Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 27
qualify the teeth as not having exchange-value in American society because the purpose is
not to transfer ownership of the teeth.”
I leave the challenge to form a market for baby teeth where they can be exchanged for
other commodities. When this occurs, please send me an urgent email so that I can take full
advantage of finding teeth at a discount and selling them at a market for a premium thus
establishing an exchange value. Until then it will remain a tradition which brings a smile
to both the tooth fairy, the parent, and the toothless child, leaving both with a smile and the
parent with nothing of social value in their possession in exchange.
Hans: In your second paragraph you are overshooting your argument. The tooth fairy is not an individual quirk
but a social custom. In this respect, this example differs from the wife-swapping example.
Message [809] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Mullin is [810].
[820] Tesa: graded A The tooth fairy. First of all, an exchange value is the outward
manifestation of the value in a commodity. Secondly, exchange-value is social (annotations
pp 18), by these terms the tooth is not an exchange-value. Assuming that the baby is laboring
to produce a commodity to exchange by growing and loosing a tooth is absurd. The teeth
are only valuable (or treasured) by the parent, not society as a whole. As SueGirl said (249)
“The purpose of the exchange should be to transfer ownership of a commodity, not just
continue a social tradition”.
Hans: The tooth fairy ritual is social enough, but its purpose is not to transfer ownership.
Message [820] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Tesa is [842].
[835] Jerm: This act does not give a baby tooth exchange-value because exchange-value
is social, not individual. In the annotations it says, “If two individuals decide to exchange
things which are commonly not exchanged, this does not give these things exchange-value.”
Another reason why this act does not give the tooth exchange value is because in the United
States of America, a tooth does not have use-value. In order for a commodity to have
exchange-value, it must have use-value. Use-values are the material “carriers” of exchangevalue.
Message [835] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Jerm is [1161].
[862] Xerho: graded A– Yes. According to Marx, exchange value is a manifestation of
value embedded in a commodity, with social influences manipulating what the exchange
value is in comparison to other commodities.
The social tradition in the United States of exchanging a lost tooth for a quarter is a
socially-derived exchange value for a commodity. While this commodity does not intrinsically
involve abstract labor going into its creation/production, that does not preclude its
usefulness as a social milestone, nor its ability to stand on its own in reference to another
commodity, or money in exchange.
Hans: You are right, the tooth fairy is social, not an individual quirk like the wife-swapper. But you are wrong to
say that the tooth stands on its own. An ordinary commodity is exchanged for its own sake, i.e., in order to transfer
ownership of the thing itself. The tooth fairy ritual does not have the purpose of transferring ownership of the tooth,
but it is the celebration of a milestone in the child’s development.
Message [862] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Xerho is [863].
[884] Matt: No, this does not mean that baby teeth have an exchange value in society. In
order for something to have an exchange value it must be a commodity. Due to the fact that
no labor was put into it what so ever, it is not a commodity. Also getting money from the
tooth fairy (mother) is a custom that is native here in America. Since it is merely a custom
28 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
that means that this kind of exchange is supposed to take place. Marx says that exchangevalue
resides in the commodity itself. The exchange-value of commodities themselves are
not embedded in a bigger social ritual. So ultimately the exchange does not take place
because both sides are benefiting or in some way trying to. In the exchange, one side is
benefiting because that’s what is expected due to society.
Message [884] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Matt is [886].
[901] Miron: Baby teeth don’t have exchange value. It is a custom in society that has
been passed on from generation to generation. The parents are simply acting as though it
is a custom. The main reason why baby teeth don’t carry exchange value is because they
don’t have abstract human labor. There would be an actual exchange value if the tooth fairy
did exist, because it would be a specific amount of money that the tooth fairy would give
for every tooth a baby lost. The value of these teeth would thus have monetary value for the
baby and an actual use value for the tooth fairy.
Message [901] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Miron is [902].
[913] Pete: graded B– One must determine what kind of exchange value baby teeth have.
Is there a market for them? No, there is no labor involved. But in the Tooth Fairy world
they must have some exchange value. The TF (tooth fairy) must understand the concept of
capitalism and how things are only good for trading or bartering. As it is in the real world
the only value a baby tooth has is sentimental. Since the TF is thousands of years old he/she
probably has gone through all the theories of exchange. Marx is just one of them.
Message [913] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Pete is [1013].
[949] Hans: Exchange value. Let us try the following definition and see how far it takes
us:
A good is an exchange-value in a certain society if it is socially customary
in that society to use this good as a means to acquire other goods through
exchange.
I chose this formulation in order to emphasize the following points:
(1) it must be a social custom, not just an individual decision to exchange the good. If you
and I decide to exchange a piece of paper filled with my doodles for your fingernail clippings,
then it is entirely possible to make this exchange, but those things are not exchange-values
(assuming I am not Picasso and you are not Marilyn Monroe). Individuals can do many
things which are not social customs, and we will not be struck by lightning because we
exchange things which are not exchange-values.
(2) the exchange of the goods must have the purpose to transfer ownership of the goods.
If a newly-wed couple exchanges their wedding bands during the marriage ceremony, this
is a socially sanctioned exchange and not just an individual decision, but the purpose of
this exchange is not to transfer ownership of the goods, but this exchange symbolizes the
marriage relationship.
(3) I deliberately wrote “a good is exchange-value” instead of “a good has exchangevalue”
because at this point it does not matter why these things can be exchanged. The
important point is that ownership of the good is commonly transferred through exchange,
regardless of the reason. If I write “a good has exchange-value,” then it sounds as if I was