* From: Jim Devine ________________________________ mething has utility doesn't mean that effective demand is positive.
mds wrote:> Now imagine: fashions change and demand returns. Do these garments > suddenly re-acquire use-value, or is our focus misplaced? Used or old garments may regain use-value in that way. This would lead to a rise it the price of the garments, too. But Marx's law of value only applies to newly-produced commodities, so used or new products wouldn't have a value, even though they have a price. Of course, if old or used products rise in price, that would create the incentive for capitalists to produce similar products,which would have value. ^^^^^^ CB: Jim, what about the value added being "used" up over a longer period of time than immediately upon first purchase, or some such ? Like means of production, a factory machine, is amortized over a period of time. Maybe the used garment's value wasn't completely used up by the first user ? I think Michael Perelman derives a problem with Marx's idea of a part of the means of production adding its value over a period of time to the products it contributes in making. ^^^ there's an ambiguity here: what is the time-frame? If we define "new" as produced "right now," then something produced a minute ago wouldn't and couldn't have a value. On the other hand, if we define "new" as produced during the last few days, it would have a value. I don't think this matters. What's important is to choose the time-frame that makes the most sense and then see if it works in practice in trying to understand the world. (Exactly the same problem comes up in national income and product accounts.)
