-Asked and Price-Offered, a calculable quantity.  Now, Price-Offered consists in both ability to pay and willingness to pay.  But, while there might not be an indeterminacy in the former, e. g. because it is constituted by vital need and limited resources, there often is contingency in the latter.  For example, someone purchasing diamonds has disposable income, and has the luxury of spending it otherwise.  But, then, at least some of Demand is irregular, and, hence, the extent to which the Mathematized Economics is a Science is circumscribed.  So, the extent to which Economics is a Science depends on the extent to which it is regularized, i. e. regulated.  Thus, Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not a Science, regardless of how intricate its Mathematization.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Supply, Demand, Dialectics

Insofar as a foundation of an Economic system is the relation between Supply and Demand, and as that relation is inherently regular, even if not Mathematized, the description of the system is a Science.  Now, according to Capitalism, individual behavior is governed by the drive to maximize Profit.  Hence, Supply and Demand are each governed by the drive to maximize Profit, the resultant of which is conceived in Capitalism as Equilibrium.  So, Marshall's widely-adopted innovation is to Mathematize the Supply-Demand interaction, and to shift focus to their Mathematized Equilibrium, i. e. Price.  However, Capitalists, and at least some Socialists seem unaware that under those conditions, the Supply-Demand relation is Dialectical, i. e. as each seeking to make the most of what the other has to offer, while giving up the least, the relation is antagonistic.  Hence, whether or not it is recognized as such, insofar as Economics is, based on the Mathematization of the Supply-Demand relation, a Science, then it is a Marxist Science.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Economics, Value, Science

Marshall is both a pioneer in the Mathematization of Economics, and a strong proponent of Marginalism.  However, unlike his studies of the relations between Supply, Demand, and Price, his Marginalism is systematically independent of Mathematization, though some followers use Differential methods to represent Marginal Utility.  Regardless, the two have another theme in common--each serves as a response to a feature of Marxism.  First, the Mathematization of Economics is an attempt to transform the topic into a rigorous Science, thereby matching Marx-Engel's attribution of the same to their system.  Second, Marginal Utility attempts to detach Use-Value, and, thus, Price, and Profit, from Labor-Value, thereby undercutting the fundamental charge of Marxism against Capitalism--that the profit of the Capitalist is stolen from the Worker.  Now, while his concept of Conspicuous Consumption expresses Socialist sympathies, Veblen presents a third alternative to each of these two points of conflict.  First, as has been previously discussed, implicit in Conspicuous Consumption is a concept of Value that reduces to neither Labor- nor Use-: Ostentation-.  Second, Veblen is a proponent of neither Analytic nor Dialectical Science; rather, he is a Pragmatist, according to which the Truth of any system is determined experimentally by its effectiveness.  Thus, for example, the Pragmatist critique of American Capitalism is simply that there is no evidence of the effects of an Invisible Hand, e. g. a harmonization of the manifold of individual profit-seeking.  In turn, the Capitalist sensitivity to Pragmatist Experimentalism is expressed in the emphasis on its 'Laissez-Faire' aspect. Meanwhile, the Pragmatist rejection of Marxist dogmatism is articulated more directly--in a face-to-face debate between Dewey and Trotsky regarding the concept of History, also applicable to that of Economics.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Capitalism and Mathematization

The adequacy of the Mathematization of Economics presupposes the regularity of the phenomena that constitute the latter.  Now, in Capitalism, that presupposition is rooted in two of the cardinal theses of the system: that the behavior of individual agents is rational, and that there exists an Invisible Hand that harmonizes those individual components.  But, each of the thesis is plainly dubious.  First, the positing of an existence of an invisible entity violates Smith's own Empiricism.  Second, the neglect, typical of the system, of the distinction between Belief and Knowledge potentially undercuts any attribution of Rationality.  So, the Mathematization of the phenomena is not well-grounded.  Furthermore, of practical significance, absent regularity, the standard justification for sanctifying the phenomena against active interference also disappears.  In other words, the system is thereby exposed as fundamentally random, to which a Laissez-Faire treatment is inappropriate.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Economics, Finance, Gambling

While for Aristotle, 'Economics' is the study of the management of resources, for Smith, it is a program that aims at the generation of Wealth.  Continuing that trend by formalizing its methods, is Alfred Marshall's Mathematization of Economics, with a shift of focus from Value to Price, and the use of graphs to illustrate how the latter is determined by the relation of Supply and Demand.  As a result, the primary function of Economic models becomes the prediction of Price, a program that becomes fully realized in the prevalent use of complex algorithms for Wall St. investments.  In other words, 'Economics' has now become 'Finance', with the traditional concerns of the former, e. g. an upgrade in the means of product, the availability of raw materials, etc., now subordinate to gainful buying and selling.  Still, whether or not the formulas that represent relevant phenomena are the most accurate ones available, and, more important, whether or not they correspond to any actual regularity of the phenomena, remain open questions.  That openness is especially urgent in the latter question, since if the answer is negative, then 'Finance' is actually 'gambling'.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Price and Contingency

On the one hand, as has been previously discussed, as the distribution of affordability approaches equality, the Price of a commodity might approach zero, i. e. if conspicuousness is the motive for purchasing it.  On the other hand, as also has been previously discussed, as the distribution of affordability approaches equality, Price might increase, i. e. if inconspicuousness is the motive for purchasing it.  But there is no "paradox of value" involved in the conjunction of the two cases.  For, plainly, they illustrate a contingency of Price that eludes attempts to impose a law-like formula on it.  The inadequacy of those attempts is rooted in a fundamental error of many Economic theories--the premise that regularity inheres in Economic behavior other than when vital need is a determining factor.

Monday, July 16, 2018

Inconspicuous Consumption and Ostentation-Value

According to Veblen and his followers, Conspicuous Consumption is for the purpose of social status, i. e. superiority. But, so, too, can Inconspicuous Consumption be for that purpose, but not for superiority.  Rather, normality is the aim when one attempts to 'keep up with the Joneses', i. e. to, paradoxically, conspicuously consume inconspicuously.  Thus, a purchase can have Ostentation-Value if it assimilates the buyer with others, and can for this reason be a powerful incentive to meet a Price that exceeds any Use-Value that it may have, as advertisers are well aware.  So, Ostentation-Value is a factor in most Demand.

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Demand, Wealth-Distribution, Price

That Demand is a primary determinant of Price is a well-established cardinal principle of Economics.  However, rarely considered is the implication of the concept of Conspicuous Consumption that the distribution of Wealth within Demand can also influence Price. For, as has been previously discussed, Conspicuous Consumption entails that the Ostentation-Value of Purchase-Power is a function of the distribution of the latter.  That is, the price of diamonds reflects the relative scarcity of their affordability, or, conversely, that if everybody could afford diamonds, there would be no prestige in possessing them, and, so, without any Use-Value, no one would buy them.  Likewise, while some varieties of bottled water are purchased on the arguable presumption that they are 'healthier' than standard tap water, in some cases the purchase may be an instance of Conspicuous Consumption.  However, given the obscurity of the thesis that Wealth-distribution can influence Price, as the example of diamonds tends to confirm, the extent to which Conspicuous Consumption is a factor in the Price of not only bottled water, but any commodity, remains unexplored.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Purchase-Power and Ostentation-Value

According to Veblen's concept of Conspicuous Consumption, the Value of a commodity can derive from the social status conferred upon the use of it, based on how expensive it is.  Thus, underlying Conspicuous Consumption is Conspicuous Expenditure.  But, such status also depends on the distinctiveness of the affordability of the expense, i. e. that not everybody can afford it.  Thus, conversely, there is neither Conspicuous Expenditure nor Conspicuous Consumption in the case of something that everyone can afford.  In other words, the Ostentation-Value of Purchase-Power is a function of its scarcity.  So, for example, no one would buy diamonds if everybody could afford the Price determined by their Labor-Value, i. e. they would have no Ostentation-Value, and, hence, no Utility, regardless of the difficult involved in supplying them.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Fame, Infamy, Will to Power

Aristotle's distinction of external and bodily goods seems to imply that he would reject the treatment of the difference between diamonds and water as of one of quantifiable degree, i. e. of homogeneous Utility.  Also among his external goods is Fame, which he analyzes as desired as a means to other ends, e. g. rewards.  However, that analysis does not as is explain action that aims at Infamy.  Now, instead of a modification of the analysis, an alternative does not need to distinguish Fame and Infamy--Will to Power.  For, on the basis of that principle, each consists in an influence over others, even merely attracting their attention.  Furthermore, that explanation can be extended to other external goods, and, hence, to the value of the wearing of diamonds.  Thus, Nietzsche's principle sharpens Aristotle's distinction, thereby further challenging the standard solutions to the "paradox of value".

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Rationality and Ostentation

In the standard study of the phenomenon, the purchase of diamonds at exorbitant prices is typically accepted as 'rational' behavior.  However, since typically absent from these studies is a definition of 'rational', that classification is difficult to assess.  In contrast, that behavior does not measure up to two of the most prominent concepts of Rationality.  Spinoza would not accept it, since he defines Rational conduct as the deliberate promotion of one's Health, which does not seem to include the purchase of diamonds in order to show off.  Kant would not accept it, since he defines Autonomous Respect as the defining characteristic of Rational interpersonal relations, whereas ostentation for any purpose is Heteronymous behavior.  So, at minimum, the classification of purchasing expensive diamonds to achieve some social status as 'rational' is vulnerable to challenge.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Economics and Margin

As has been previously discussed, the so-called "paradox" of the relative values of diamonds and water derives from a contrast of Ostentation-Value vs. Use-Value.  In turn, the latter contrast is rooted in that of Social-Value vs. Personal Value, a difference of kind that is glossed as a difference of degree in both traditional Utilitarianism and standard concepts of Demand--with the significant consequence that as less profitable, vital need is a lower priority in some Economic systems.  Now, that difference in kind is often conceived as an ontologically fixed conflict, e. g. as Collective vs. Individual, and, hence, as the fundamental topic of Morality, e. g. Kantian, or of Psychology, e. g. Freudian.  However, that antagonism can itself be diagnosed as contingent--as a symptom of a dysfunctional society, e. g. as Alienation, i. e. as a breakdown of a healthy Whole-Part relation of the Social and the Personal.  But, if so, then the Economic system in which that dysfunction is represented as a 'paradoxical difference of degree' is itself a symptom of the dysfunction.  Accordingly, the 'margin' that emerges in the "paradox of value" is not, as the Marginalists analyze it, that of increments in the Utility of diamonds or of water, but the very limitations of these Economic models themselves, beyond which are social and personal conditions that are the contexts from which the models have been abstracted.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Ostentation-Value and Fame

For Smith, the "paradox of value" illustrates the distinction between Exchange-Value and Use-Value, which he resolves by reference to Labor-Value, i. e. that diamonds, which have less Use-Value than does water, have greater Exchange-Value than does the latter because of its greater Labor-Value.  However, that reduction does not seem to explain the exorbitant amounts paid for celebrity memorabilia--signatures, clothing, toilets, etc.  Nor, even if it is a factor in these transactions, does their relative scarcity, since the same possessions of unknown people, when not thrown away, usually fetch nothing in exchange.  So, plainly fame is the primary attraction of such items.  Or, in other words, their Exchange-Value is determined by their Ostentation-Value.

Monday, July 9, 2018

Ostentation-Value, Use-Value, Utility

As has been previously discussed, while diamonds have a much higher Ostentation-Value than water, the latter has a much higher Use-Value, even when marginally diminished, than the former.  Now, the cardinal difference between the two types of Value is that one reflects social norms, while the other expresses personal need.  So, in other words, the so-called "paradox of value" of Economists, is, at bottom, a conflict between Social-Value and Personal-Value, the same conflict that constitutes the central tension of Kantian Morality, of Id vs. Super-Ego in Freudianism, etc., i. e. is not a problem that is unique to Economics.  Furthermore, in standard Hedonist Utilitarianism, the concept of Utility homogenizes Ostentation- and Use-Values, so the Marginal Utilitarian provides a solution to a puzzle that they cannot recognize as suppressing its real problematic roots.

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Ostentation-Value and Positional-Value

Status is relative, i. e. a position with respect to others.  So, often entailed in Ostentation-Value is what is sometimes characterized as Positional-Value.  In such cases, the prestige that the possession of something evokes can easily degenerate into envy, and, indeed, envy, not admiration or approval, is sometimes what the conspicuous consumer deliberately seeks.  The object of envy thus has negative Positional-Value, thereby complicating a reduction of Positional-Value to Utility.  For, positive Positional-Value and negative Positional-Value are complementary in these cases, and, hence, are interdependent, which violates the Atomism of traditional Utilitarianism.

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Ostentation-Value and Demand

Insofar as there is gratification from the response to a display of the use of an object, the object can be said to have Ostentation-Value, e. g. diamonds, anything to the use of which Veblen's 'Conspicuous Consumption' applies, etc.  Now, such Ostentation is deliberate, so among the admirers of the display is the displayer themselves.  Thus, a factor in Ostentation-Value is a self-image that is approved in some respect.  But that approval can be enjoyed virtually as well as actually, i. e. in private as well as in public, e. g. in front of a mirror, or even in one's imagination.  In other words, merely fantasizing about wearing diamonds can incorporate Ostentation-Value.  Accordingly, one of the goals of some advertising is to cultivate the Ostentation-Value of a product, i. e. to portray the use of it as approved behavior in some respect.  In other words, one of the aims of such advertising is that Demand be influenced by Ostentation-Value.  An obvious example of that influence is buying a house simply because doing so realizes the 'American Dream', while a more subtle example is buying a bottled beer for home use after viewing an ad for the drinking of it in a bar.  The apparent advertising anomaly in the latter case--the ad would seem to be for a bar--is explained by its appeal to the Ostentation-Value of merely purchasing the beer, i. e. scene in the bar signifies that drinking the product even alone at home is socially approved behavior.

Friday, July 6, 2018

Price and Value

The ultimate aim of most theories of Economic Value is to explain why people pay what they do for something.  Accordingly, implicitly or explicitly, Exchange-Value is preeminent in them.  However, there are cases in which Price itself has value.  For example, the price of diamonds usually reflects their scarcity and the difficulty in the Supply process.  But, as has been previously discussed, people pay that price in order to signify simply that they can afford it, whereby it thus functions independently as a status symbol.  Thus, Price-Value has Prestige-Value, which either exceeds the limits of standard Value-Theory, or, if classified as a type of Use-Theory, undermines the preeminence of Exchange-Value.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Prestige and Utility

Prestige-Value is the Utility of social status, i. e. the Pleasure of being admired by others.  So, the relative Utilities of diamonds and water that some Economists find paradoxical are plainly those of their respective Prestige-Values.  Equally plainly, the ranking of the two in their studies is contingent, i. e. might be very different under drought conditions, or in a society in which greed or ostentation were generally disapproved of.  Furthermore, their attention to what is a superficial comparison distracts from deeper problems--the nature of Prestige-Utility, and its relation to Vital-Utility.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Marginal Utility and Conspicuous Consumption

The fundamental premise of Marginalism is that the Utility of a commodity diminishes as the vitality of the need that it meets decreases.  Thus, the Utility of water diminishes as it is used to quench thirst, to cook with, to clean with, to comb hair with, etc.  But, then the method of evaluation to diamonds is inapplicable, except in an industrial context.  For, as is explained by the concept of Conspicuous Consumption, the Utility of diamonds consists in the achieving of some social staus.  Now, if Marginal Utility applies, that Utility is marginally greater or marginally less than that of some other use that diamonds serve.  But, there is usually no such second use, so, Marginal Utility is inapplicable to diamonds, and, hence, to the relation of its price to that of water.  Instead, the application of Conspicuous Consumption does explain that relation: the possession of diamonds signifies a more rarefied social status than does the possession of water, and that rarefied status is what some are willing to pay correspondingly more for.  So, Marginal Utility only distracts from a more fundamental problem--the relation between Social Utility and Vital Utility.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Paradox of Value and Empiricism

Beginning with Smith, Economists have studied an example that they characterize as a "paradox": that water is vital need, but people pay much less for it than for diamonds, for which there is no vital need.  One influential solution offered has been on the basis of what is called the Marginal Utility theory of Value, according to which a commodity that has multiple uses diminishes in Value, and the price that someone is willing to pay is in part determined by the least of the sequence of values.  So, because of a combination of plentiful supply and the inessentially of the use to which water is put once vital needs are satisfied, e. g. to comb one's hair, its Marginal Utility is much less than the difficult to get and usually single-use diamonds.  Indeed, based on the adequacy of this solution, some have elevated Marginal Utility to the status of best theory of Value in general.  Regardless, a different explanation dissolves the paradox.  According to this explanation, the inconsistency between Price and Value is one between, perceived Use-Value and actual Use-Value, between Appearance and Reality, between Belief and Knowledge, a distinction proposed by, notably, Aristotle and Spinoza.  However, most Economists of this tradition cannot recognize any such distinctions, since, like Smith, they are Empiricists, and, hence, accept Appearance as Reality.  Likewise, they cannot even begin to entertain the Rationalist diagnosis according to which much of what they study is, especially when there are disposable resources available, ignorant or foolish behavior, i. e. their concept of 'rational behavior' is unacceptable to Rationalists.  So, Smith's "paradox" is, according to this alternative explanation, a symptom of a fundamental methodological flaw--on the basis of which the irrationality of paying a lot for diamonds, with respect to which the value of water is irrelevant, is interpreted as 'rational', thereby creating an only apparent paradox.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Reflective-Value and Utility

Corresponding to the Personal-Value component of Labor-Value, previously discussed, is a potential component of Use-Value that can be called Reflective-Value.  The latter is the enjoyment derived from the use of a product of one's own making, including the mere contemplation of it, e. g. that of the deity of Genesis 1 at the end of the passage.  Likewise, Reflective-Utility could be a factor in a Utilitarian calculus.  However, any commitment of Utilitarianism to Consequentialism, e. g. Mill's, precludes the possibilty of that contribution.  For, as Mill insists, the process by which some object of experience is produced is irrelevant to its Utility.  Thus, so, too, is that one is oneself the agent of that process.

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Labor-Value and Personal-Value

The Labor-Value of a commodity is generally conceived to be an objective property of the commodity.  However, the concept of Exploitation, according to which, that Value belongs to the Laborer whose exertion is its source, thus entails that that objective property includes components that transcend the commodity itself.  Now, insofar as the Labor that is embodied in the commodity is produced by some impersonal mechanical process, e. g. pressing a button on a machine, that additional component is similarly impersonal.  But, the more skilled the process, the more personal that component becomes.  So, just as part of a child is parental genetic factors, and a work of Art can reflect the distinctiveness of its creator, a constituent of Labor-Value can be what can be called Personal-Value.  Indeed, once that possibility is taken into consideration, Labor-Value in general can be conceived as including Personal-Value, of which an instance of apparent detachment of Labor-Value from subjective contribution is actually a special case.