I think that my last two messages went direct
to Gerry and not to the net, hence he appears to
be replying to non existent messages. Sorry about that.
Gerald Levy wrote:
>
> Paul C wrote on Fri, 12 Dec:
>
> > With respect Gerry you are begging the question. You are saying that
> > because the definition of a commodity implies that it exchanged it
> > must have exchange value.
>
> No, I am saying that the definition of a commodity *requires* that it
> must have exchange value. (btw, I don't think I am begging the
> question[s]).
If it requires it, it logically implies it, same difference.
>
> > This still begs the question as to how it came to be a commodity
> > in the first place, and why things which have use
> > value but no value, say spring rain
> > or summer sunshine are not commodities.
>
> Yet you in your previous post (yesterday) suggested that issues related to
> this category of goods and rent are at a different level of abstraction.
The labour theory of value in simple form would predict that sunshine,
rain and
land would all have no exchange value, whereas goods produced by labour
can have exchange value. It requires a less abstract analysis to deal
with the exceptional circumstances whereby land has exchange value but
no
value.