Quote from: deisik on May 05, 2015, 11:45:59 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 05, 2015, 11:36:53 AM

Quote from: deisik on May 05, 2015, 11:22:07 AM

Quote from: Erdogan on May 05, 2015, 10:43:43 AM

You want to discuss diminishing marginal utility, which is okay. It is a stretch to use that meme in regard to money, since they have [it has] no direct utility, but I guess you could apply it to value itself if it is large enough, except it does not seem to work that way in practice. The very rich seem to be just as eager to keep and expand their wealth as a poor one. Anyway it does not touch the problem of money value being real, or representing what you migh get for the money. Ah...It seems this was your point. Ok I get it. Money value does not seem to diminish, therefore there is a fundamental difference. I am ok with that, except that the money value is not therefore in any way unreal, or representing something else. The difference is just the exchange value contra the direct use value, general value contra the more specific. Maybe we are mostly in agreement.

Money has "direct" utility (note that I am double-quoting the word direct, since it makes no sense), which I explained earlier. And exactly towards this utility I was suggesting to apply the law of diminishing marginal utility. As i said, I don't think that the utility of money ("direct use value") abides by this law, but I haven't given this idea much thought myself. In fact, I was hoping that someone would pick it up and give us a proof (or a rebuttal) that I would just agree with...

I'm using your terminology but it is superfluous and only further confuses things ("direct use value", "exchange value", and the like)

Here we go again. How can it be possible for money to have direct utility, when you have in detail described what direct utility is ("something that you can eat, figuratively speaking"). How can direct not be a useful word. Either you can utilize the money directly, or you have to make a trade before you can utilize the value? The trade is the limit between the direct and indirect utility. Indirect utility -> trade -> direct utility. You transform the indirect value of the money to something useful using a trade.

Once again, there is no direct or indirect value, no direct or indirect utility. All utility is "direct" by definition, and money has such, though not in exchange where it just represents value (utility) of things that can be bought with it. These are the words that you use, not me. I just repeat them after you in an effort to explain things in your terms, and then you are trying to blame me for using them. Obviously, you are blaming the wrong person. Why are you so eagerly trying to obfuscate matters?

Trying again: A possible test for direct and indirect, is when you are stuck alone on an island with no hope ever of seing another human being. You have a sack of potatoes, a hammer, a bunch of dollar notes, some bitcoins (no internet, ever), the winter is coming and your hope of survival into old age is slim, but present. What has value of those things to you now? When you can not trade, now or in the future, only the direct use value is left.