XPost: alt.politics   
   From: steuart@btinternet.com   
      
   "uri"  wrote in message   
   news:1151704199.406205.224150@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...   
   > The assertion that labor is the sole determinant of value is hard to   
   > accept just based upon common sense and experience. The assertion that   
   > only labor gives an object value ignores the fact that many natural   
   > objects in which no labor has been invested - such as scenic views,   
   > pure water, gems and minerals, wild fruits and vegetables, nutrition,   
   > love etc. - have economic value.   
      
   You ignore classical economics at your peril.  Consider this,   
      
   "The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or   
   no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest   
   value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use.  Nothing is   
   more useful than water; but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce any   
   thing can be had in exchange for it.  A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce   
   any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be   
   had in exchange for it."   
      
   Karl Marx? No, Adam Smith,   
      
   "Nature and the earth furnished only the most worthless materials as in   
   themselves"   
      
   Karl Marx? No, John Locke.   
      
   "Labour is the Father and active principle of Wealth, as Lands are the   
   Mother"   
      
   Karl Marx? No, William Petty.   
      
   The classical economists, especially Adam Smith and David Ricardo, both   
   understood, that value manifested in two ways - in utility and exchange.   
   Utility is the most rudimentary form of value, in which a good satisfies a   
   basic human requirement or need - the need for shelter, the need to eat, the   
   need for clothing.  Now nature provides the raw materials for such things,   
   BUT NOT AS FINISHED PRODUCTS.  For example, trees are extremely useful for   
   the construction of an abode.  But first we have to find them, chop them   
   down, transport and fashion them in a particular way.  Hence, man has to   
   manipulate nature, in order to fulfil his needs.  From this perspective,   
   things such as scenic views and love, do not even enter into the equation.   
      
   >   
   > Also the labor theory cannot by its nature account for the fact that   
   > people value some natural objects, such as diamonds or gold,   
   > tremendously more than other natural objects, such as leaves.   
      
   Well in fact, the opposite is the case; the labour theory of value explains   
   this exactly: diamonds and gold are extremely scarce, enormous amounts of   
   labour are required to bring them to the market, whereas leaves exist in   
   abundance, and can be collected from your own back garden, requiring tiny   
   amounts of labour.   
      
   Geoff.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)