I have a question for austrian economists.
How does use value works in marxist and austrian theories?
I had a debate with a marxist about the LTV and I use the argument that 1 field of wheat doesnt equal 1 field of poison ivy even if the both use the same labor time, he answered that 1 field of poison ivy doesnt have use value so it doesnt have value according to Marx.
Can you help me?
Of course if you cut out all the poison ivy (using labor) and then planted wheat (using labor) you would now have a 2nd wheat field that is worth more than the 1st wheat field because of the labor that was invloved…
Marxist Economics - An object’s value depends on the amount of labor that was put into making it.
Austrian Economics - The value of a good, for each person, depends on whether or not it can service that person’s ends and to what extent it can accomplish that.
Marxist economists fail to take into account that different people value the same good differently, and that a person’s valuation of a good does not depend on the amount of labor, but is subjective.
But does a poison ivy field have value? does it have use value or not?
And even if the field was filled with poison ivy and you invest labor to produce a 2º wheat field, why does it have greater value? to a consumer it would have the same value as any other wheat field.
If it can service your wants, it has value. If you can directly use it to achieve your ends, it has use value.
It does, according to Marxism. But use value is entirely dependent on the values of the actor.
Why would a consumer assign value to a wheat field, and make it the subject of human action?
Does mainstream economics recognaise the terms use value and exchange value or are they only used in marxist economics?
Well if you buy wheat from one field and wheat from another field your subjective percepcion of the value of both should be the same, right? no matter the labor time spended.
I think all economists do. For instance, Rothbard gives the example of a non-smoker who obtains cigarettes not to satisfy his desires but to trade them with someone else.
As to the original question. Who says that the poison ivy field has no use value? That’s just a bald assertion. All you need to do is find one person who values the ivy and is willing to trade for it.
Read Bohm Bawerk on this subject. He ran circles around Marx.
The term “utility”, which means the satisfaction gained from a good, and value are terms commonly used. As far as I know, only austrian economists distinguish between use and exchange, which is technically a subset of use.
The value of the wheat depends on its use on servicing the wants of the consumer. It does not depend on the labor expended unless the person subjectively feels it does.
Menger discusses use and exchange value extensively in his Principles.
Marx trying to describe the value of a good made my head spin. From what I remember it went like this:
I am going to reject theory X(which makes most sense). Instead I beleive in theory Y. However there is a problem with Y, thats why I now propose
Yi. But that is also wrong, lets do Yii. Also that is wrong its Y2.0.
What a brilliant fall. Yet so many thought he rose above others.