Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Indeterminacy
Sep 9, 2011

Excuse me, your Rabbit parts are undetached.

Eschat0n posted:

A man who is alone on a desert island may be said to possess wealth. He may have tools which he has made, and food which he has gathered. If he encounters another person, these items may be bartered or sold. This basic concept doesn't decohere at larger scales or lose importance, either - fundamentally, wealth = work.
I'm not sure that we would call this kind of exchange a use of "wealth", as such. Wealth has connotations of surplus, whereas one's tools and food on a desert island are never excessive - one barters them as valuable precisely because they are not readily abundant.

Are you more interested in "capital", "value" or "abundance" here?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Indeterminacy
Sep 9, 2011

Excuse me, your Rabbit parts are undetached.

Eschat0n posted:

Value is a property of work.
I think teasing this out a bit more is a good place to start. The Labour Theory of Value, classically defended by Adam Smith, develops this idea into something more specific - that the work that has gone into something is the key source of value, but value itself is something that ties to commodities, rather than to the work. This allows for more fluid and intricate models of economic capital.

Indeterminacy
Sep 9, 2011

Excuse me, your Rabbit parts are undetached.

Typo posted:

it seems to me that you are trying really, really hard to describe the labor theory of value without reading anything about labor theory of value. I don't agree with the LTV but it's like you are going to incredible length to rediscover 19th century economic concepts.
I don't think there's anything wrong with going back to first principles every now and then, as long as you don't spend too much time reveling in this pretheoretic state (as we see far too often amongst the pseudo-theorists of the Right).

OP, while I don't disagree that Capital is an important piece of work in the economic development of the kind of ideas you're looking at, I think you'd get more yourself out of The Wealth of Nations. Or, if you prefer, start with the Shmoop summary of Wealth of Nations, especially books 1 and 2.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply