The ''classical economist'' (Smit, Ricardo,etc.) try to formulate ''theory of value'' by distinction between ''value in use'' and ''value in exchange''. Something like ''the real value'' and ''prices''. To illuminate the difference (the so called ''reduction of complexity'') they used examples like water and ear. Both have incredible ''value in use '' but no ''exchange value '' whatever. Both economist of course thought that UK represent the world. In the middle east the next war will be about water while China is more threaten by ear pollution then by NATO. Alas the theory of the ''real value'' was never ,uh, produced so the only alternative still is ''theory of prices'' expressed in money terms while there is no sensible theory of money at all. Nobody knows what the ''price'' of dollar or euro will be next
year.
In this thread everyone has his own theory of value with the
same distinction but according to his own interpretation of the ''real value'' or ''value in use''.
year.
In this thread everyone has his own theory of value with the
same distinction but according to his own interpretation of the ''real value'' or ''value in use''.