4 ms·
> All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true. I know Marx says that, and it’s false. Trade can rais
by codeflo 4y ago
> All he says is that exchange of objects of equivalent value does not create any surplus, which is true.
I know Marx says that, and it’s false. Trade can raise both utility and price. The reason is that price is highly context dependent; a shoe in a shoe shop is worth more than a shoe in a shoe factory. And it’s not the “labour of transportation” that makes it so, only part of that is location: Having a selection of products to choose from makes each individual one worth more, because you know you get to pick the one you want.
- sudosysgen 4y agoNo one is debating that trade can increase price and personal utility. The point of contention is that trade cannot create surplus value. Beyond the labour of transportation, it is only realising the use value of the good. Nothing is being produced, and indeed an economy where very little trade beyond transportatio is necessary is a better one, because it is simply and inefficiency.
- codeflo 4y agoAs I said, transportation is a red herring, trade is mostly not about that. And just so I have this straight: you dispute the claim that Marxists think trade is not beneficial, and argue that they instead think it’s an inefficiency.