> I don't know what you mean.
Jurriaan:
Then I guess I need to break it down for you.
You had previously written:
> Well just to save a lot of ostentation, my view is that products possess the attribute of value
> simply and minimally because it takes human effort to produce them, and they have that value
> irrespective of whether they currently happen to be traded and irrespective of whether they have
> prices or not.
The above, as I later observed, conflated 'product' with 'commodity'.
In your next post, you put forward a *very* different view, namely, that commodities are
"wares intended for sale in the market, normally products of human labour".
That (especially the inclusion of "intended for sale in the market") as I later remarked, was an
improvement over your previous formulation since it does not repeat your prior conflation of the
two terms.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Feb 11 07:44:56 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT