jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (18 posts)

A new THESIS on what money cannot do : Is this new THESIS really NEW ?

  1. Prakash RnP profile image74
    Prakash RnPposted 9 days ago

    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 is a professor of economics at the University of Calcutta , contradicts this assertion and argues that this THESIS is ' too obvious ' to the economics students , and that it's ' close to water diamond paradox which economics students learn in their first year. ' 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, 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  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
    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 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 ...

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image92
      TessSchlesingerposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Please can you indicate whether...

      a) You are just posting this and not expecting a response.
      b) What particular response you are looking for as I don't see a question.

      Thanks.

      1. TessSchlesinger profile image92
        TessSchlesingerposted 9 days agoin reply to this

        Well, let me be blunt. It's gibberish. It is so badly written that I have no idea where the thesis is.

        I

        1. Prakash RnP profile image74
          Prakash RnPposted 6 days agoin reply to this

          Thank you a lot for responding to this post of mine. The  THESIS in question is that money canNOT measure the WORTH ( i.e. the use-value or usefulness ) of a commodity.
          And by labelling something ' gibberish ' , I'm afraid to say, it cannot be proved wrong.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 5 days agoin reply to this

            The idea you are positing it too remedial to be novel.  I can't think of a more polite way to state that.

            1. Prakash RnP profile image74
              Prakash RnPposted 2 days agoin reply to this

              I think ' it ' before ' too ' in your statement is a typo that ought to be replaced with ' is '. Thank you for your response to my post and acquainting me with a new definition of the term ' novel '.

  2. Prakash RnP profile image74
    Prakash RnPposted 9 days ago

    I do expect response to my post from you all that are conversant with this topic.
    I just want to know whether the thesis at issue is new or not, and if it's not at all new, who stated it first and in which work this piece of info occurs.

    1. NateB11 profile image93
      NateB11posted 9 days agoin reply to this

      I'm not an expert on economics but I have a Bachelor's in Political Science and studied some Marx and a bit of Adam Smith.

      I don't know who stated this thesis first. Marx I know alluded to it in pretty much anything he wrote on alienation and money. I'm sure you have your own reasons for wanting to know if you've discovered the thesis or whether it's been stated before and who stated it; but to me the more relevant and interesting thing is the truth of the thesis: Money cannot determine the value of a commodity just like people cannot be valued (though in our society they are) by how much money they have and your work should not be valued by how much profit it makes (though that is exactly what we do in this society) and money is generally fraudulent, unnecessary and archaic and so is no measure of anything at all. It is because humanity is so base and backward that we are still forcing people to live lives of slavery under the thumb of the money system and those who run it.

      At any rate, that's my two cents. Excuse the pun.

      1. Prakash RnP profile image74
        Prakash RnPposted 6 days agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your response to this post. I must give due thought to your points.
        Nevertheless, I seem to have made a silly mistake by posting it on this site ( i.e. HubPages forum's page ). I stand corrected and regret the mistake that must have caused many a reader's displeasure.

      2. Prakash RnP profile image74
        Prakash RnPposted 5 days agoin reply to this

        I appreciate and approve of your stance on the thesis at issue. You're of course right to view ' the truth of the thesis ' as ' more relevant and interesting '. Nevertheless, I'd like you to take note of the fact that money is meant to measure ' the value of a commodity '. By ' value ', the exchange-value which is outright different from the use-value ( i.e. usefulness ) is meant.  By the term ' worth ' , I mean this use-value of a commodity which money canNOT measure. Therefore, I think the term ' value ' in the expression ' Money cannot determine the value of a commodity ' should be replaced with ' worth '. As money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity, the economic INEQUALITY ( wage differentials, wealth disparity, and the resulting division of society into classes on the basis of them ) canNOT be justified  on the grounds of QUALITATIVE distinctions between humans or between the work done by the skilled and that by the unskilled or less-skilled. Thus, CEOs canNOT demand fatter salaries than restaurant waiters ; engineers canNOT claim more money than welders, and nurses CAN claim as much pay as what physicians and surgeons receive . Obviously, the thesis at issue forms a strong ( maybe the strongest ) DEFENCE of COMMUNISM. Why and how ? Because capitalism is based on the exploitation of the poor and the penniless by the rich and the super-rich. Swarms of the poor and the penniless have NO other option than to allow themselves to be exploited by the rich and the super-rich just because of what I view as   the GREATEST and gravest social INJUSTICE , the most disgusting and disturbing fact that the poor and the penniless who were born poor and have to sweat blood, just because they were BORN poor, to produce all wealth and luxuries for the enjoyment of a few idlers, the rich and the super-rich, that lead a fabulous lifestyle, a life full of fabulous riches and luxuries, before their silly eyes while they themselves lead a hard and humble existence throughout their life are NOT to blame for their poverty and privation while the fact that the rich and the super-rich were BORN rich and super-rich to exploit billions of   the poor and the penniless and thus grow richer and richer year by year is NOT attributable to any noble or creditable acts or achievements of theirs. I agree with your view of humanity too.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 5 days agoin reply to this

          If I go car shopping and do not buy car (1) because it isn't worth the price to me, but do buy car (2) because it's value to me is equal to the price, have I not defined the use-value to me?  We will all determine and set the use-value differently (the use value of an artificial leg is zero to me, an enormous sum to an amputee), but we all set it.

          You make a grievous error in saying the the product produced by an nurse is of no more value than a surgeon; that they are different is rather obvious in what users are willing to pay.  It may satisfy your personal sense of ethics to claim that the production of all people is equal, but it is not true.

          1. Prakash RnP profile image74
            Prakash RnPposted 2 days agoin reply to this

            I don't think the THESIS at issue has got anything to do with something that someone considers outright useless while someone else finds it highly useful. As I see it, it just happens to be meant to awaken humanity to the fact that money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By ' WORTH', I mean the usefulness of a commodity. I've taken note of your other points that I wish to deal with after due reflection on it.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

              I mean the "worth", or "value" as well.  If one is to digitize the value of an item then the monetary value assigned is as good as any other measure.  And if there IS no worth set then there can be no commerce, not exchange of goods except as a gift.  Only after a value is set and agreed upon can commerce happen.

              As commerce certainly DOES happen, it seem apparent that a value has been set, the value has been measured and assigned, the numbers associated with money is at least as good as any other method.

          2. Prakash RnP profile image74
            Prakash RnPposted 45 hours agoin reply to this

            ' You make a grievous error in saying the the product produced by an nurse is of no more value than a surgeon; ... '
            My dear sir, I don't think I ever said anything like the ' product produced by an nurse is of no more value than a surgeon ' . I just want to bring it to humanity's notice that because two commodities ( i.e. products like pens or services of a nurse or a doctor ) are different in terms of their quality ( i.e. use-value or worth ), the difference in their values ( i.e. exchange-values or prices ) canNOT be justified on these grounds. The reason is simple : money canNOT measure the WORTH of a commodity. By ' WORTH ', I mean the use-value ( or usefulness ) of a commodity. Nevertheless, values ( i.e. exchange-values ) are measurable in money, and prices ( i.e. values measured in money ) are determined NOT by the quality of commodities, contrary to what people love to believe, but by market forces ( laws of supply and demand ) truly. There're so many instances around us to testify to this thesis. Cell phones once were luxury items meant for business tycoons, ministers and prime ministers, senior bureaucrats, et cetera, et cetera. But nowadays we see 3- or 4-G smartphones that are far better-quality products than old cell phones are being used by teens belonging to middle- and lower-middle-class. Once costlier ball-point pens have long before replaced fountain pens that are much costlier than ball-point pens we use today.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 39 hours agoin reply to this

              Are you assuming that "money" somehow magically assigns value?  For money is only the yardstick, the tool of measurement, that is assigned to a commodity.  The value of the nurse and doctor's efforts are assigned a value by the patient (or hospital) and the yardstick of money is used to measure it. 

              Prices may not be assigned by quality, but value certainly IS.  I didn't buy a 4-G smartphone because the value (to me, which is all that counts) did not meet the price.  The value set by the seller (money requested) was more than the value set by me (money willing to pay).  The two figures must match for there to be a sale, but money is the tool used by both to measure the value.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 20 hours agoin reply to this

                --->if no one wants or needs a certain commodity, it cannot be assigned a monetary value. In that case, a sign that says "Free" could be put upon it. Only when competition to own an item begins, will the value be assigned. For example, if there is only one person who wants to purchase a commodity, the price will be low, just to sell the item. The value of a thing is also determined by the cost to produce it. Profit or minimizing a loss is the usual motivator for selling a commodity.

                For instance, I know a woman who owns two old cars. They are parked in her yard. They have imagined value to her, but as they sit there, they are becoming less valuable with every passing day/year. The years of the cars are '82 and '85 Toyotas. An interested party offered her $400.00 for the pair, but she wants $500.00 a piece, so she turned down the offer. Even if she offered her cars at Bluebook value, if no one is willing to buy her old cars for the price she wants, the cars don't have much value except to her in her imagination.
                The question is, will these cars be valuable in the future as antiques? If so, their monetary values will be reevaluated, as the demand for antique Toyotas from the '80's increases.  In conclusion, monetary value is very variable and based on many factors I would say.

                If price cannot measure the worth of a commodity, what does? What measures the worth of a commodity? It's intrinsic value. Why is gold so special, when it really gets down to it? WHY does it have use value and exchange value? I think it has to do with agreement. Agreement alone, seems to make the world go around. Agreement is based on commonly held beliefs.

                So yes, I would agree that "money canNOT measure the WORTH ( i.e. the use-value or usefulness ) of a commodity."

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 days ago

    Demand measures the value of a commodity. Not money.

    Employers provide employees with opportunities for earning a living. They do not exploit them. If employers merely used their employees, took advantage of them, and/or treated them unfairly, the workers/helpers/employees would not stay. The workers would go look for another employer who would appreciate them.
    Or maybe they would start their own business.

    exploit
    1 utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, benefit from; cash in on.
    2 take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; walk (all) over, take for a ride, rip off.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 days ago

    Those who are born poor do not necessarily stay poor. Those who are born rich do not necessarily stay rich. Being rich or poor is a fluid thing. Nothing stays the same in life. Its all fluctuating and moving. Luck ebbs and flows. Money comes and goes. Opportunities roll in and then out …  and then back again. Thank goodness life is not static and heavy, unmoving and still.   

    You really need to get out live a little. Today is a day for you to smell a flower. Today is a day for you to help an elderly neighbor. Today is a day for you to look at the blue sky and find images in the clouds. Today is a day for you to notice that clouds move from second to second so slowly you hardly notice their movement, but move they do. They do not stay the same … at all, ever.

 
working