Talk:SOCI370/capitalbygroup2

If use-value is solidified when it becomes 'used' by people and desired in the market, is there any way to measure this value, in numbers for example? Is the idea of money and prices a form of indicating an object's use-value or is it a way of expressing its exchange value?

I believe that use-value could be quantified since it measures when it's being "used" by people and the desirability in the market. Could we not calculate the greater the market sales, the greater the value? Following the example of the new iPhone in the market, if nobody wanted to buy the phone we could quantify it as 0 but the more people that purchase it, the greater the value? The only problem that may come from the numerics is the value of the item. Would, for example, 100 million apples be the same as 100 million iPhones? I think that this draws into the idea of exchange value as well. I believe we can simultaneously use the same number for both. But we must factor in the personal value on items.

As the cliche quote goes, "One man's treasure is another man's trash", so applying this maybe we could suggest that one apple to a hungry individual could be worth an iPhone to a technology hungry individual. By applying personal value, I suggest that quantification of the values could be a potential.

From how I interpreted the reading, I understand that to be true; that a price (a quantifiable measure of value) is in this case a relatively valid indicator of exchange value. For instance, 1 coat can be worth 20 pieces of linen. This is given a simplistic bartering system; however, if all items stand relative to one another as exchangeable commodities then it stands to reason that you could introduce a hypothetical item which stands in for value, being currency. In essence, you are still trading goods, as each has its own exchange value.

Following this example then, if 1 coat is worth 40 coins, and 1 coat is worth 20 pieces of linen, then reasonably we can deduce that 1 piece of linen is then worth 2 coins where the coins stand in place as indicators of value to which we have arbitrarily given meaning. Going back to your question, I appreciate the idea of a price being equivalent to exchange-value, but given my limited knowledge of Marx and the nature of the reading my input is only a guess; factoring in all of the notions that Kristy has suggested in response to you, I believe it is too simplistic to directly equate price to exchange-value, as demand is also an important contributor in pricing.

Going back to Jessica’s question “Is the idea of money and prices a form of indicating an object’s use-value or is it a way of expressing its exchange-value?” Like Jaden, I also believe that it is too simplistic to directly equate price to exchange value.

I think it might be helpful to apply the pattern we learned today in class: Capital (C1)→Money (M)→Capital (C2). I apologize in advance if this is incorrect and makes us all way more confused, but I think it may go something like this.

We can see that the price we pay for a commodity (i.e. something of use-value) is demonstrated by the M. At this M stage, we can look at the money we pay as a process of exchanging for what we want to use: C2. This is the hypothetical “currency” I believe that Jaden is referring to. Where exchange-value comes in is the symbol, the “→”. It really is the mechanism of the “→” that transitions consumers throughout the course of attaining different use-values. The “→” helps to establish the relation from C1 to M or from M to C2.

To attempt to answer Jessica’s question, I think price is just a middle step in the pattern. And the exchange value “→” itself is really the mechanism that allows people to be able to transform utilities of some sort (C1) in order to attain another utility they are seeking (M or C2). Likewise, the exchange value can allow for transitioning from M to C2.

To help me understand I think of use-value as "quality" or how it can improve the quality of an individuals life, and exchange value as "quantity" or how many goods/how much money you would receive for it.

In response to Jessica's question on measuring use-value in quantities: I understand it to be that use-value and exchange value are highly interconnected. Marx suggests that "nothing can have value, without being an object of utility." Therefore, in order for a commodity to even have a price marked on it, it must first have high use-value. Yet, Marx even goes on to say that "variations in the magnitude of value...by no means necessarily correspond in amount". This draws upon Jaden's point of it being "too simplistic to directly equate price to exchange-value, as demand is also an important contributor in pricing."

I also believe it is quite simplistic to say that numerical values determine the use-value or exchange value of an object. We must further understand Marx’s argument by considering the distinction between the two.

Marx distinguishes between use-value and exchange value to draw the differences between the utility of a commodity and the expression of exchange for a particular commodity. Use-value differs from exchange value because a commodity’s use-value would increase when the demand for that particular object increases. However, its exchange value does not necessarily fluctuate in the same manner. Marx explains exchange value as a “quantitative relation” in which how much of something can be exchanged for another. As Barbara has pointed out using the C1 – M – C2 example, money is used in the process of exchange. Exchange value does not entirely take use-value into account as this concept primarily emphasizes the idea of quantitative expression in contrast to qualitative expression being tied back to use-value.

I think everyone has made really valid and good points. The way I understood use-value, in response to Jessica's question, is that use-value is something that can be measured, but it depends on the person using the item. I think that in terms of an item as a commodity, its use-value increases based on how the person perceives it. Like Professor Greer's example about the use-value of a shovel, she may have paid $7 for it, but its worth to her is a lot more because of it's usefulness on the farm. I think money and prices are a way of interpreting one person's perspective on an item's use-value, as well as representing exchange-value in a more physical form.

Interesting question. Since use-value is, as you mentioned, solidified when it becomes used by people, wouldn't it be impossible and unnecessary to put a universal price tag on it? In other words, sense of need and necessity is such a subjective and personal concept that use value, too, cannot be objectively measured or framed.

yes the term use value is only functional when it is useful as a commodity and consumed. It is all about the usefulness of something in order to have useful and it doesn't determine price because it is just the idea that if you can benefit from the commodity, you can't put a price on it.

Thats a good question... To me, Use value is something that can be measured in a monetary value (numbers). For instance, i interpret use value as a commodity that an individual requires and can physically "use" for his or her need. For instance, and a really simple way to explain how im thinking, if i am thirsty, i need water therefore water has a special use value for me, as opposed to someone who is not currently thirsty. Therefore, i would be required to buy water (monetary value/numbers) and that would lead to a measurement of use value using numbers.

I definitely agree with you guys that use-value can be quantified because it measures how the commodity satisfies ones social need in the market, however, i feel like that is not always the case for some commodities as some are not able to be measured in a monetary or numeric value. For example, rays from the sun and air are both commodities that have a use value, however, it would be difficult to measure this value.